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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13, 16-20 is/are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regarding claims 1 and 13, Kanai teaches only that a plurality of openings are formed in the waveguide, and some are provided in an open state and some in a closed state, but Kanai does not teach or suggest being openable and closable (i.e., individually controllable/adjustable).
Examiner disagrees. Kanai explicitly teaches “the shape of aperture means to be opened in the waveguide” and then calls it a “the shape of a shutter means to provided to adjust the degree of its aperture” which explicitly teaches being openable and closable (c. 34, l. 29-65). Thus, the teachings of Kanai read on the claim limitation of claim 6 incorporated into claim 1. Additionally, being “openable and closable” does not indicate “individually controllable or adjustable” as Applicant has declared; these are two different inferences. Also, the claim recites “slots configured to be capable of being opened and closed,” not adjusted or controllable.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “being opend and closed;” should be “being opened and closed.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “being opend and closed;” should be “being opened and closed.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a plurality of grooves is provided" in the claim. It is unclear if the plurality of grooves is the same or different from the groove introduced in claim 19, from which claim 20 depends. Examiner interprets as the same. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein a plurality of first transmission plates is provided" in the claim. It is unclear if the plurality of first transmission plates is the same or different from the first transmission plate introduced in claim 19, from which claim 20 depends. Examiner interprets as the same. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001043997A to Suzuki in view of US 5629054 to Kanai.
Claim 1: Suzuki discloses a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate, comprising: a process chamber (1 [container], Fig. 10) having a treating space (inside 1) therein; a support unit (2 [support]) configured to support the substrate (W [workpiece]) in the treating space (inside 1); a gas supply unit (7 [gas supply means]) configured to supply treating gas to the treating space (para. [0017]); and a microwave application unit (3 [microwave supply device]) configured to apply microwaves to the treating gas to generate plasma, wherein the microwave application unit comprises a first power supply (not shown but disclosed, para. [0017]) configured to apply a first microwave;
a support plate (34 [conductive member]) having a groove (grooves of 34) formed on an upper surface thereof and combined with the process chamber (1) above the support unit to define the treating space (Fig. 10); a first transmission plate (14 [sealing body]) inserted into the groove (grooves of 34) to radiate the first microwave to the treating space (10th paragraph); and a first waveguide (13 [waveguide]) disposed to overlap with an upper portion of the first transmission plate (upper portion of 14) and coupled to the first power supply (para. [0017]), wherein a plurality of grooves (grooves of 34) is provided, and the plurality of grooves (grooves of 34) are formed along a circumferential direction in an edge region of the support plate (Fig. 12, 10, 6), when viewed from the top.
Suzuki discloses wherein a plurality of first slots (33 [slots], Fig. 10, 12, Suzuki) is formed on a lower surface of the first waveguide (lower surface of 13), and the plurality of first slots (33) are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the first waveguide (Fig. 10, 12, 6).
Suzuki does not disclose wherein the plurality of first slots are provided to be opened and closed.
Kanai discloses wherein the slots are provided to be opened and closed (c. 34, l. 29-65) for the purpose of providing a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them (c. 34, l. 29-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening and closing of slots as taught by Kanai with motivation to provide a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses wherein a plurality of first transmission plates (14, Fig. 10, Suzuki) is provided, and the plurality of first transmission plates (14) are combined with each other to have a ring shape, when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12, abstract).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses wherein the first waveguide (13, Fig. 10, Suzuki) is formed in a ring shape when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12).
Claim 4: (Cancelled).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses wherein the plurality of first slots (33, Fig. 7, Suzuki) are disposed in a plurality of rows when viewing the first waveguide from a front cross section (see Fig. 7).
Claim 6: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai as applied to claims 1-3, 5 above, and further in view of US 20010050058 to Yamamoto.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai does not disclose wherein on the upper surface of the support plate, a central groove formed in a region including the center of the support plate is further formed, wherein the microwave application unit further comprises a second power supply configured to apply a second microwave; a second transmission plate inserted into the central groove to radiate the second microwave to the treating space; and a second waveguide disposed above the second transmission plate and coupled to the second power supply, wherein at least one or more second slots are formed on a lower surface of the second waveguide.
It is noted that regarding duplicating all the particulars of microwave application units, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding arrangement of the two application units, Yamamoto teaches a duplication of parts with two sets of a microwave application unit arrangement including a first microwave application unit (3b/2b/6b/5b/4b, Fig. 1) that is at a central portion of the chamber (1 reaction chamber]) and a surrounding second microwave application unit (3a/2a/6a/5a/4a), for the purpose of introducing microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship (para. 0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplication of parts of the microwave application units, and arrangement of the parts as taught by Yamamoto with motivation to introduce microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai, Yamamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 6290807 to Matsumoto.
Claims 8-9: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai, Yamamoto does not disclose (claim 8) wherein the grooves comprise a first groove formed in a part of the circumferential direction of the edge region of the support plate; and a second groove formed in the other part of the circumferential direction of the edge region of the support plate, wherein the first groove and the second groove are combined with each other to form a ring shape; (claim 9) wherein the first transmission plate is inserted into the first groove, wherein the microwave application unit further comprises a third power supply configured to apply a third microwave; a third transmission plate inserted into the second groove to radiate the third microwave to the treating space; and a third waveguide disposed above the third transmission plate and coupled to the third power supply, wherein a plurality of third slots is formed on a lower surface of the third waveguide, and the plurality of third slots are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the third waveguide.
It is noted that regarding duplicating all the particulars of microwave application units, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding arrangement of the second and third microwave application units, Matsumoto teaches an embodiment where a first microwave application unit (20a/21a/13a/one portion of 15) and a third microwave application unit (20b/21b/13b/other portion of 15) are present and are arranged to oppose each other for the purpose of allowing the microwaves to be more uniformly introduced into the reactor (c. 11, l. 45-60). Matsumoto also teaches that there can be more than two introducing parts, and also the arrangement can be different or concentric (c. 11, l. 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplication and arrangement teachings of the first and third microwave application units as taught by Matsumoto with motivation to allow the microwaves to be more uniformly introduced into the reactor.
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai as applied to claims 1-3, 5 above, and further in view of US 20150170881 to Komatsu.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses further comprising: a gas supply unit (7 [gas supply means], Fig. 10, Suzuki) configured to supply the treating gas to the treating space.
However Suzuki does not disclose wherein a gas channel through which the treating gas flows is formed in the support plate.
Komatsu discloses wherein a gas channel (128/127/126, Fig. 4) through which the treating gas flows is formed in the support plate (50/120) for the purpose of exciting the processing gas by the surface wave plasma and convert it into plasma for a film forming process or an etching process (para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gas channel as taught by Komatsu with motivation to excite the processing gas by the surface wave plasma and convert it into plasma for a film forming process or an etching process.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai does not disclose wherein high-frequency power is applied to the support plate.
Komatsu discloses wherein high-frequency power (156 [high-frequency power supply], Fig. 13) is applied to a support plate (150 [showerhead]) for the purpose of functioning as a counter electrode for capacitive coupling plasma for a plasma etching process on a wafer (para. [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the configuration as taught by Komatsu with motivation to function as a counter electrode for capacitive coupling plasma for a plasma etching process on a wafer.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai as applied to claims 1-3, 5 above, and further in view of US 5911852 to Katayama.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai does not disclose wherein the support plate is grounded.
Katayama discloses wherein the support plate (31 [conductive plate], Fig. 1) is grounded for the purpose of controlling the ion energy in the plasma (c. 2, l. 36-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the grounded conductive plate as taught by Katayama with motivation to control the ion energy in the plasma.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001043997A to Suzuki in view of US 5629054 to Kanai.
Claim 13: Suzuki discloses a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate comprising: a chamber (1 [container], Fig. 10) having a treating space (inside 1) therein; a support unit (2 [support]) configured to support the substrate (W [workpiece]) in the treating space (inside 1); and a microwave application unit (3 [microwave supply device]) configured to apply microwaves to the treating gas to generate plasma, wherein the microwave application unit comprises a first power supply (not shown but disclosed, para. [0017]) configured to apply a first microwave;
a support plate (34 [conductive member]) having a groove (grooves of 34) formed on an upper surface thereof and combined with the chamber (1) above the support unit to define the treating space (Fig. 10); a first transmission plate (14 [sealing body]) inserted into the groove (grooves of 34) to radiate the first microwave to the treating space (10th paragraph); a first waveguide (13 [waveguide]) disposed to overlap with an upper portion of the first transmission plate (upper portion of 14) and coupled to the first power supply (para. [0017]), wherein the first waveguide (13, Fig. 10, Suzuki) is formed in a ring shape when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12).
Suzuki discloses wherein a plurality of first slots (33 [slots], Fig. 10, 12, Suzuki) is formed on a lower surface of the first waveguide (lower surface of 13), and the plurality of first slots (33) are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the first waveguide (Fig. 10, 12, 6).
Suzuki does not disclose wherein the plurality of first slots are configured to be capable of being opened and closed.
Kanai discloses wherein the slots are provided to be opened and closed (c. 34, l. 29-65) for the purpose of providing a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them (c. 34, l. 29-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening and closing of slots as taught by Kanai with motivation to provide a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them.
Claim 14: (Cancelled).
Claim 15: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses wherein the plurality of first slots (33, Fig. 7, Suzuki) are disposed in a plurality of ring shapes (see Fig. 7).
Claim 16: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai discloses wherein a plurality of grooves (grooves of 34, Suzuki) is provided, and the plurality of grooves (grooves of 34) are formed along a circumferential direction in an edge region of the support plate (Fig. 12, 10, 6), when viewed from the top, wherein a plurality of first transmission plates (14, Fig. 10) is provided, and the plurality of first transmission plates (14) are combined with each other to have a ring shape, when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12, abstract).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai as applied to claims 13, 15-16 above, and further in view of US 20010050058 to Yamamoto.
Claim 17: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai does not disclose wherein on the upper surface of the support plate, a central groove formed in a region including the center of the support plate is further formed, wherein the microwave application unit further comprises a second power supply configured to apply a second microwave; a second transmission plate inserted into the central groove to radiate the second microwave to the treating space; and a second waveguide disposed above the second transmission plate and coupled to the second power supply, wherein at least one or more second slots are formed on a lower surface of the second waveguide.
It is noted that regarding duplicating all the particulars of microwave application units, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding arrangement of the two application units, Yamamoto teaches a duplication of parts with two sets of a microwave application unit arrangement including a first microwave application unit (3b/2b/6b/5b/4b, Fig. 1) that is at a central portion of the chamber (1 reaction chamber]) and a surrounding second microwave application unit (3a/2a/6a/5a/4a), for the purpose of introducing microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship (para. 0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplication of parts of the microwave application units, and arrangement of the parts as taught by Yamamoto with motivation to introduce microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai, Yamamoto as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 6290807 to Matsumoto.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai, Yamamoto does not disclose wherein the grooves comprise a first groove formed in a part of the circumferential direction of the edge region of the support plate and inserted with the first transmission plate; and a second groove formed in the other part of the circumferential direction of the edge region of the support plate,
wherein the first groove and the second groove are combined with each other to form a ring shape, wherein the microwave application unit further comprises a third power supply configured to apply a third microwave; a third transmission plate inserted into the second groove to radiate the third microwave to the treating space; and
a third waveguide disposed above the third transmission plate and coupled to the third power supply, wherein a plurality of third slots is formed on a lower surface of the third waveguide, and the plurality of third slots are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the third waveguide.
It is noted that regarding duplicating all the particulars of microwave application units, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding arrangement of the second and third microwave application units, Matsumoto teaches an embodiment where a first microwave application unit (20a/21a/13a/one portion of 15) and a third microwave application unit (20b/21b/13b/other portion of 15) are present and are arranged to oppose each other for the purpose of allowing the microwaves to be more uniformly introduced into the reactor (c. 11, l. 45-60). Matsumoto also teaches that there can be more than two introducing parts, and also the arrangement can be different or concentric (c. 11, l. 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplication and arrangement teachings of the first and third microwave application units as taught by Matsumoto with motivation to allow the microwaves to be more uniformly introduced into the reactor.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001043997A to Suzuki in view of US 5629054 to Kanai and further in view of US 20010050058 to Yamamoto.
Claim 19: Suzuki discloses a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate, comprising: a process chamber (1 [container], Fig. 10) having a treating space (inside 1) formed therein; a support unit (2 [support]) configured to support the substrate (W [workpiece]) in the treating space (inside 1); a gas supply unit (7 [gas supply means]) configured to supply treating gas to the treating space (para. [0017]); a first power supply (not shown but disclosed, para. [0017]) configured to apply a first microwave;
a support plate (34 [conductive member]) having a groove (grooves of 34) formed on an upper surface thereof facing an edge of the support plate (34) and combined with the process chamber (1) above the support unit to define the treating space (Fig. 10); a first transmission plate (14 [sealing body]) inserted into the groove (groove of 34) to radiate the first microwave to the treating space (10th paragraph); and a first waveguide (13 [waveguide]) disposed to overlap with an upper portion of the first transmission plate (upper portion of 14) and coupled to the first power supply (para. [0017]).
Suzuki discloses wherein a plurality of first slots (33 [slots], Fig. 10, 12, Suzuki) is formed on a lower surface of the first waveguide (lower surface of 13), and the plurality of first slots (33) are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the first waveguide (Fig. 10, 12, 6).
Suzuki does not disclose wherein the plurality of first slots are configured to be capable of being opened and closed.
Kanai discloses wherein the slots are provided to be opened and closed (c. 34, l. 29-65) for the purpose of providing a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them (c. 34, l. 29-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening and closing of slots as taught by Kanai with motivation to provide a uniform plasma at desired intervals by opening or closing some of them.
However Suzuki in view of Kanai does not disclose a second power supply configured to apply a second microwave; a second transmission plate disposed above the support plate to radiate the second microwave to the treating space; a second waveguide coupled to the second power supply and disposed on an upper surface of the second transmission plate, and having at least one or more second slots formed on a lower surface thereof, wherein the upper surface of the support plate has a central groove formed in a region including the center of the support plate; the groove surrounding the central groove, and the second transmission plate is inserted into the central groove.
It is noted that regarding duplicating all the particulars of microwave application units, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding arrangement of the two application units, Yamamoto teaches a duplication of parts with two sets of a microwave application unit arrangement including a first microwave application unit (3b/2b/6b/5b/4b, Fig. 1) that is at a central portion of the chamber (1 reaction chamber]) and a surrounding second microwave application unit (3a/2a/6a/5a/4a), for the purpose of introducing microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship (para. 0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplication of parts of the microwave application units, and arrangement of the parts as taught by Yamamoto with motivation to introduce microwaves of different power into microwave introduction windows 2a and 2b that are non-equivalent or equivalent to each other in location relationship.
Claim 20: The apparatus of Suzuki in view of Kanai, Yamamoto discloses wherein a plurality of grooves (grooves of 34, Fig. 10, 12, 6, Suzuki) is provided, and the plurality of grooves (grooves of 34) are formed along a circumferential direction in an edge region of the support plate (Fig. 12, 10, 6), when viewed from the top, wherein a plurality of first transmission plates (14, Fig. 10) is provided, and the plurality of first transmission plates (14) are combined with each other to have a ring shape, when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12, abstract), wherein the first waveguide (13, Fig. 10) is formed in a ring shape when viewed from the top (Fig. 10, 12).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12362147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims of the instant application is fully encompassed by the patent,
rendering the instant application obvious over the patent mentioned above.
Conclusion
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718