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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 states “a thermal break plate”. It is unclear what the difference is between a plate and a thermal break plate. Applicant’s specification does not provide any clear and precise meaning for this term as per MPEP 2173.05(a) I: “Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. ”
The limitation “the support member” in claim 6 has improper antecedent basis. Claim 6 stated the shaft is mounted on the bearings. Only one bearing is required in the preceding limitation of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
In claim 8, the limitation “the locating protrusions” has improper antecedent basis.
In claim 9, the limitation “the sealing gasket” has improper antecedent basis.
In claim 10, the ceramic spacers do not appear to be “between” as claimed. See MPEP 2173.03: "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36,169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989,169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammock, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).".
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above. The claims rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite will be examined as best understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and as per MPEP 2173.06 I interpretations of the indefinite limitations will be provided as mappings to the disclosure of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814.
1. (Original) A vacuum pump (see e.g. the title) comprising: a stator, the stator comprising: a first end wall at a first end of the stator; a second end wall at a second end of the stator, the second end of the stator being opposite to the first end of the stator; and one or more side walls disposed between the first end wall and the second end wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein); wherein the first end wall, the second end wall, and the one or more side walls define a pumping chamber (chamber inside stator);the first end wall comprises a first opening therethrough; and the vacuum pump further comprises a first end plate disposed in the first opening (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein); wherein the first end plate is a thermal break plate (as best understood, the 1st end plate in annotated Fig 3 is a thermal break plate).
Regarding the first end plate being removable, it would be understood that the first end plate is removable. To access the interior of the pump and the components therein. Additionally, making separable has been held obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a removable first end plate in the system of Kudara to gain the benefit of facilitating access to the components inside the pump.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 1, wherein the first end plate is wholly recessed in the first end wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
6. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 1, further comprising: one or more rotatable shafts 58; and a support member (82a and/or 84a) comprising bearings 86a for mounting the rotatable shafts; wherein each rotatable shaft comprises at least one rotor element (any one or more of 60a-60f); each rotor element is within the pumping chamber (see e.g. Fig 1); and each rotatable shaft extends beyond the first end of the stator (see e.g. Fig 1), through a respective hole through the first end plate (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein), and to the support member whereat the rotatable shaft is mounted on the bearings (see e.g. Fig 1); and the support member is positioned facing and spaced apart from the first end wall and the first end plate as best understood, (see e.g. Fig 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814 in view of Lay US 0631169.
Regarding claim 3, Kudara does not disclose what supports the first end wall plate as thus does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Lay discloses the use of a recessed flange for a housing plate of a rotating extending from internal walls of an opening and he end plate abuts the recessed flange machine (see annotated Fig 4 herein).
Utilizing a recessed flange as taught by Lay in the system of Kudara as modified above to support the first end plate is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (D) Applying a known technique (use of a recessed flange to support a housing plate) to a known device (housing plate) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (supporting a housing plate).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a recessed flange as taught by Lay to support the first und plate in the system of Kudara as modified above to gain the benefit of supporting the housing plate in a desired position.
Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814 in view of Moody US 3811805.
Regarding claim 4, Kudara as modified above does not disclose any details of gaskets used to seal the pump and thus does not disclose the limitation of claim 4. Utilizing a sealing gasket in the system of Kudara as modified above disposed against the first end wall and surrounding the first end plate is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (D) Applying a known technique (use of locating gasket in a pumping device housing) to a known device (pumping device) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (sealing between mating parts).
Moody discloses the use of a gasket 26 to seal the connection between the mating parts of the pumping device housing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a gasket as taught by Moody disposed against the first end wall and surrounding the first end plate in the system of Kudara as modified above to gain the benefit of sealing the housing to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 9, Kudara as modified above does not disclose any details of gaskets used to seal the pump and thus does not disclose the limitation of claim 9. Utilizing a gasket in the system of Kudara as modified above to seal against the first end wall and the support member is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (D) Applying a known technique (use of locating gasket in a pumping device housing) to a known device (pumping device) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (sealing between mating parts).
Moody discloses the use of a gasket 26 to seal the connection between the mating parts of the pumping device housing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a gasket as taught by Moody to seal against the first end wall and the support member in the system of Kudara as modified above to gain the benefit of sealing the housing to prevent leakage.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814.
Regarding claim 5, Kudara discloses wherein the vacuum pump comprises a screw vacuum pump (see 0056). Kudara does not specify a dry vacuum pump. However, a dry screw vacuum pump is a known type of vacuum screw pump and a simple substitution of one vacuum screw pump for another as per MPEP 2143 I (B) with the predictable result of producing vacuum would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to gain the benefit of eliminating lubricant contamination.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814 in view of Irving US 20110174010.
Regarding claim 7, Kudara does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Irving discloses the use of locating protrusions extending from one part into a hole in another part (see e.g., annotated Fig 3 herein). Utilizing locating protrusions in the system of Kudara located in the first end plate received in a respective hole formed in the support member is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (D) Applying a known technique (use of locating protrusions between parts of a pumping device) to a known device (pumping device) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (ensuring proper positioning of parts).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize locating protrusions as taught by Irving in the first end plate received in a respective hole formed in the support member in the system of Kudara to gain the benefit of ensuring proper positioning of the first end plate and the support member.
PNG
media_image3.png
583
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations of claim 8, Irving does not disclose the material of the locating protrusions and thus does not disclose the limitation of claim 8. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize stainless or carbon steel or mild steel as the material for the locating protrusions in the system Kudara as modified above to gain the benefit of using known materials having desirable strength characteristics.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudara US 20140112814 in view of Turner US 20200124050.
Kudara does not disclose the imitations of claim 10.
However, Turner discloses one or more ceramic spacers 33 disposed between the first end wall 42 and the support member 30.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize one or more ceramic spacers stainless as taught by Turner in the system Kudara as modified above to gain the benefit of isolating the bearing from heat.
Claim(s) 1, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens US 9261099.
1. (Original) A vacuum pump (see e.g. the title) comprising: a stator, the stator comprising: a first end wall (applicant’s end wall appears to be simply an end portion of the side wall as in applicant’s Fig 3) at a first end of the stator; a second end wall at a second end of the stator, the second end of the stator being opposite to the first end of the stator (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein); and one or more side walls disposed between the first end wall and the second end wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein); wherein the first end wall, the second end wall, and the one or more side walls define a pumping chamber (chamber inside stator); the first end wall comprises a first opening therethrough (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein); and the vacuum pump further comprises a first end plate 42 disposed in the first opening; wherein the first end plate is a thermal break plate (as best understood, the 1st end plate in annotated Fig 2 is a thermal break plate).
Regarding the first end plate being removable, it would be understood that the first end plate is removable. To access the interior of the pump and the components therein. Additionally, making separable has been held obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a removable first end plate in the system of Stephens to gain the benefit of facilitating access to the components inside the pump.
PNG
media_image4.png
518
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
646
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11-14, Stephens discloses:
Claim 11: wherein the first end plate comprises: a purge gas channel, the purge gas channel comprising: an inlet for receiving a purge gas; and an outlet via which the purge gas may exit the purge gas channel (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
Claim 12: wherein the first end plate comprises: a first surface that is furthest from the pumping chamber; a second surface opposite to the first surface, the second surface being closest to the pumping chamber; and one or more side surfaces disposed between the first surface and the second surface; wherein the outlet of the purge gas channel is formed in the first surface (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
Claim 13: wherein the first end plate comprises: a first surface that is furthest from the pumping chamber; a second surface opposite to the first surface, the second surface being closest to the pumping chamber; and one or more side surfaces disposed between the first surface and the second surface; wherein the inlet of the purge gas channel is formed in the second surface or the one or more side surfaces (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
Regarding claim 14, Stephens discloses the second end wall comprises a second opening therethrough; and the vacuum pump further comprises a second end plate 48 removably disposed in the second opening (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
PNG
media_image6.png
708
577
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights