CTNF 18/367,321 CTNF 85148 DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-9 and the species of “look up table” in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 4 is further withdrawn based on the species election. 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. 07-35-01 Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name Freon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a fluorine containing organic liquid and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Shimomura (2014/0291318) . Shimomura teaches a system comprising: - a chamber body with a processing volume, see Fig. 1, volume “A”, - a substrate pedestal in the volume, see supporting table 13 (also related text [0021-27], wherein the stage has coolant channels, see 35, - a coolant medium circulator, see coolant pump, described per [0025], - a substrate temperature sensor coupled to the chamber body – see temperature measurement unit 26 for measuring the temperature of the substrate [0029] and - a coolant medium circulation controller – see control unit 14 that includes a temperature control unit 61 that controls the flow rate of the coolant based on the measurement of the temperature measurement unit 26 [0048]. Regarding claim 2 , the claims are apparatus claims and the limitations are interpreted based on structure and not the use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the system includes microwave units 40 which are capable of performing an annealing operation, therefore the limitations are met (but in any case the system performs an annealing, i.e. heat treatment, see abstract). Regarding claim 3 , again an intended use, but the frequency is 2.45 GHz [0034]. Regarding claim 9 , the claims do not actively require a substrate, so that is intended use, in any case Shimomura teaches a wafer (W in Fig. 1) and also has a gas supply unit, 12. The use of a gas for any purpose, such as cooling, is intended use . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 -8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura in view of Mahadewaraswamy (2012/0048467) . The teachings of Shimomura are described above, and as noted teach a controller to control the rate of the coolant medium but are silent on how the determination is made. Mahadewaraswamy, however, teaches that in cooling an element using a coolant flow controlled by a controller, it is useful to use a look up table in order to determine variables of the cooling cycle [0051]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the look up table of Mahadewaraswamy in combination with the controller of Shimomura as Shimomura teaches to control the flow rate based on the temperature reading but makes no further indication of how the control is carried out and Mahadewaraswamy teaches that look up tables are useful for holding information in regard to a cooling cycle which includes a coolant flow. Regarding claims 6 and 7 , the teachings of Mahadewaraswamy are not limited on what data is included in the table, but in combination with Shimomura, it would have been further obvious to apply any information such as what would be related to any elements, i.e. such as microwave power, that are related to generation of heat so as to effective direct control of the cooling medium. While the teachings do not expressly teach the same elements in a look up table, such elements are generally understood as determined process variables. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Any reasonable process variable, particularly one that would impact the heat and need for cooling, would be reasonable apply within the look up table, such as microwave power (and duration) and ambient gas (and temperature) such as those claimed. Regarding claim 8 , the use of any microwave power is intended use of the apparatus and wherein the teachings are silent the selection of 100 w to 20 kw is obvious. In regard to the gas and cooling medium, the selections are obvious, but in any case the prior art teaches nitrogen gas [0023] and teaches a fluorine organic liquid – wherein “freon” is claimed, and is held under 112 above, the limitation is met. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/367,321 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/367,321 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/367,321 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/367,321 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/367,321 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights