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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 22 May 2025 was previously acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn. Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
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 “predetermined lengths of the one or more first exhaust ports are set to be shorter than a predetermined length of the of the lowermost first exhaust ports” 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 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 1-2 and 5-14 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. Any claim not explicitly mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 1 has not been amended in a way that properly clarifies the previous issues with the dependent claims incorporated therein. As set forth previously, there appear to be issues with measurements of the first fin, one or more second fins and the one or more first exhaust ports. The disclosure appears to provide measurements with respect to the one or more first exhaust ports based on interior diameter, and provide measurements with respect to the first fin and one or more second fins based on predetermined lengths, at least for the claimed feature(s) at issue. As recited, the claim language appears to mix the measurements. In order to expedite examination, in a manner that seems consistent with the original disclosure, Examiner has assumed the relevant portion of the claim was meant to recite “the predetermined lengths of the one or more second fins are set to be shorter than a predetermined length of the first fin” and has examined accordingly. This feature appears to be set forth in the original disclosure, e.g., at Fig. 5C and para. 64. The same analysis and issues are present with respect to claim 14.
Claim 2, line 3 has issues related to amended claim 1. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “…and extends for the predetermined length greater than an inner diameter of the lowermost first exhaust port” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 6 refers to “lengths”. However, as the claim set is now amended and interpreted it appears this recitation to refer to “the predetermined lengths”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that claim 6 was meant to refer to “the predetermined lengths” and has examined accordingly
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the end portion of the first fin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “an end portion of the first fin” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “both ends”. It is not clear what ends this recitation is meant to refer. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim may refer to any two opposing ends and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Additional Claim Interpretations
In claims 1 and 14, “an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube”, “a space between the lowermost first exhaust port and the second exhaust port” and “a space between the second exhaust port and the one or more upper first exhaust ports” are interpreted as the same space – the annular space between the inner and outer tube.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 would appear to 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 (as interpreted).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although, the relied upon prior art references disclose providing fins in various configurations to optimize flow conditions, the relied upon prior art fails to fairly teach or suggest optimizations as recited in each of these claims. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent 4,638,762, U.S. Patent Pub. 2012/0186573, and JP 5534979 disclose substrate processing apparatus with fins in various configurations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716