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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishii; Katsutoshi (US 20180312969 A1) in view of, if necessary, Endoh; Shinji et al. (US 5378436 A). Ishii teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) comprising: a process chamber (10; Figure 1; [0016]) in which a substrate is accommodated; a gas supply system (70; Figure 1) configured to supply a process gas containing a compound of a high reactivity with a metal into the process chamber (10; Figure 1; [0016]); a first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) made of a material incapable of reacting with the compound, and configured to be capable of exhausting an inner atmosphere of the process chamber (204; Figure 1) until an inner pressure of the process chamber (204; Figure 1) reaches a pressure within a first pressure range (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]); a second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) configured to be capable of exhausting the inner atmosphere of the process chamber (204; Figure 1) until the inner pressure of the process chamber (204; Figure 1) reaches a pressure within a second pressure range (vacuum; [0029]) that is lower than the first pressure range (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]); and a common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) in communication with the process chamber (204; Figure 1) and configured to connect the first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) to the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]), wherein a second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) is provided within the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]), and wherein an inner surface (quartz; [0031]; organometallic, nitride; [0057]) of an upstream portion (80; [0031]) of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) located upstream of the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) is made of surface-treated metal (stainless steel; [0028]) incapable of reacting with the compound contained in the process gas and an inner surface (quartz; [0031]; organometallic, nitride; [0057]) of a downstream portion (90-100; [0031]) of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) located downstream of the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) is made of metal (stainless steel; [0028]) that has not been surface-treated (only 80 in 80+90-100 piping is discussed; [0031]), as claimed by claim 1. The above, and below, italicized claim text is considered intended use claim requirements that are dependent on the process chemicals used, and reactivity therewith, and not on the structure of the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Ishii further teaches:
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein one end of the first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) is connected to the common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) via a first pressure adjusting valve (64; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244a; Figure 1), and the other end of the first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) is connected to a first exhauster (“VENT”; Figure 1) configured to exhaust the process chamber (204; Figure 1) until the inner pressure thereof reaches the pressure within the first pressure range (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]), as claimed by claim 2
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 2, wherein one end of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) is connected to the common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) via the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1), and the other end of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) is connected to a second exhauster (100; Figure 1) configured to exhaust the process chamber (204; Figure 1) until the inner pressure thereof reaches the pressure within the second pressure range (vacuum; [0029]), as claimed by claim 3
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 3, further comprising: and a controller (210; Figure 1; [0081]) configured to be capable of controlling the gas supply system (70; Figure 1), the first pressure adjusting valve (64; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244a; Figure 1) and the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1), as claim by claim 4
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) comprises a metal (stainless steel; [0028]) piping whose inner surface (quartz; [0031]; organometallic, nitride; [0057]) is surface-treated so as not to react with the compound, as claimed by claim 5
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 4, further comprising: a first pressure sensor (190; Figure 1; max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) configured to measure an inner pressure of the common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) within the first pressure range (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]); and a second pressure sensor (90; Figure 1; [0027]) configured to measure the inner pressure of the common exhaust piping (80; Figure 1, stainless steel; [0028]-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) within the first pressure range (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) and the second pressure range (vacuum; [0029]), wherein an opening degree of the first pressure adjusting valve (64; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244a; Figure 1) is controlled based on a pressure measured by the first pressure sensor (190; Figure 1; max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]), and an opening degree of the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) is controlled based on a pressure measured by the second pressure sensor (90; Figure 1; [0027]), as claimed by claim 7
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 7, wherein the controller (210; Figure 1; [0081]) is further configured to be capable of controlling the first pressure adjusting valve (64; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244a; Figure 1) such that a pressure measured by the first pressure sensor (190; Figure 1; max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) reaches a predetermined first process pressure (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) when supplying the process gas into the process chamber (204; Figure 1) by controlling the gas supply system (70; Figure 1), and to be capable of controlling the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) such that the pressure measured by the second pressure sensor (90; Figure 1; [0027]) reaches a predetermined second process pressure (vacuum; [0029]) lower than the predetermined first process pressure (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]), as claimed by claim 12
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 12, wherein the first process pressure (max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) is a predetermined pressure ranging from 600 Torr to an atmospheric pressure at most, as claimed by claim 13
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the process gas comprises a gas containing hydrogen peroxide as the compound, as claimed by claim 14
The Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are based on the intended use claim language where the above, and below, italicized claim text is considered intended use claim requirements that are dependent on the process chemical gases used and not on the pending apparatus claims.
If the Examiner’s grounds of intended use are not accepted, then, Endoh teaches corrosion prevention of metal pipes (42; Figure 16) exposed to hydrogen peroxide by applying tetrafluoroethylene resin “having small reactivity with hydrogen peroxide” as taught by Endoh (column 20; lines 24-25).
If the Examiner’s grounds of intended use are not accepted, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ishii to use hydrogen peroxide as Ishii’s oxidizing gas ([00023]) and for Ishii to add corrosion protection to Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) as taught by Endoh.
Motivation for Ishii to use hydrogen peroxide as Ishii’s oxidizing gas ([00023]) is as an alternate and equivalent oxidant as taught by Ishii’s examples of “ozone, oxygen, water or the like is used” ([0023]).
Motivation for Ishii to add corrosion protection to Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) as taught by Endoh is for corrosion protection of Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) as taught by Endoh (column 20; lines 24-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii; Katsutoshi (US 20180312969 A1), and, if necessary, Endoh; Shinji et al. (US 5378436 A) in view of Ikeno; Teruo et al. (US 4298661 A). Ishii and Endoh are discussed above.
Ishii further teaches:
the substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 7, wherein the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) is provided on the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) more upstream than the second exhauster (100; Figure 1) – claim 10
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 10, wherein the at least the portion of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) is configured as the metal (stainless steel; [0028]) piping whose inner surface (quartz; [0031]; organometallic, nitride; [0057]) is surface-treated so as not to react with the compound contained in the process gas, as claimed by claim 11
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, wherein at least a portion (90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) is configured as the metal (stainless steel; [0028]) piping whose inner surface (90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) has not been surface-treated, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, wherein a portion (90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) between the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) and the second exhauster (100; Figure 1) is configured as the metal (stainless steel; [0028]) piping whose inner surface has not been surface-treated, as claimed by claim 18
Ishii does not teach:
the substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) is made of a resin, as claimed by claim 6
at least a portion of the second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) between the second pressure adjusting valve (90; Figure 1-Applicant’s 244b; Figure 1) and the second exhauster (100; Figure 1) is configured as a metal (stainless steel; [0028]) piping – 80 is stainless steel [0028] – claim 10
Ikeno teaches organic resins (column 16; line 64 – column 17; line 13) for protecting “steel material” (throughout) such as pipes (column 17; lines 20-23) as is Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]).
Endoh also teaches organic resins (column 20; lines 24-25) for protecting metal pipes (42; Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Ishii to use Ikeno’s or Endoh’s organic resin for protecting Ishii’s stainless steel first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) with Ikeno’s or Endoh’s organic resin. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Ishii to use Ishii’s stainless steel ([0028]) for all of Ishii’s second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]).
Motivation for Ishii to use Ikeno’s organic resin for protecting Ishii’s stainless steel first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) with Ikeno’s organic resin is for a “protective film” as taught by Ikeno (column 16; line 64-68).
Motivation for Ishii to add corrosion protection to Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) as taught by Endoh is for corrosion protection of Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) as taught by Endoh (column 20; lines 24-25).
Motivation for Ishii to use Ishii’s stainless steel ([0028]) for all of Ishii’s second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) is for continuity and simplicity of construction.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii; Katsutoshi (US 20180312969 A1), and, if necessary, Endoh; Shinji et al. (US 5378436 A) in view of Komae; Yasuaki et al. (US 20170183770 A1). Ishii and Endoh are discussed above. Ishii further teaches wherein the first pressure sensor (190; Figure 1; max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) is configured to measure a pressure ranging from 600 Torr to an atmospheric pressure at most, and the second pressure sensor (90; Figure 1; [0027]) is configured to measure a pressure (vacuum; [0029]) ranging from 0 Torr to the atmospheric pressure at most – claim 9
Ishii does not teach the substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 7, wherein a pressure range measured by the first pressure sensor (190; Figure 1; max. pressure = 1 atm; [0030]; “predetermined pressure”; [0074]) is narrower than a pressure range (vacuum; [0029]) measured by the second pressure sensor (90; Figure 1; [0027]).
Komae also teaches a process chamber (204; Figure 2, 34) in which a substrate is accommodated; a first exhaust piping (207a+207c; Figure 2,4-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) configured to be capable of exhausting an inner atmosphere of the process chamber (204; Figure 2, 4) until an inner pressure of the process chamber (204; Figure 2, 4) reaches a pressure within a first pressure range (10Pa < P < 100Pa; [0074]); a second exhaust piping (207a+207b; Figure 2,4-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]) configured to be capable of exhausting the inner atmosphere of the process chamber (204; Figure 2, 4) until the inner pressure of the process chamber (204; Figure 2, 4) reaches a pressure within a second pressure range (vacuum; [0075],[0076]) that is lower than the first pressure range; and a common exhaust piping (207a; Figure 2,4-Applicant’s 231; Figure 1) in communication with the process chamber (204; Figure 2, 4) and configured to connect the first exhaust piping (207a+207c; Figure 2,4-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) to the second exhaust piping (207a+207b; Figure 2,4-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Ishii to optimize Ishii’s pressure ranges as taught by Komae.
Motivation for Ishii to optimize Ishii’s pressure ranges as taught by Komae is for performing process-specific recipes as taught by Komae ([0077]-[0078], etc..).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
In contrast, Ishii does not teach the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1. Instead, Ishii is silent regarding these features and the Office Action concedes this in part on pages 8-9. Ishii merely teaches a technique aimed at suppressing particle generation inside an exhaust pipe, in which, prior to performing substrate processing, an SiO₂ coating film is formed inside the exhaust pipe 80, thereby providing a glass coating. See Ishii at [0028]. As shown below in Ishii's FIG.1, the "exhaust pipe 80 is a conduit for evacuating the interior of the reaction tube 10" and the "exhaust pipe 80 is connected to an evacuation means such as a vacuum pump 100." Ishii at [0027]. Further, the "automatic pressure control valve 90 for automatically regulating a pressure is provided in the middle route of the exhaust pipe 80." Ishii at [0027]. In other words, automatic pressure control valve 90 is in the 'middle' of the exhaust pipe 80.
”
In response, the Examiner makes no such concession at pages 8-9 of the December 31, 2025 office action. The Examiner only makes concessions of features of dependent claims 6 and 10 on page 8 of said final office action. Further, Applicant appears to attack the Examiner’s assignment of Ishii’s first exhaust piping (80+81; Figure 1-Applicant’s 242+270; Figure 1; [0022]) and Ishii’s second exhaust piping (80+90-100 piping; Figure 1; Figure 1-Applicant’s 249+280; Figure 1; [0025]). The Examiner maintains the BRI based on the structural and functional similarity of Applicant’s own piping.
Applicant states:
“
More specifically, since "the exhaust pipe coating gas nozzle 110 is disposed in the vicinity of the exhaust pipe 80 inside the inner tube 11, the silicon-containing gas and the oxidizing gas supplied from the exhaust pipe coating gas nozzle 110 are easily exhausted from the exhaust pipe 80 by the vacuum pump 100." Ishii at [0036]. In other words, "the silicon-containing gas and the oxidizing gas, which are gases for forming a SiO₂ film, are alternately supplied into the exhaust pipe 80" and the "silicon-containing gas is adsorbed inside the exhaust pipe 80." (Emphasis added).
Ishii at [0036]. Then, "the oxidizing gas is supplied SO as to react on the inner surface of the exhaust pipe 80, whereby a SiO₂ film as a reaction product is formed." (Emphasis added). Ishii at [0036]. That is, "glass coating is performed by ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition) film formation" and the "exhaust pipe coating gas nozzle 110 is provided in order to generate such a reaction inside the exhaust pipe 80." (Emphasis added). Ishii at [0036]. In other words, the SiO₂ coating film is formed throughout the entirety of the interior of the exhaust pipe 80. Accordingly, Ishii does not teach, disclose, or suggest each feature of amended claim 1.
“
In response, Ishii at [0031] is specific is stating that only section “80” of Ishii’s entire exhausting piping (80+90-100) is coated. Notably this is likely accomplished by Ishii closing Ishii’s APC valve (90) while opening one or more valves 63/64. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant states:
“
Further, in the alternative, Endoh does not cure the deficiencies of Ishii. Endoh does not teach the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1. Instead, Endoh is silent regarding these features and the Office Action concedes this in part on pages 8-9. Endoh merely discloses a technique relating to an apparatus for producing hydrogen peroxide by electrical discharge. Endoh also discloses a technique using piping coated with a resin having low reactivity with hydrogen peroxide. However, there is neither disclosure nor suggestion regarding the material of the piping used for the second exhaust pipe, and therefore Endoh fails to suggest the configuration of the present invention. Therefore, neither Ishii, nor Endoh, nor their combination teach each feature of amended claim 1.
“
And…
“
As previously recited, neither Ishii, nor Endoh, nor their combination teach each feature of amended claim 1. Further, the addition of Ikeno does not cure these deficiencies. Ikeno does not teach the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1. Instead, Ikeno is silent regarding these features. Ikeno merely discloses a technique relating to a surface-treated steel material in which, after forming a manganese-plated layer on the surface of steel, manganese hydrated oxide is further formed electrically or chemically on the manganese-plated layer, thereby providing excellent corrosion resistance, workability, and weldability.
“
In response, Endoh is not cited for teaching the amended claim limitations. Specifically, Endoh is cited, in the alternative if the Examiner’s intended use arguments are accepted, for teaching corrosion prevention of metal pipes (42; Figure 16) exposed to hydrogen peroxide by applying tetrafluoroethylene resin “having small reactivity with hydrogen peroxide” as taught by Endoh (column 20; lines 24-25).
Applicant states:
“
As previously recited, neither Ishii, nor Endoh, nor their combination teach each feature of amended claim 1. Further, the addition of Ikeno does not cure these deficiencies. Ikeno does not teach the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1. Instead, Ikeno is silent regarding these features. Ikeno merely discloses a technique relating to a surface-treated steel material in which, after forming a manganese-plated layer on the surface of steel, manganese hydrated oxide is further formed electrically or chemically on the manganese-plated layer, thereby providing excellent corrosion resistance, workability, and weldability.
“
In response, Ikeno is not applied for the claim 1 limitations. Instead Ikeno is applied for the claim 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18 rejections that are not recited in amended claim 1. Claim 1 remains rejected under §102/§103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Exhaust pathways and control in the prior art include: ; US 20170218515 A1; US 20160166868 A1; US 20040226507 A1; US 20220090263 A1; US 20050081786 A1; US 20150170909 A1; US 20080067146 A1; US 20170062254 A1; US 20030094136 A1; US 20090120464 A1; US 20170092517 A1; US 20180274615 A1; US 20070079758 A1; US 20150360247 A1; US 20040026037 A1; US 20070207625 A1; US 20180312969 A1; US 20070181255 A1; US 20200347498 A1; US 20070160757 A1; US 20180215114 A1; US 20170183770 A1
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights