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 § 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 6-10 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 6 recites “a nozzle” in typed line 3 and “a nozzle” in typed line 5 where the Examiner is unclear if these are the same nozzles or different nozzles. A review of the specification does show a plurality of nozzles however the claims appear to read that the “a nozzle” of typed line 5 is the same as the “a nozzle” in typed line 3. This interpretation will allow for all latter instances of “the nozzle” to remain in proper antecedent basis. Therefore, the instance of “a nozzle” in typed line 5 will be treated as “[[a]] the nozzle”.
Dependent claims 7-10 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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 a positioning pin to support a container to be purged is attached (Figures 2 and 5 with base 22 and positioning pins 22p for container 7); a nozzle to connect to a gas inlet of the container supported by the positioning pin (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).
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.
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).
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 positioning pin and the base (Figures 3 and 4of 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 positioning pin (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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2015/129122 (Murata) teaches a purging system in Figures 1-6.
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