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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 3/31/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains the phrase “wherein the airtight unit includes comprises:” [emphasis added] in line 7. 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a showerhead assembly which comprises a heater body and airtight unit, and the airtight unit is further defined with respect to a lid of a chamber (diffusion space) and the elastic pressurizer fixed to the lid. While it is not improper to claim an apparatus with respect to its intended use or other structures to be used with the apparatus, in this case it is unclear as to whether the chamber and chamber lid are being included as part of the showerhead assembly.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 1.
Claims 6-7, 9, 11 are allowed.
Claim 6 requires structure for securing a showerhead assembly, the airtight unit’s specific series of connecting structures, which is not taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are generally accepted and therefore the prior rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn.
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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights