DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 13-27 are currently pending. Claims 22 and 26-27 are objected to. Claims 13-21 and 23-25 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 22, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 21, Line 4 contains an open parenthesis “(“. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Lines 3-4 recite “moderate gas flows” and “high gas flows”. The terms “moderate” and “high” are a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “moderate” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much of a gas flow is considered “moderate” and how much is considered “high”.
Regarding Claims 23-25, Line 2 of Claim 23, Line 2 of Claim 24, Line 2 of Claim 25 recite “nitrogen equivalent”. The phrase "equivalent" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "equivalent"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The “equivalent” phrase is similar to the “or like” example. While “nitrogen” is known, the metes and bounds of what is considered an “equivalent” of nitrogen are unclear.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 2022/0316485 A1), hereinafter Yasuda, in view of Okamura et al. (US 5,924,841 A), hereinafter Okamura, and Kabasawa (US 2021/0018003 A1), hereinafter Kabasawa.
Regarding Claim 13, Figure 1 of Yasuda teaches a method of controlling operating parameters of a turbomolecular vacuum pump including: a stator (3), a rotor (2), a motor (28) configured to drive the rotor (2) in rotation in the stator (3), an external heating device (52) configured to heat the stator (3, includes blades 23) [0009-0012, 0026].
Yasuda does not expressly teach an internal heating device on a gas flow path of the vacuum pump configured to heat the rotor as claimed. However, an internal heating device would have been obvious in view of Okamura.
Figure 1 of Okamura teaches a turbomolecular vacuum pump with an internal heating device (20) on a gas flow path of the vacuum pump configured to heat the rotor (6, includes 9). When temperatures are too low, sublimation occurs and creates solidified matters which deteriorate the performance of the pump (Col. 1, Line 64 – Col. 2, Line 2). The internal heating device helps prevent solidified matters from adhering to the rotor (Col. 4, Lines 7-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Yasuda with an internal heating device on a gas flow path of the vacuum pump configured to heat the rotor as suggested by Okamura, to provide the benefit of preventing solidified material from adhering to the rotor.
Yasuda does not expressly teach a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the rotor as claimed. However, a sensor would have been obvious in view of Kabasawa.
Figure 2 of Kabasawa teaches a turbomolecular vacuum pump with a temperature sensor (19) configured to measure the temperature of the rotor (8, 10) [0068]. The rotor of vacuum pumps may reach high temperatures exceeding 100° C. The temperature and high-speed rotation results in creep, which may adversely affect the durability of the rotor. Thus, it is necessary to measure and monitor the temperature to prevent the advance of creep [0002-0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Yasuda-Okamura with a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the rotor as suggested by Kabasawa, to provide the benefit of monitoring temperatures to avoid creep.
The limitations of heating, in a nominal operating mode, the rotor by the internal heating device as long as the measured temperature of the rotor is below a temperature threshold for a given parameter presentative of a power consumed by the motor, and cutting off, in a boost operating mode, the internal heating of the rotor when the measured temperature of the rotor is above or equal to the temperature threshold, are treated as contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04, II regarding contingent limitations). The step of heating is contingent because it only performed when the condition of as long as the measured temperature is below a threshold. The step of cutting off is contingent because it is only performed when the condition of the measured temperature of the rotor is above or equal to the threshold. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not necessarily require the steps of heating and cutting off.
Applicant may consider the following suggestions to make the claimed steps no longer contingent. Applicant may use other amendments as well, as these are only suggestions. A) positively recite the step of measuring with the temperature sensor. The method recites a temperature sensor and a measured temperature, but does not require the temperature be measured by the temperature sensor. B) include the condition as a required part of the method to be performed. Generally, this may be done by arranging the limitations in the format of “in response to -condition-, -perform method step-“. In this instance, the condition may be the measured temperature in relation to the threshold.
Regarding Claims 14-20, Yasuda, Okamura, and Kabasawa teach the method as set forth in Claim 13.
The limitations of Claims 14-20 are considered met by the combination as well, since they further limit the contingent limitations. Claims 14-17 relate to the temperature threshold recited in the contingent limitations. Claims 18-20 relate to the power consumed recited in the contingent limitations.
Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, Okamura, and Kabasawa as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Tahmassebpur et al. (US 2014/0072452 A1), hereinafter Tahmassebqur.
Regarding Claim 21, Yasuda, Okamura, and Kabasawa teach the method as set forth in Claim 13.
Yasuda does not expressly teach wherein the vacuum pump is used for cyclic pumping of process chambers of equipment in which there take place production processes in production steps in which moderate gas flows are to be pumped and cleaning steps in which high gas flows are to be pumped as claimed. However, higher gas flows would have been obvious in view of Tahmassebqur.
Figure 3 of Tahmassebqur teaches a system wherein a pump (116) may be a turbomolecular vacuum pump. A process chamber (108) for cyclic pumping is attached and a rate of flow is controlled [0021-0022]. When performing purge operation, which is interpreted as a cleaning step, it is desirable to have high gas flows in order to complete the purge and remove contaminants [0039]. In other words, Tahmassebqur evidences it is desirable for higher flows of gas during cleaning steps, as opposed to moderate for typical operation, so that the contents are completely removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Yasuda-Okamura-Kabasawa such that the vacuum pump is used for cyclic pumping of process chambers of equipment in which there take place production processes in production steps in which moderate gas flows are to be pumped and cleaning steps in which high gas flows are to be pumped as suggested by Tahmassebqur, to provide the benefit of completely removing gas and contaminants during the cleaning step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23-25, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 22, the closest prior arts, Yasuda, Okamura, and Kabasawa, do not expressly teach a turbomolecular pump comprising the claimed structure and a control unit configured to execute the control method as claimed in Claim 13. In system claims, the claimed structure must be met regardless of whether the condition of the contingent limitation is met and the function is actually performed. The arts of record do not discuss a control unit configured to execute the contingent limitations of heating, in a nominal operating mode, the rotor by the internal heating device as long as the measured temperature of the rotor is below a temperature threshold for a given parameter presentative of a power consumed by the motor, and cutting off, in a boost operating mode, the internal heating of the rotor when the measured temperature of the rotor is above or equal to the temperature threshold as claimed. Paragraph [0011] of the Specification for the instant application filed September 22, 2025 notes these method steps allow for alternating pumping cycles in a monitored fashion rather than blindly. This allows for excessive heating to be avoided.
Claims 23-27 subsequently depend upon Claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights