Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/329,372

VACUUM HEAT TREATMENT APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 05, 2023
Priority
Jun 16, 2022 — JP 2022-097388
Examiner
GIORDANO, MICHAEL JAMES
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
159 granted / 205 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
242
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.4%
+22.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons: In response to Applicant’s arguments that the limitation in claim 1 interpreted under 112(f) now recites sufficient structure to avoid the 112(f) interpretation, the Examiner disagrees. The amendments to claim 1 recite further structure that is interconnected to the driving device but no structure has been presented for the driving device itself. The elevating shaft is still connected to a the generic placeholder “driving device” which does not have adequate structure within the claims to not be interpreted under 112(f). In response to Applicant’s arguments stating that the specification provides adequate structure for the “driving device” so as to avoid the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the Examiner disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges that the “driving device” is described as part of the “vertical driving mechanism”, that its physical location is identified and the structural elements connected to it are identified, no further structure is provided as to what the “driving device” actually is. It is shown in the figures as a box with no detail and only referred to in the specification as a “driving device”. Therefore, as the structure of the “driving device” is not adequately described within the specification, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 contains the limitation “driving device” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the specification does not convey to one skilled In the art that inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4-12 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1 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 and 4-12 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 limitation “driving device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification provides no further structure for the “driving device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 4-12 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1. 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 MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST. 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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. /MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Dec 08, 2025
Final Rejection (signed) — §112
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 22, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12736250
AIR CLEANER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12733431
Semiconductor System with an Integrated Wafer Humidity Control Device
4y 1m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12710194
BAFFLE SYSTEM FOR TERMINAL UNIT
4y 2m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12704269
AIR CONDITIONER AND DISCHARGE UNIT
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12674591
SLEEVED TILE ROOF RIDGE VENT
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.3%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month