Gas 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,4-7,11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP ‘301 JP,2020-145301,A, as cited on the IDS.
Re claim 1, JP ‘301 teach
a temperature control unit that controls a temperature of a gas valve (17, “switching valve, para 20), wherein the gas valve includes a flow path block (12, 13, 14) inside which a gas flow path is formed and a process gas flows in the gas flow path, the temperature control unit comprising: a heat sink (1613) attached to a lower surface of the flow path block of the gas valve (fig 2, right side of 12 being a lower surface in fig 5 orientation); and a housing (3 block), attached to the lower surface of the flow path block (relative to fig 5 orientation), accommodating the heat sink to cover an outer surface of the heat sink, and including:
an introduction port (annotated fig) installed on a first surface of the housing; an exhaust port (32b) installed on a second surface of the housing:
and a space (31 of 30) interposed between (between approximately 1/3 of an outer portion of the housing and the heat sink) the housing and the outer surface of the heat sink, wherein the first surface and the second surface face each other (noting orthogonal faces on a block faced each other at an angle and meet the broad limitation “face each other”), wherein the space is outside the heat sink and the flow path block, and is located inside the housing (figs), wherein the introduction port is configured to introduce a temperature control fluid different from the process gas into the space to flow the temperature control fluid along the outer surface of the heat sink, and wherein the exhaust port is configured to exhaust the temperature control fluid from the space to outside the space (para 8, 11, claim 1).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘housing’ is
3
: something that covers or protects: such as
a
: a case or enclosure (as for a mechanical part or an instrument)
b
: a casing (such as an enclosed bearing) in which a shaft revolves
c
: a support (such as a frame) for mechanical parts
It is noted the orientation below depends on the orientation and installation of the device, and a patentability would not depend on whether or not the apparatus is tilted to a side for the moment, etc, ; nevertheless, all of the structure meet the “below” limitations in the fig 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4, JP ‘301 teach further comprising: a heat conductive member (171, or external housing of 17 valve) provided between the gas valve and the heat sink.
Re claim 5, JP ‘301 teach wherein the temperature control fluid is compressed air (noting no new structure claimed).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the temperature control fluid is compressed air” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, JP ‘301 teach wherein the temperature control fluid is cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler (noting no new structure claimed).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the temperature control fluid is cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
For clarity, the recitation “…the temperature control fluid is cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
The recitation of “cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 7, JP ‘301 teach wherein the gas valve is heated by a heater (para 9).
For clarity, the recitation “…is heated by …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 11, see the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 12, see the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 13, see the rejection of claim 7.
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.
Additionally and alternatively:
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘301 JP,2020-145301,A, as cited on the IDS in view of CULPEPPER US 3304722 A.
Re claim 6, CULPEPPER teach the temperature control fluid is cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler (claims 1-2) to provide a source of cooling air
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cooling air details as taught by CULPEPPER in the JP ‘301 invention in order to advantageously allow for various intended use possibilities with cooling air.
Re claim 7, JP ‘301 teach wherein the gas valve is heated by a heater (para 9).
Re claim 12, CULPEPPER teach the temperature control fluid is cold air generated from compressed air by a jet cooler (claims 1-2) to provide a source of cooling air
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cooling air details as taught by CULPEPPER in the JP ‘301invention in order to advantageously allow for various intended use possibilities with cooling air.
Re claim 13, JP ‘301 teach wherein the gas valve is heated by a heater (para 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that 3 of JP’301 because 3 ius merely a flat plate, 3 doesn’t cover the heat sink/blocks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The block 3 covers the entire side of the heat sink and blocks, and meets the claim limitation of “a housing” that ‘something that covers or protects: such as’ in the right side of all elements are covered by block and protected on the right side and portions of the top from an article which could impinge at an angle. Furthermore, the block is clearly attached to the lower surface of the flow path block (see detailed rejection above).
The applicant argues that 31 cannot be a space since it is a flow path, and alleges that 31 is not in between. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A flow path is naturally a space in which a coolant or fluid can flow. Also, the space is between an outer portion of the block 3 and the heat sink (see below) noting that if the space was not in-between than it would not lie on a line extending between the outer portion of the block and heat sink.
The applicant argues the first surface and the second surface do not face each other. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The two surfaces are joined at a perpendicular corner, and thus face each other at an angle.
The applicant argues that the space does not a fluid to “flow along”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. “Flow along” is very broad and a fluid clearly would flow along the heat sink and all surfaces portions (figs). noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘along’ is in a line matching the length or direction of, and the flow path extends along an extension direction of the heat sink and thus any fluid will flow along the heat sink block in the space as taught by the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
678
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights