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 17-38 are currently pending. Claim 38 is objected to. Claims 17-37 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 26, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 29, 35-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 27, Line 2 recites “at least one fan”. The claim appears to be missing a “the” to refer to the “at least one fan” recited in Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 29, Line 2 recites “at least one fan”. The claim appears to be missing a “the” to refer to the “at least one fan” recited in Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 35, Line 2 recites “at least one fan”. The claim appears to be missing a “the” to refer to the “at least one fan” recited in Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 36, Line 2 recites “at least one fan”. The claim appears to be missing a “the” to refer to the “at least one fan” recited in Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 37, Line 2 recites “at least one fan”. The claim appears to be missing a “the” to refer to the “at least one fan” recited in Claim 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted the term “ultra-high vacuum range” is not merely a relative term of degree. The term “ultra-high vacuum range” is defined on Pg. 1, Lines 11-13 as being between 10-8 and 10-11 mbar. This is consistent with what is recognized in the art and will be treated as such.
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 20-22 and 24 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 Claims 20, 22, and 24, Line 7 of Claim 20, Line 4 of Claim 22, Line 3 of Claim 24 recite “the first pump inlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously recited. It is unclear which inlet would be considered the “first”. For purposes of examination, this recitation will be treated as introducing a first.
Claim 21 is subsequently rejected for its dependency upon a previously rejected claim.
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 17-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2011/0123328 A1), hereinafter Henry, in view of Schutz et al. (US 5,577,883 A), hereinafter Schutz.
Regarding Claim 17, Figure 1 of Henry teaches a pump system comprising a turbomolecular vacuum pump (see abstract) that comprises: a housing (10) having at least one pump inlet (82, 84) and one pump outlet (26); a first pump mechanism (76, 78), which is driven by a rotor shaft (12) and which has at least one turbomolecular pump stage (see 16, 18 forming stages), in the housing (10); and a second pump mechanism (80), which is located downstream of the first pump mechanism (76, 78) and which is driven by the rotor shaft (12), in the housing (10), said second pump mechanism (80) operating according to a different pumping principle than the first pump mechanism (76, 78) (see [0032, 0034]), wherein, for jointly conveying a process gas (24) from the pump inlet (82, 84) to the pump outlet (26), the first pump mechanism (76, 78) and the second pump mechanism (80) are arranged along the rotor shaft (12) and are disposed in an axial direction (horizontal with respect to view in Figure 1) between the at least one pump inlet (82, 84) and the pump outlet (26) [0026, 0032-0034]. Paragraph [0032] notes first pump mechanism (76, 78) to be turbomolecular pump stages, while paragraph [0034] notes second pump mechanism (80) to include Holweck stages. Please note alternatively, the first pump mechanism may be interpreted to include (76), (78), and at least the upstream portion of (80) which is illustrated as the same pump type as (76, 78).
Henry does not expressly teach wherein, to cool the housing, the pump system further comprises at least one electrically operated cooling device that is located in the axial direction with respect to the second pump mechanism on a side of the second pump mechanism that faces the first pump mechanism as claimed. However, a cooling device would have been obvious in view of Schutz.
Figure 1 of Schutz teaches a pump system, wherein, to cool the housing, the pump system further comprises at least one electrically operated cooling device (36, note that it is called a “blower”, which is an electrically operated device) that is located in the axial direction with respect to the second pump mechanism (downstream stages 5, 6, downstream being lower with respect to view in Figure 1) on a side of the second pump mechanism that faces the first pump mechanism (upstream stages 5, 6). This provides cooling to particularly the high vacuum (HV) area of the pump (Col. 4, Lines 15-26). The temperature gradient from the upstream HV area compared to the downstream FV area helps reduce the formation of unwanted solids, which are known to wear the pump (Col. 1, Lines 44-55, Col. 2, Lines 8-18). Note that when combined with Henry, this results in the claimed positioning as well. See Figure 1 of Henry where the first pump mechanism (76, 78) is upstream from the second pump mechanism (80), thus it is on the claimed side of the second pump mechanism (80), since Schutz desires placement of the cooling device on the upstream portion of the pump system.
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 pump assembly taught by Henry such that wherein, to cool the housing, the pump system further comprises at least one electrically operated cooling device that is located in the axial direction with respect to the second pump mechanism on a side of the second pump mechanism that faces the first pump mechanism as suggested by Schutz, to provide the benefit of mitigating the formation of solids.
Regarding Claim 18, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 1 of Henry teaches wherein the first pump mechanism comprises a first turbomolecular pump stage (76) and, downstream of the first turbomolecular pump stage (76), at least a second turbomolecular pump stage (78) [0032]. Please note alternatively, the second turbomolecular pump stage is interpretable to be the upstream portion of (80), which is illustrated as the same pump type as (76, 78).
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction with respect to the at least second turbomolecular pump stage on the side of the at least one turbomolecular pump stage that faces the first turbomolecular pump stage. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26).
Regarding Claim 19, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 18.
Figure 1 of Henry teaches wherein the housing (10) has a first pump inlet (84) and at least a second pump inlet (82) that is disposed in the axial direction between the first turbomolecular pump stage (76) and the second turbomolecular pump stage (78) [0033].
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction with respect to the second pump inlet on the side of the second pump inlet that faces the first pump inlet. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26).
Regarding Claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 18.
Figure 1 of Henry teaches wherein the first pump mechanism comprises at least a third turbomolecular pump stage (78) that is disposed in the axial direction between the first turbomolecular pump stage (76) and the second turbomolecular pump stage (upstream portion of 80) [0032]. Please note this takes the alternative interpretation explained in Claim 18. ‘
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction with respect to the third turbomolecular pump stage on the side of the third turbomolecular pump stage that faces the first pump inlet. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26).
Regarding Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 20.
Figure 1 of Henry teaches wherein the housing (10) has at least a third pump inlet (82) that is disposed in the axial direction between the first turbomolecular pump stage (76) and the third turbomolecular pump stage (78) [0033].
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction with respect to the third pump inlet on the side of the third pump inlet that faces the first pump inlet. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26).
Regarding Claim 22, as far as it is definite and understood, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction with respect to the first pump mechanism on the side of the first pump mechanism that faces the first pump inlet. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26). This includes a portion upstream of all the pump stages, satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation of at least having a part “on” the claimed side.
Regarding Claim 23, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is located in the axial direction of the turbomolecular vacuum pump in a region in which a final pressure, which is in an ultra-high vacuum range, is adopted in an interior of the turbomolecular vacuum pump during operation. Figure 1 of Schutz shows the cooling device (36) focused on cooling the upstream stages of the pump system, as it wants a higher temperature on the further downstream portions (Schutz, Col. 4, Lines 15-26). Henry teaches this portion of the pump system is capable of operating in the ultra-high vacuum range, exemplifying preferably less than 10-10 mbar (Henry, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 24, as far as it is definite and understood, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
Figure 1 of Henry teaches wherein all the pump inlets (82, see inlet 88 flows through) except the first pump inlet (84) open radially into the interior of the housing (10), whereas the first pump inlet (84) opens axially into the interior of the housing (10) at a head end of the housing (10) that is disposed opposite the second pump mechanism (80).
Regarding Claim 25, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is at least one fan generating an air flow, as exemplified by fan (36) in Figure 1 of Schutz (Col. 4, Lines 15-22).
Regarding Claim 26, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein the at least one fan is oriented such that the air flow generated by the at least one fan impacts the housing in a radial direction, as exemplified by fan (36) impacting housing (1) in Figure 1 of Schutz (Col. 4, Lines 15-22).
Regarding Claim 27, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
The modification in Claim 17 by Schutz results wherein at least one fan is oriented such that the air flow generated by the at least one fan brushes the housing in a radial direction while forming a boundary layer flow, as exemplified by fan (36) blowing air towards housing (1) in Figure 1 of Schutz (Col. 4, Lines 15-22). This merely describes the blowing of air on a surface.
Regarding Claim 33, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 23.
Henry teaches wherein the final pressure that is adopted is less than 10-10 mbar [0020]. Therefore, the claimed range of less than 10-8 mbar is anticipated by Henry, since this is within the claimed range.
Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and Schutz as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 2018/0245603 A1) hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 28, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
Henry does not expressly teach wherein the housing has at least one heat sink, and wherein the heat sink is exposed to the air flow generated by the at least one fan as claimed. However, a heat sink would have been obvious in view of Watanabe.
Figure 5 of Watanabe teaches a pump system wherein the housing (4) has at least one heat sink (201), and wherein the heat sink (201) is exposed to the air flow generated by the at least one fan (34). The heat sink (201) helps improve the radiation performance of the housing (4), allowing a lower temperature to be held [0042-0043].
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 pump system taught by Henry-Schutz such that the housing has at least one heat sink, and wherein the heat sink is exposed to the air flow generated by the at least one fan as suggested by Watanabe, to provide the benefit of improving the radiation performance of the housing.
Regarding Claim 34, Henry, Schutz, and Watanabe teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 28.
The modification in Claim 28 by Watanabe results wherein the at least one heat sink comprises a plurality of cooling fins, as exemplified by fins (201) in Figure 5 of Watanabe [0042-0043].
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and Schutz as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of de Simon et al. (US 5,971,725 A), hereinafter de Simon.
Regarding Claim 29, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
Henry and Schutz do not expressly teach wherein at least one fan is directly fastened to the housing as claimed. Rather, Schutz is silent regarding what kind of attachment is present. However, a direct fastening would have been obvious in view of de Simon.
Figure 10 of de Simon teaches a pump system wherein at least one fan (54’, 19) is directly fastened to the housing (101’) (Col. 6, Lines 21-27). Thus, de Simon exemplifies one known way of fixing a fan with a housing. One of ordinary skill would look towards known ways of fixing and simply substitute between one another, predictably resulting in the fan and housing being fixed.
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 pump system taught by Henry-Schutz such that at least one fan is directly fastened to the housing as exemplified by de Simon, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known ways of fixing the fan and housing, predictably resulting in the two being fixed together.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and Schutz as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Omori (US 2002/0131877 A1), hereinafter Omori.
Regarding Claim 30, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 17.
Henry and Schutz do not expressly teach wherein the at least one electrically operated cooling device is at least one Peltier element as claimed. However, a Peltier element would have been obvious in view of Omori.
Figure 5 of Omori teaches a pump system wherein an electrically operated cooling device is at least one Peltier element (35), disposed on the housing portion (42) [0054]. This is one of many embodiments of cooling devices disclosed by Omori. Thus, Omori exemplifies Peltier elements are known cooling devices for pump systems. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known cooling devices, predictably resulting in the device providing desired cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the pump system taught by Henry-Schutz such that the at least one electrically operated cooling device is at least one Peltier element as exemplified by Omori, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known cooling devices for pump systems, predictably resulting in the device providing adequate cooling.
Regarding Claim 31, Henry, Schutz, and Omori teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 30.
The modification in Claim 30 by Omori results wherein the at least one Peltier element is fastened to an outer side of the housing, as exemplified by element (35) on an outer side of housing (42) in Figure 5 of Omori. Figure 1 of Schutz also exemplifies the cooling device (36) on an outer side of the housing (1).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry, Schutz, and Omori as applied to Claim 30 above, and further in view of Siddiqui et al. (US 2018/0239404 A1), hereinafter Siddiqui.
Regarding Claim 32, Henry, Schutz, and Omori teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 30.
Henry, Schutz, and Omori do not expressly teach wherein the housing has at least one blind bore that receives the at least one Peltier element as claimed. However, a blind bore would have been obvious in view of Siddiqui.
Figure 2 of Siddiqui exemplifies a mounting for a Peltier element onto a housing. The housing (206) has at least one blind bore that receives the at least one Peltier element (208). The blind bore (recess) helps provide support for the Peltier element (208) [0033]. Thus, Siddiqui exemplifies a known way for Peltier elements to be mounted onto surfaces.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the pump system taught by Henry-Schutz-Omori such that the housing has at least one blind bore that receives the at least one Peltier element as suggested by Siddiqui, to provide the benefit of allowing the housing to support the Peltier element.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and Schutz as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of Shiba (US 2019/0120237 A1), hereinafter Shiba.
Regarding Claim 35, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
Henry and Schutz do not expressly teach wherein at least one fan is indirectly fastened to the housing as claimed. Rather, Schutz is silent regarding what kind of attachment is present. However, an indirect fastening would have been obvious in view of Shiba.
Figure 4-5 of Shiba teach a pump system wherein at least one fan (42) is indirectly fastened to the housing (via 44). Thus, Shiba exemplifies one known form of fixing the fan with the housing. One of ordinary skill would look towards known ways of fixing and simply substitute between one another, predictably resulting in the fan and housing being fixed. The indirect fastening by spacers (44) also allow for a clearance with a cooling path (50) that flows around the housing, thereby improving the cooling effect [0070-0074].
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 pump system taught by Henry-Schutz such that at least one fan is indirectly fastened to the housing as exemplified by Shiba, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known ways of fixing the fan and housing, predictably resulting in the two being fixed together. Additionally, such a modification provides the benefit of having clearances for further cooling flow.
Regarding Claim 36, Henry, Schutz, and Shiba teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 35.
The modification in Claim 35 by Shiba results wherein at least one fan is indirectly fastened to the housing by means of a spacer device, as exemplified by spacers (44) in Figures 4-5 of Shiba [0070-0071].
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry and Schutz as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of Qandil et al. (US 6,183,208 B1), hereinafter Qandil.
Regarding Claim 37, Henry and Schutz teach the pump system as set forth in Claim 25.
Henry and Schutz do not expressly teach wherein at least one fan is fastened to a support structure that is independent of the housing as claimed. However, an independent fastening would have been obvious in view of Qandil.
Figure 7a of Qandil teaches an assembly wherein at least one fan (108) is fixed adjacent a housing (102) of a motor (100) to be cooled (Col. 5, Lines 49-65). However, Qandil also acknowledges that this is not necessary. Rather, the fan may also be fastened to a support structure that is independent of the housing (Col. 6, Lines 36-39). Thus, Qandil exemplifies that either mounting to or mounting remotely of the fan is interchangeable and still capable of performing the function of cooling. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between interchangeable embodiments, resulting in the fan performing the same function regardless.
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 pump system taught by Henry-Schutz such that at least one fan is fastened to a support structure that is independent of the housing as exemplified by Qandil, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between interchangeable embodiments, predictably resulting in the fan still providing cooling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is 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.
Regarding Claim 38, the art of record does not expressly teach wherein the housing has a plurality of blind bores that extend axially into an interior of a housing wall, starting from a head end of the housing that is disposed opposite the second pump mechanism, and that each blind bore receive at least one Peltier element as claimed. Unlike Claim 32, this further specifies the structure of the blind bore with the positioning not contemplated by Henry, Schutz, Omori and Siddiqui. This claim is exemplified by the embodiments of Figures 12-13 in the instant application. Pg. 21, Lines 15-30 of the Specification filed April 03, 2026 state this arrangement help cool the head end (324) of the housing (302). Additionally, this provides convenience by making use of structure present in conventional pumps for receipt of the Peltier elements (Pg. 8, Lines 16-27).
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