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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-15 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hamano et al. (JP 2000-126581) in view Gage et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,033,771) and Inao (U.S. PGUB.
2013/0113147 Al), Yanai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0144908 Al) and Visser et al. (U.S. PGUB.
2009/0148604 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Hamano et al. teach a load-lock system, comprising: a chamber
enclosing a supporting structure configured to support a glass substrate; a gas vent arranged at a
ceiling of the chamber and configured to vent gas into the chamber with a flow rate; and a plate
fixed to the ceiling between the gas vent and the glass substrate. (See Abstract; See Machine
Translation; Fig. 1)
The difference between Hamano et al. and claim 1 is that the flow rate being of at least
twenty normal liters per minute is not discussed and the glass substrate being a "glass wafer" is
not discussed and wherein a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is three to ten millimeters
is not discussed and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is five to ten millimeters is not
discussed and wherein “during venting of the chamber”, a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is a value between three to ten millimeters and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is a value between five to ten millimeters is not discussed.
Gage et al. teach providing flow rates to a load lock chamber in a range of 10 to 50 liters
per minute. (Column 3 lines 2-4) Applicant's claimed range of "at least 20 normal liters per
minute" lies or overlaps within Gage et al.' s range and therefore selection of flow rates in a
known range are obvious to select for best results. See MPEP 2144.05 - In the case where the
claimed ranges II overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of
obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F,2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 157 5, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon
monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to "more than 5%”. The
court held that "about 1-5%'' allowed for concentrations slightly above 5%; thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding the glass substrate being a glass wafer ( Claim 1 ), Inao teach that wafers can
be "glass wafers" for placing in a load lock. (Paragraphs 0054, 0056)
Regarding wherein a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is three to ten millimeters
(Claim 1 ), Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm.
(See Paragraph 0050 - As shown in FIG. SB, a distance between the cover 454a of the top
plate 454 and a surface of the first baffle plate 460a facing the cover 454a is referred to as
GAP(a). GAP(a) is set to a range of 1 mm to 5 mm, preferably, 2 mm to 4 mm.)
Regarding a second gap between the plate and the wafer is five to ten millimeters (Claim
1 ), Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from 10
mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076)
Regarding wherein “during venting of the chamber”, a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is a value between three to ten millimeters and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is a value between five to ten millimeters, it is argued that the combination of references teach the structural limitations of the claims. More specifically Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm. (See Yanai discussed above) Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from 10
mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076)
It should be noted that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 – "[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Furthermore the venting process in Visser occurs at 3mm. 3mm is close to 5 mm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 – a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Hamano et al. teach wherein the plate is substantially parallel to the
ceiling and the wafer. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first gap is six millimeters.
Regarding claim 4, Yanai et al. teach utilizing a distance of 5 mm. (Paragraph 0050)
5 nm is close to 6 mm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges do not overlap
but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 – a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second gap between the plate and the
wafer is five millimeters.
Regarding claim 5, Visser et al. teach wherein the second gap between the plate and the
wafer is five to ten millimeters. (Paragraph 0063 - initial 10 mm then reduced for example to 3 mm)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a volume of the chamber is up to five liters.
Regarding claim 10, Gage et al. teach wherein a volume of the chamber is up to five
liters. (Column 6 lines 20-22) Applicant's claimed range of "up to five liters" lies or overlaps
within Gage et al.' s range and therefore selection of volumes in a known range are obvious to
select for best results. See MPEP 2144.05 -In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie
inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In
re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to "more than 5%”. The court held that "about 1-5%'' allowed for concentrations slightly above 5%; thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Hamano et al. teach wherein the gas vent is arranged at a center of
the ceiling. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Hamano et al. teach wherein the gas vent is configured to cause a
direction of a gas flow through the gas vent to be perpendicular to the plate. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas comprises nitrogen, helium,
hydrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, or compressed air.
Regarding claim 13, Gage et al. teach the venting gas to be nitrogen. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
Regarding claim 14, Hamano et al. teach wherein the plate is configured to be centered at
the gas vent. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Hamano et al. teach wherein the plate has a shape that is
substantially the same as a shape of the wafer. (See translation -The partition plate 18 is formed
in, for example, a rectangular flat plate shape. The size of the partition plate 18 is set to be equal
to or larger than the size of the glass substrate G, for example.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Gage et al. is that it allows for cooling and
transferring wafers. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Inao is that it allows for producing glass
wafers for use in electronic devices. (Paragraph 0063)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yanai et al. is that it allows for not
concentrating gas at the center. (Paragraph 0046)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Visser et al. is that it allows for limiting
temperature effects in a load lock. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Hamano et al. with the features of Gage et al. and Inao and
Yanai et al. and Visser et al. because it allows for cooling and transferring wafers and for
producing electronic devices and allows for not concentrating gas at the center and for limiting
temperature effects in a load lock.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano et al. in view of Gage et al. and Inao and Yanai et al. and Visser et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-
15 above, and further in view of Guo (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0245217 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chamber has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 7, Guo teaches wherein load locks can be cylindrical in shape.
(Paragraph 0042)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Guo is that it allows for matching the shape of
the process chamber to the load lock chamber. (Paragraph 0042)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Guo because it allows for matching the shape
of the process chamber to the load lock.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Hamano et
al. in view of Gage et al. and Inao and Yanai et al. and Visser et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 10-
15 above, and further in view of Konishi et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,382,895).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chamber has a height up to 3 5
millimeters between the ceiling and a floor of the chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Konishi et al. teach load locks should have a height up to 35
millimeters between the ceiling and a floor of the chamber. (Column 6 lines 1-3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the height is thirty to thirty-four millimeters.
Regarding claim 9, Konishi et al. teach the load locks should have a height of thirty to
thirty-four millimeters. (Column 6 lines 1-3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Konishi et al. is that it allows for reducing
pressure and take up less floor space. (Column 6 lines 1-11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Konishi et al. because it allows for reducing
pumping time and minimizing floor space.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hamano et al. (JP 2000-126581) in view Inao (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0113147 Al) and
Yanai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0144908 Al) and Visser et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2009/0148604 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Hamano et al. teach an apparatus for reducing contamination of a
glass substrate in a load-lock system, comprising: a glass substrate holder configured to support
the glass substrate; a chamber, comprising: a surface; and a gas vent arranged at the surface and
configured to vent gas into the chamber during pressurization of the chamber, wherein a
direction of the gas flow is perpendicular to the glass substrate and the surface; and a baffle
arranged between the glass substrate and the surface and being substantially parallel to the glass
substrate, wherein the baffle is configured to divert the direction of the gas flow away from the
glass substrate. (See Abstract; Fig. I; Machine Translation)
The difference between Hamano et al. and claim 16 is that the wafer being a "glass
wafer" is not discussed. (Claim 16), wherein a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is three
to ten millimeters is not discussed (Claim 16), a second gap between the plate and the wafer
is five to ten millimeters is not discussed (Claim 16), and wherein “during venting of the chamber”, a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is a value between three to ten millimeters and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is a value between five to ten millimeters is not discussed.
Regarding the glass substrate being a glass wafer ( Claim 16), Inao teach that wafers can
be "glass wafers" for placing in a load lock. (Paragraphs 0054, 0056)
Regarding wherein a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is three to ten millimeters
(Claim 16), Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm.
(See Paragraph 0050 - As shown in FIG. SB, a distance between the cover 454a of the top
plate 454 and a surface of the first baffle plate 460a facing the cover 454a is referred to as
GAP(a). GAP(a) is set to a range of 1 mm to 5 mm, preferably, 2 mm to 4 mm.)
Regarding a second gap between the plate and the wafer is five to ten millimeters (Claim
16), Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from
10 mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076)
Regarding wherein “during venting of the chamber”, a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is a value between three to ten millimeters and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is a value between five to ten millimeters, it is argued that the combination of references teach the structural limitations of the claims. More specifically Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm. (See Yanai discussed above) Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from 10
mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076)
It should be noted that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 – "[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Furthermore the venting process in Visser occurs at 3mm. 3mm is close to 5 mm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 – a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Hamano et al. teach wherein the baffle is substantially parallel to the
surface and the wafer. (See Abstract, Fig. 1; Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Hamano et al. teach wherein the gas vent is configured to cause a
direction of a gas flow through the gas vent to be perpendicular to the baffle. (See Fig. 1)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Inao is that it allows for producing glass
wafers for use in electronic devices. (Paragraph 0063)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yanai et al. is that it allows for not
concentrating gas at the center. (Paragraph 0046)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Visser et al. is that it allows for limiting
temperature effects in a load lock. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Hamano et al. by utilizing the features of Inao and Yanai et
al. and Visser et al. because it allows for cooling and transferring wafers and for producing electronic devices and allows for not concentrating gas at the center and for limiting temperature
effects in a load lock.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the newly amended limitation of wherein “during venting of the chamber”, a first gap between the plate and the ceiling is a value between three to ten millimeters and a second gap between the plate and the wafer is a value between five to ten millimeters, it is argued that the combination of references teach the structural limitations of the claims. More specifically Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm. (See Yanai discussed above) Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from 10
mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076) It should be noted that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 – "[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Furthermore the venting process in Visser occurs at 3mm. 3mm is close to 5 mm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 – a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for combining the references include not concentrating gas at the center, controlling temperature effects, and producing glass devices.
In response to the argument that the various dimensions cannot be freely adjusted by design choice, it is argued that the combination of references teach the structural limitations of the claims. More specifically Yanai et al. teach that the distance between a ceiling and a baffle plate is 1 to 5 mm. (See Yanai discussed above) Visser et al. teach the distance between the cover plate 28 and the wafer table can be from 10
mm to 3 mm. (Paragraph 0076)
It should be noted that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 – "[A]pparatus 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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Furthermore the venting process in Visser occurs at 3mm. 3mm is close to 5 mm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 – a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights