DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 25 February 2026. Claims 1 – 11 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously made 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of suitable amendments to the claims submitted with applicant’s response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomani (PG Pub US 20150017022 A1) in view of Belloni (British Patent EP 0742370 A1) and in view of Raptakis (PG Pub US 20100270465 A1) and further in view of Manini (US Patent 5,324,172 A).
In Re Claim 1, Fomani discloses an auxiliary pumping system (embodiment of Figures 6A-6D; paragraphs [0074]-[0081]) comprising: a primary pump (610), an intermediate vacuum chamber (615) with two vacuum-tight (otherwise there will be leaks and vacuum cannot be created/maintained) openings (one leads to 630, the other leads to 635), connected to said primary pump (610) through a first vacuum-tight (otherwise there will be a leak and vacuum cannot be created/maintained) opening (the one that leads to 630), and a high-pressure NEG pump (660) contained in said intermediate vacuum chamber (615), wherein the primary pump (610) operates from atmospheric pressure (before it is started) to a first level of vacuum (1 x 10-3 Torr; paragraph [0006] – Line 6) and said high-pressure NEG pump operates from said first level of vacuum to a second level of vacuum (1 x 10-5 Torr; paragraph [0006] – Line 8)(valve 640 is closed when said first level of vacuum is attained – similar to the operation of valve 340 in paragraph [0063]: “the pressure in the isolated chamber decreases from the medium vacuum pressure to a lower value of pressure even in the absence of additional evacuation of the chamber”; note that manner of operation does not structurally distinguish over the prior art – MPEP 2114, Section II), wherein: the primary pump (610) is connected through a vacuum conduit (630) to the intermediate vacuum chamber (615).
Fomani only discloses two vacuum tight openings, so it does not disclose at least three vacuum tight openings, i.e. an additional (“second” as claimed) vacuum tight opening through which the NEG pump is mounted inside the intermediate vacuum chamber.
However, Belloni discloses an NEG pump (120, 42) mounted through a vacuum tight connection (44; Figure 1) on an inside wall of vacuum chamber (102)(Figures 1, 2; Column 4, Line 45 – Column 5, Line 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6D of Fomani and Figure 2 of Belloni
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the NEG pump / accessory (660, 650) of Fomani with the NEG pump / accessory (120, 14) of Belloni (as shown in the annotated figures above) by incorporating an additional vacuum tight opening to which the NEG pump is mounted because it is only a matter of substituting one pump for another pump that performs the same function, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B). In the modified apparatus there are three vacuum tight openings, the third being the one added by Belloni to the two of Fomani. In the modified apparatus, the opening (44) of Belloni would be in the wall of chamber (615) of Fomani.
Fomani and Belloni are silent with regards to the overall length of the vacuum conduit as claimed.
However, Figure 2, Paragraph [0150] of Raptakis discloses that the length of vacuum conduit (49) is a variable that affects the conductance between vacuum chamber (30) and a turbomolecular pump, which establishes the length of the vacuum conduit as a result effective variable. Note that a length value of 5.35 cm is disclosed, which is in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the length of the vacuum conduit of Fomani is the apparatus of Fomani / Belloni such that it is between 5 and 200 cm as claimed because Raptakis establishes the length of the vacuum conduit as a result effective variable, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Fomani, Belloni and Raptakis are silent with regards to a ratio between the volumes as claimed.
However, Figures 1 – 3 of Manini disclose a high-pressure NEG pump (18, 19, 20; Column 4, Lines 41 – 43) inside a vacuum chamber (12), the ratio between the volume of the high-pressure NEG pump and the volume of the vacuum chamber is 0.21 (Column 6, Lines 7 – 9), which is between 0.022 and 0.540 as claimed. Manini also teaches that the getter pumps according to his invention have a sorption capacity several times greater, in a given volume, than the getter pumps of the prior art (Column 5, Lines 29 – 31), so the ratio between the volume of the getter pump and the volume of the chamber plays an important role in the sorption of the getter pump - thus establishing it as a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to design the intermediate chamber volume and NEG pump volume of Fomani / Belloni / Raptakis to be 0.21 as taught by Manini, which is in the claimed range between 0.022 and 0.540 because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Fomani discloses a valve block (640) interposed between the primary pump (610) and the intermediate vacuum chamber (615).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and paragraph [0049] of Fomani discloses the material to be Zirconium based alloys, Figure 6D discloses a disk shape for NEG pump (660), and “sintering” is a product by process limitation (MPEP 2113) which does not structurally limit the claim. Note that the NEG pump of Belloni also discloses the claimed limitations in Column 1, Lines 18 – 40.
In Re Claims 5 and 11, Fomani, Belloni, Raptakis and Manini disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a fourth vacuum tight connection for an additional HV pump.
However, the missing limitation is only a matter of adding another NEG pump to the existing one in the intermediate vacuum chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to add an additional second NEG pump inside the intermediate vacuum chamber of Fomani / Belloni / Raptakis / Manini because it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-B). In the modified apparatus, the additional NEG pump would be mounted in the intermediate vacuum chamber via an additional fourth vacuum-tight opening.
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Fomani discloses a first level of vacuum of 0.133 Pa (1 x 10-3 Torr; paragraph [0006] – Line 6) which in the claimed range of 10 Pa and 0.1 Pa, and a second level of vacuum of 0.00133 (1 x 10-5 Torr; paragraph [0006] – Line 8) which is in the claimed range of 0.01 Pa and 0.001 Pa; "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Belloni discloses that the high pressure pump (120, 42) includes a replaceable heater (14 – Column 4, Lines 45 – 46; it is replaceable because it is connected by screws – Column 5 Lines 6 – 9).
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Fomani discloses a valve block (640) interposed between the primary pump (610) and the intermediate vacuum chamber (615). With regards to the narrower claimed range between 19 cm and 200 cm, Raptakis establishes the length of the vacuum conduit as a result effective variable, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomani (PG Pub US 20150017022 A1) in view of Belloni (British Patent EP 0742370 A1) and in view of Raptakis (PG Pub US 20100270465 A1) and further in view of Manini (US Patent 5,324,172 A) and further in view of Inagawa (PG Pub US 20070028842 A1).
In Re Claim 3, Fomani, Belloni, Raptakis and Manini disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although paragraph [0010] of Fomani discloses a mechanical pump as an option for the primary pump, it does not explicitly disclose a dry pump.
However, paragraph [0031] of Inagawa discloses a dry pump as an option for a vacuum pumping device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to select a dry pump as taught by Inagawa as the primary pump of Fomani in the apparatus of Fomani / Belloni / Raptakis / Manini because it is only a matter of choosing from a finite number of options with the expectation of predictable results (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E). The results of the selection are predictable because the pumps in Fomani and Inagawa both perform the vacuum pumping function.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomani (PG Pub US 20150017022 A1) in view of Belloni (British Patent EP 0742370 A1) and in view of Raptakis (PG Pub US 20100270465 A1) and further in view of Manini (US Patent 5,324,172 A) and further in view of Lloyd (US Patent 3,367,564 A).
In Re Claim 6, Fomani, Belloni, Raptakis and Manini disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although Fomani discloses vacuum pressure based operation, it is silent with regards to a pressure sensor.
However, Lloyd discloses a pressure sensor (34; Figure 1; Column 4, Lines 8 – 9) that senses vacuum pressure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a pressure sensor as taught by Lloyd into the pumping system of Fomani / Belloni / Raptakis / Manini for the purpose of monitoring vacuum pressure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomani (PG Pub US 20150017022 A1) in view of Belloni (British Patent EP 0742370 A1) and in view of Raptakis (PG Pub US 20100270465 A1) and further in view of Manini (US Patent 5,324,172 A) and further in view of Thierley (PG Pub US 20230128669 A1).
In Re Claim 8, Fomani, Belloni, Raptakis and Manini disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and although Belloni discloses a cartridge (120, 42), it is welded at (44) therefore it does not disclose a replaceable cartridge.
However, paragraph [0019] of Thierley discloses that a detachable connection allows a NEG pump to be removed when the NEG material has been used.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to have used a replaceable cartridge of getter material in the getter pump of Fomani / Belloni / Raptakis / Manini as taught by Thierley to allow the NEG pump to be removed when the NEG material has been used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 5 of Applicant’s Response that “What the Office cites (Manini col. 6, lines7-9) as a volume ratio according to the present claims is actually the volume ratio "between the overall volume of the blades and the empty volume of the housing" - i.e., a volume ratio between certain internal parts of a NEG and its housing, not a ratio between the volume of the high-pressure NEG pump and the volume of the intermediate vacuum chamber, as claimed”.
Examiner’s Response: The combined collection of the cited blades of Manini essentially represent the NEG pump. The gettering elements themselves are also known as a pump as evidenced by Yon (PG Pub US 20170317137 A1) - paragraph [0051]: “a metallic material suitable for providing a gettering effect, i.e. to pump, by absorption and/or adsorption, the gas molecules present in the sealed cavity”. Manini does not refer to the volume of each individual blade, therefore the volume does not represent only a certain internal part such as each individual blade. Furthermore, the referenced housing is clearly a vacuum chamber (Column 1, Lines 9 – 10). Therefore the cited ratio is clearly between the NEG pump volume and the volume of the vacuum chamber. Note that the cited ratio of 0.21 is right in the middle of the claimed range of 0.022 and 0.540, so even a significant addition to the disclosed ratio of 0.21 due to additional parts or a significant subtraction from the disclosed ratio of 0.21 due to increases in vacuum chamber volume from the disclosed ratio of 0.21 would still fall within the claimed range and would anticipate this limitation. Finally, the claimed ratio has been established by Manini as a result effective variable because it affects the sorption capacity (Column 5, Lines 29 – 31), and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves routine skill in the art as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “For example, elements 18 and 19 are not high pressure pumps, but rather are getter elements part of the getter pump 10 that requires, among other things, the presence of a gas-tight housing 12”.
Examiner’s Response: For the sake of argument, even if the housing 12 was not gas tight – or even if the housing 12 was absent, the elements 18 and 19 would still perform the pumping function. A gas tight housing is not required by the getter to perform pumping. The examiner contends that under the BRI standard, the getter elements can be designated to be a pump.
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “Accordingly, the cited teachings of Manini, with specific reference to the cited volume ratio, are inherent to/characteristic of the getter pump itself, and not reflective of any aspect of its incorporation into, or volume relative to, an intermediate or other chamber”.
Examiner’s Response: The combined blades (18, 19) of Manini represent the getter pump and are clearly incorporated into an intermediate / other chamber (12). Chamber 12 of Manini is analogous to chamber 615 of Fomani. Chamber 16 of Manini is analogous to chamber 620 of Fomani.
Applicant has argued on Page 7 of Applicant’s Response that “Here, elements 660 are, essentially, a series of getter elements rather than a getter pump”.
Examiner’s response: The examiner contends that under the BRI standard, the combined getter elements can be designated a getter pump. The gettering action results in the fluid being pumped into the getter, for evidence thereof see Yon (PG Pub US 20170317137 A1) - paragraph [0051]: “a metallic material suitable for providing a gettering effect, i.e. to pump, by absorption and/or adsorption, the gas molecules present in the sealed cavity”.
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that “In this regard, the getter pump of Belloni has only one port 104 for vacuuming, moreover the bottom part of Belloni is fully isolated from the environment and if mounted as suggested on the Official Action would have isolated pump 610 from intermediate chamber 615”.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner contends that the broader teaching of Belloni is to mount the getter on a wall of a chamber through a vacuum tight opening. The side wall of the intermediate chamber 615 of Fomani is being selected as the mounting wall, and the sidewall is being modified to incorporate a vacuum tight opening for mounting the getter. With such a modification, pump 610 would not be isolated from intermediate chamber 615 (see annotated figure above).
Applicant has argued on Page 8 of Applicant’s Response that: “Clearly the getter of Fomani cannot simply be replaced or "swapped" with the getter pump of Belloni as the means of connection, etc. in the two references are totally different: in Fomani it is contained in the pump and away from the valve/flange, in Belloni the mounting flange of the pump isolates it as the vacuum opening is located onto the case. For example, any attempted swap or replacement would run counter to the intended purpose of constitutive elements in the references, for example the vacuum flange of Belloni”.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response: The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As mentioned above, the side wall of the intermediate chamber 615 of Fomani is being selected as the mounting wall for the getter of Belloni, and the sidewall of Fomani is being modified to incorporate a vacuum tight opening which mounts the getter. The intended purpose of constitutive elements in the references, for example the vacuum flange of Belloni would remain the same because the vacuum flange of Belloni would be located on the side wall of the intermediate chamber 615 of Fomani. Note that even after the modification, the getter of Belloni would be mounted on the sidewall of Fomani, away from the valve/flange of Fomani (see annotated figure above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746