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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 05/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 6-11 are currently pending where claim 11 is newly added. Applicant’s amendments to 6 are sufficient to overcome the previous applied 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/25/2026.
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0076074 (Abe hereinafter) in view of US 2011/0214778 (Natsume hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Abe teaches a purging system that discloses a base to which two positioning pins to support a container to be purged are attached (Figures 2 and 5 with base 22 and positioning pins 22p for container 7); a nozzle unit (Figure 3 shows the nozzle unit 35/36) to connect to a gas inlet of the container supported by the two positioning pins (Nozzle 36 with gas inlet 72 in Figures 2 and 5); the nozzle including a gas introduction portion (Gas introduction portion 35 with Figure 2), wherein the main body portion includes two pin insertion holes at positions overlapping the two mounting holes (Holes for pins 22p to reside as interpreted form Figure 2), and the two positioning pins are inserted into the two pin insertion holes and the two mounting holes, respectively, to fix the main body portion to the base.
Abe is silent with respect to the nozzle including a main body portion attached to the base via the positioning pin, and a gas introduction portion coupled to the main body portion and provided with the nozzle, wherein the main body portion includes two pin insertion holes at positions overlapping the two mounting holes, and the two positioning pins are inserted into the two pin insertion holes and the two mounting holes, respectively, to fix the main body portion to the base.
However, Natsume teaches a purge system that discloses a nozzle (Nozzle 5 per Figure 3 and 4) and the nozzle including a main body portion attached to the base via the positioning pin (Figures 3 and 5 show equivalent main body 21 with the nozzle 5 being above the base 22 per ¶ 40). The resultant combination would then teach a gas introduction portion coupled to the main body portion and provided with the nozzle (Gas introduction portion 35 of Abe would be attached to the main body 21 of Natsume as added to Abe) such that wherein the main body portion includes two pin insertion holes at positions overlapping the two mounting holes (Matching insertion holes of the main body 21 for the pins 22p placed on 22 of Abe), and the two positioning pins are inserted into the two pin insertion holes and the two mounting holes, respectively, to fix the main body portion to the base (Evident of the combination of the combination for the pins 22p to be inserted into the main body such that the pins 22p are mounted to 22 of Abe and able to be inserted into 21 of Natsume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle assembly of Abe with the additional main body of Natsume to allow for individual height adjustments per ¶ 40 of Natsume.
Regarding claim 7, Abe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Abe and Natsume would further disclose that the main body portion includes a flat plate between a bottom surface of the container supported by the two positioning pins and the base (Figures 3 and 4 of Natsume show the flat surface with equivalent positioning pins 7 to 22p of Abe for supporting the container).
Regarding claim 8, Abe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Abe and Natsume would further disclose that the gas introduction portion is integrated into the main body portion (Resultant combination of Abe Figures 2 and 5 with part 35 and main body 21 of Natsume in Figures 3 and 4), and the nozzle is fixed in a predetermined position with respect to the two positioning pins (Evident from Figures 2 and 5 of Abe).
Regarding claim 9, Abe’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Abe and Natsume would further disclose that the gas introduction portion includes an elastic body on an underside of the nozzle to support the nozzle, and the nozzle is energized upward by the elastic body and is movable up and down (Natsume 542 in Figure 7 of equivalent nozzle 5 along with ¶ 44 of Abe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 10 recites “the gas introduction portion includes a rotary arm coupled to the main body portion via a rotary shaft extending horizontally therebetween and rotatable with respect to the main body portion, the rotary arm including a first end provided with the rotary shaft and a second end on a side opposite to the first end; and the nozzle is provided at the second end.” The addition of the rotating structure relative to the previously recited structure in claims 9 and 6 would require excessive modifications. The closest rationale the Examiner can find with art would be from US 5217053 (Foster) showing a rotating valve 18 with a linear actuator 19. An argument can be made that in order to go from linear motion to rotating motion there must be a transmission component that would act as the rotary shaft. However, any further structure would be reliant on hindsight and broad assumptions and therefore not be proper for a rejection. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is objected to as being allowable.
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim 10 recites “the gas introduction portion includes a rotary arm coupled to the main body portion via a rotary shaft extending horizontally therebetween and rotatable with respect to the main body portion, the rotary arm including a first end provided with the rotary shaft and a second end on a side opposite to the first end; and the nozzle is provided at the second end.” A new reference would be required to reject the claim structure of claim 11 and the use of additional reference would require extensive modifications and therefore be non-obvious in the Examiner’s point of view.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed amendments to claim 1 are not taught however after reviewing the combination of Abe and Natsume, said arguments are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has included the following language in claim 1, “wherein the main body portion includes two pin insertion holes at positions overlapping the two mounting holes, and the two positioning pins are inserted into the two pin insertion holes and the two mounting holes, respectively, to fix the main body portion to the base.” The Examiner is of the position that the resultant combination would teach this limitation in the following way:
“wherein the main body portion includes two pin insertion holes at positions overlapping the two mounting holes” is taught with the positioning pins 22p on the structure 22 of Abe as modified with the main body 21 of Natsume would have mounting holes for the pins 22p as shown in Figure 2 of Abe where 22p appears to have a mounting structure underneath it to imply that mounting holes are needed/present and therefore the insertion holes would overlap with the mounting holes.
“the two positioning pins are inserted into the two pin insertion holes and the two mounting holes, respectively, to fix the main body portion to the base” is taught by the combination of Abe and Natsume. In continuum from section 9.a.i immediately above, the pins 22p are mounted in a mounting hole in Abe Figure 2 which would be applied to a base 21 of Natsume. The assembly step would be to place the pins 22p into the insertion holes and the mounting holes to therefore fix the main body portion to the base.
For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive and the Applicant is welcome to further amend to overcome the rejection of record currently set forth.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights