Patent Application 18849756 - PUMP START UP CONTROL - Rejection

Patent Application 18849756 - PUMP START UP CONTROL

Title: PUMP START UP CONTROL

Application Information

• Invention Title: PUMP START UP CONTROL
• Application Number: 18849756
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-09-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-09-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 77362
• Art Unit: 3746
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 . 
	Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/23/2024 is acknowledged.
	Claims 3-9, 12-13 and 15 have been amended.  Overall, claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
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 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.  

Priority
1.	Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 

Drawings
2.	The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).  The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.  Therefore, the “a mechanical valve” and “a closure element” recited in claim 10; “an electrically controlled valve” recited in claim 11; and “closing a valve” recited in claim 15,  must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).  No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.

Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3.	The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.

4.	This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.  Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flow control device” recited in claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 12-13; “movable closure element” recited in claims 3, 10 and 14; and “resilient member” recited in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

Claim Objections
5.	Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
	- claim 1: line 13, “said pump” should be changed to --said vacuum pump -- for clarity and constancy the claim language;
	- claim 2: “A vacuum pump” should be changed to --The rotary vane vacuum pump -- since claim 2 depends on claim 1;
		- claims 3-12: “A rotary vane vacuum pump” should be changed to --The rotary vane vacuum pump -- since claim 3-12 depend on claim 1;
		- claim 3: lines 8-9, “said movable element” should be changed to -- said movable closure element -- for clarity and constancy the claim language;
		- claim 4: line 2, “the rotary vane pump” should be changed to --the vacuum pump -- for clarity and constancy the claim language since claim 4 depends on claim 1;
		- claim 6: line 3, “said pump” should be changed to --said vacuum pump -- for clarity and constancy the claim language since claim 6 depends on claim 1;    
		- claim 10: line 2, “said closure element” should be changed to -- a closure element -- for clarity and constancy the claim language since claims 10 depends on claim 9 and the independent claim 1;
		- claim 12: lines 6-7, “said pump” should be changed to --said vacuum pump -- for clarity and constancy the claim language since claim 12 depends on claim;
		- claim 12: “a predetermined time elapsing, a speed of rotation of said rotor reaching a predetermined threshold value, a motor current reaching a predetermined value and an output from said at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump” should be changed to  -- the predetermined time elapsing, the speed of rotation of said rotor reaching the predetermined threshold value, the motor current reaching the predetermined value and the output from said at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump-- for clarity and consistency the claim language since in claim 12 depends on claim 1;
		- claim 13: “a predetermined time elapsing, a speed of rotation of said rotor reaching a predetermined threshold value, a motor current reaching a predetermined value and an output from said at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump” should be changed to -- the predetermined time elapsing, the speed of rotation of said rotor reaching the predetermined threshold value, the motor current reaching the predetermined value and the output from said at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump-- for clarity and consistency the claim language since in claim 13 depends on claim 1;
		- claims 14-15: “A method” should be changed to --The method --since claims 14-15 depend on claim 13; and 
		- claim 14: line 2, “a movable element” should be changed to -- a movable closure element -- for clarity and constancy the claim language. 
	Appropriate correction is required.

- The claims not specifically mentioned are objected to since they depended from one of the above claims.

6.	Claims 9-10 are objected to, in that their subject matter needs to be incorporated into the specification and the drawings. For example, the claimed “a mechanical valve”, “a closure element”, “an electrically controlled valve” and “closing a valve” should be given reference numeral in the specification and drawings.  Otherwise, the language not depicted with reference numerals in the specification and contained in the drawings should be removed from the claims.

7.	The applicants’ cooperation is required to amend claims 1-15 for conforming to U.S. patent practice.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

8.	Claims 1, 5-10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchel (Patent Number 3,301,474).
	Regarding claim 1, as shown in Figs. 1-3, Buchel discloses a rotary vane vacuum pump (see col. 1, lines 64-68) for evacuating gas from a vacuum chamber, said rotary vane vacuum pump comprising: an inlet 5 for connection to said vacuum chamber and an outlet 6 for exhausting fluid pumped by said vacuum pump; a rotor 2 comprising a plurality of vanes 3, 4 and a stator 1, said rotor being configured for rotation within said stator, said rotor and stator defining a plurality of pumping chambers 9 for pumping a fluid from said inlet 5 to said outlet 6 on rotation of said rotor; a motor (the rotary vane vacuum pump obviously has a motor the operate the rotary vane vacuum pump) for driving said rotor 2; and a venting channel 10 (see col. 1, lines 68-71 to col. 2, lines 1-10 and see Fig. 1) for venting one of said plurality of pumping chambers within said vacuum pump, said venting channel 10 comprising a flow control device 14, 15; 18 (see col. 2, lines 11-26 and Figs. 2-3) for controlling flow through said venting channel; said flow control device 14, 15; 18  being configured to allow flow through said venting channel at start up of said pump and to impede flow through said venting channel in response to at least one of: a predetermined time elapsing, a speed of rotation of said rotor reaching a predetermined threshold value, a motor current reaching a predetermined value and an output from at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump.
- Note that “being configured to allow flow through said venting channel at start up of said pump and to impede flow through said venting channel” is considered functional language.  The use of the functional language only requires that the apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Buchel is capable of controlling the oil/air flow into pumping chamber, the prior art meets the functional limitation.  Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §2114)).     

- Note that the term “at least one of” is to claimed in claim 1; therefore, any prior art being only read on one part, is applied to reject the claim 1.

Regarding claim 5, Buchel discloses wherein said venting channel 10 vents to a pressure above atmospheric pressure.   
Regarding claim 6, Buchel discloses wherein said rotary vane vacuum pump comprises a lubricant sealed sliding vane vacuum pump and said venting channel 10 vents to a lubricant casing of said pump.   
Regarding claim 7, Buchel discloses wherein said flow control device 14, 15; 18 is configured to open said venting channel 10 or close said venting channel 10.   
Regarding claim 8, Buchel discloses wherein said flow control device 14, 15; 18 is configured to control a degree of opening and thus, a flow through said venting channel 10.  
Regarding claim 9, Buchel discloses wherein said flow control device 14, 15; 18 comprises a valve.  
Regarding claim 10, Buchel discloses wherein said valve 14, 15; 18 comprises a mechanical valve 14, 15; 18 comprising a resilient member for biasing said closure element towards said closed position.    

Regarding claim 13, Buchel discloses a method of starting a rotary vane vacuum pump according to claim 1, said method comprising: controlling a flow control device 14, 15; 18 to allow flow through a venting channel 10 (see Figs. 1-3); starting rotation of the rotor  2 of the pump; and in response to at least one of the predetermined time elapsing, the speed of rotation of said rotor reaching the predetermined threshold value, the motor current reaching the predetermined value and an output from a sensor, said output from said sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump, impeding flow though said venting channel.     
Note that the term “at least one of” is to claimed in claim 13; therefore, any prior art being only read on one part, is applied to reject the claim 13.

Regarding claim 15, Buchel discloses wherein said step of impeding flow through said venting channel comprises closing a valve 14, 15; 18.

- Regarding claims 13 and 15, Buchel teaches an oil sealed mechanical rotary vane vacuum pump having substantially all features as discussed above. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered inherent by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.  In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  See MPEP §2112.02.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.

9.	Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchel in view of Rottlaender et al. (Rottlaender) (Publication Number WO2010-052060A2 - provided with the IDS filed on 09/23/2024 by the applicants).      
	Buchel discloses the invention as recited above; however, Buchel fails to disclose the rotary vane vacuum pump further comprising said at least one sensor.
	As shown in Figs. 1, Rottlaender teaches said rotary vane vacuum pump further comprises said at least one sensor 46, said at least one sensor comprising at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor 46, a humidity sensor, and a sensor for sensing a number of rotations of said rotor.   	It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the rotary vane vacuum pump further comprising the pressure sensor, as taught by Rottlaender in the Buchel apparatus, since the use thereof would have controlled the rotation speed of the rotor.

Note that the term “or” is to claimed in claim 2; therefore, any prior art being only read on one part, is applied to reject the claim 2.

10.	Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchel in view of Aubert (Publication Number GB2583542A).      
	Buchel discloses the invention as recited above; however, Buchel fails to disclose a movable closure element for opening or closing said inlet.
	Regarding claim 3, as shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 5, Aubert teaches wherein said inlet 10 comprises a movable closure element 15 for opening or closing said inlet 10, said movable closure element 15 being configured to move between an open and a closed position in response to a pressure on a vacuum pump side of said movable closure element rising above a pressure on a vacuum chamber side of said movable closure element; wherein said venting channel 30 is in fluid communication with said vacuum chamber side of said movable closure element 15, such that said fluid control device 22, 24 allowing flow through said venting channel 30 causes said movable closure element 15 to move to said closed position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the movable closure element for opening or closing said inlet, as taught by Aubert in the Buchel apparatus, since the use thereof would have controlled the fluid flow at the inlet of the rotary vane vacuum pump. 
	Regarding claim 14, Aubert discloses said method further comprising: causing a movable element 15 to move from obscuring an inlet to said vacuum pump to open said inlet to said vacuum pump by said step of impeding flow through said venting channel 30.  
	
11.	Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchel in view of legal precedent.      
	Buchel discloses the invention as recited above; however, Buchel fails to disclose wherein said venting channel configured to open into the rotary vane pump closer to said inlet to said vacuum pump than to said outlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized said venting channel configured to open into the rotary vane pump closer to said inlet to said vacuum pump than to said outlet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.  In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.

12.	Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchel in view of Arnold et al. (Arnold) (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0224067A1).      
	Buchel discloses the invention as recited above; however, Buchel fails to disclose an electrically controlled valve.    
	As shown in Figs. 6-8, Arnold teaches wherein said valve comprises an electrically controlled valve 207 configured to operate in response to control signals sent by control circuitry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the mechanical valve of Buchel with the electrically controlled valve of Arnold, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.  KSR, 550 U.S. (2007) (see MPEP §2143B). 
The results are predictable as controlling the flow of the rotary vane vacuum pump.

13.	Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchel in view of Rottlaender.
	Buchel discloses the invention as recited above; however, Buchel fails to disclose a control circuitry.
	As shown in Fig. 1, Rottlaender teaches said rotary vane pump further comprising control circuitry 50 configured to: control said motor for driving said vacuum pump; and to control said flow control device 56; said control circuitry 50 being configured to control said flow control device 56 to be allow flow through said venting channel 54 at start up of said pump, to control said motor to start driving said pump and then to control said flow control device to impede flow through said venting channel in response to at least one of: the predetermined time elapsing, the speed of rotation of said rotor reaching the predetermined threshold value, the motor current reaching the predetermined value and the output from said at least one sensor, said output from said at least one sensor being indicative of operation of said vacuum pump. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the a control circuitry, as taught by Rottlaender in the Buchel apparatus, since the use thereof would have controlled the rotation speed of the rotor, the sensor and the valve of the rotary vane vacuum pump.

Prior Art
14.	The IDS (PTO-1449) filed on Sept. 23, 2024 has been considered.  An initialized copy is attached hereto.      

15.	The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.


Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERESA TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-4868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 on 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.

/TT/
/Theresa Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746