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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 March 2026.
Drawings
The Examiner notes that in Fig 1B, the surface of the reaction portion is indicated to have “small intensity”, and the interior has “large intensity.” Specification ¶15 describes this as “absorption intensity.” According to ¶16, “the microwave penetrates up to the part of several mm from the surface of the irradiated reaction solution. In other words, the microwave does not penetrate up to the part that is lower than the part of several mm from the surface of the irradiated reaction solution. The reaction solution cannot absorb the microwave at the part where the microwave does not penetrate.” Thus, it appears that Fig 1B is mislabeled because high absorption occurs at the surface, rather than at the center.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “respective microwave emission units thereof face one another” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
According to the specification, “reaction portion” is defined as a volume of the reaction solution, see ¶15. The claims positively recite the “reaction portion.” Thus, the claims are directed to not only the microwave, but the object being treated with microwaves. Put another way, a microwave could meet the claim limitations when it is treating one object, and not meet the claim limitations when it is treating a different object.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: emission unit recited in claim 1 and interpreted under 112(f) for claims 1-3. Although the specification at ¶54 identifies a microwave oscillator (magnetron) as a microwave source, no structure is disclosed for an emission unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 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. Claim 1 recites an emission unit in addition to a microwave irradiation source. The emission unit is interpreted under 112(f). Although a magnetron is disclosed for the microwave irradiation source, no “emission unit” is disclosed. Thus, it is not clear that the inventor has possession of an “emission unit.”
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “emission unit” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Examiner’s Note
According to ¶43, an advantage is obtained when “the reaction portion when viewed in the z-axis direction becomes larger than each of the orthogonal projection areas of the surface (xz plane) expanding in the x-axis and the z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the y-axis direction and the surface (yz plane) expanding in the y-axis and the z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the x-axis direction,” as recited in claim 1. According to the specification, this can be met by a sphere (¶43-¶45). A sphere has the same area in every orthogonal projection, and does not meet this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownell (US 2011/0189056) in view of Ishibashi (US 20120118505).
PNG
media_image1.png
779
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Brownell (US 2011/0189056) discloses:
A microwave irradiation apparatus comprising:
two microwave irradiation sources (322 top and bottom, see Fig 9, ¶53 “One or more microwave antenna 320 mounted in the lid 302 and the floor distribute microwave radiation created by the magnetrons 322 uniformly over the vessel volume”);
two [antennae] (320); and one reaction portion (mixture in vessel 330),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources are disposed such that respective microwave emission units thereof face one another (antennae 320 face one another),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources, the two [antennae], and the one reaction portion are disposed such that respective microwaves emitted from the two microwave irradiation sources pass through the two waveguides and contact an entire surface of the one reaction portion (¶53 “microwave antenna 320 mounted in the lid 302 and the floor distribute microwave radiation created by the magnetrons 322 uniformly over the vessel volume”), and
wherein when a microwave traveling direction is a z-axis direction (vertical in Fig 9) and directions perpendicular to the microwave traveling direction are an x-axis direction (left-right in Fig 9) and a y-axis direction (out of the page in Fig 9), an orthogonal projection area of a surface (xy plane) expanding in an x-axis and a y-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the z-axis direction is larger than each of orthogonal projection areas of a surface (xz plane) expanding in the x-axis and a z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the y-axis direction and a surface (yz plane) expanding in the y-axis and the z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the x-axis direction (Vessel 310 is a cylinder with a vertical axis as described in ¶53.
Brownell does not disclose:
two waveguides
Brownell shows magnetrons 322 spaced apart from antennae 320. They are connected by a boxy structure that is not described.
Ishibashi teaches “microwave generated by a microwave source 335 propagates in a transverse electric (TE) mode through a rectangular waveguide 305, passes through a coaxial converter 310, and propagates in a transverse electromagnetic (TEM) mode in a coaxial waveguide 340. The coaxial waveguide 340 is connected to a center of the planar antenna 905” (¶56).
PNG
media_image2.png
817
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Brownell by using a waveguide to transmit the microwaves from the microwave sources to the antennae because Ishibashi teaches that a waveguide is appropriate for this purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Brownell as modified by the waveguide of Ishibashi teaches:
z-axis lengths of the xz plane and the yz plane in the reaction portion are twice or less of a penetration depth of one microwave into the reaction portion (¶54 “In order to avoid extreme microwave intensity gradients vertically within the mixture, the depth of the mixture should not be greater than twice (given irradiation from both sides) the penetration depth of the mixture, typically around 3 cm at 2.45 GHz and 9 cm at 915 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 3, Brownell as modified by the waveguide of Ishibashi does not explicitly teach:
the orthogonal projection area of the xy plane in the reaction portion is from 100 mm2 to 3850 mm2.
Brownell discloses structures configured to treat multiple liters, but teaches that “any of the particular embodiments disclosed herein are not necessarily limited to a particular power range, vessel size, temperature or pressure limit and in particular are not necessarily industry specific.”
According to MPEP 2144.04 §IV §§A, limitations concerning size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including such a change in size, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” In this case, since the microwave apparatus of Brownell is applicable to “electromagnetic heating of foods and other materials, etching of semiconductor devices in plasma reactors, chemical and biochemical processing including synthesis of pharmaceutical compounds, optimizing fuel production, producing ceramics, curing epoxy and composite materials, and other microwave-enhanced material processing” (¶2) it would be obvious to form it in various sizes deemed appropriate for processing of semiconductors, for example. Since the claim limits the “orthogonal projection area of the xy plane in the reaction portion,” it actually limits the size of the target rather than the overall machine. It would be obvious to make the device in sizes appropriate for the various fields disclosed by Brownell, and to use the device on a target have an area between 100 mm² and 3850 mm², such as a semiconductor substrate.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
347
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Baudet (US 5304766) discloses:
A microwave irradiation apparatus comprising:
two (see Figs13, 20, and 23) microwave irradiation sources (microwave generator 5, col 10 lines 40-44);
two waveguides (6/61/62/63); and one reaction portion (receptacles 21-24 in apertures 31-34, col 10 lines 55-59 formed as test tubes, col 4 lines 33-42),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources are disposed such that respective microwave emission units thereof face one another (as suggested by the relative arrangement of 5 and 6 in Figs 1 and 2, Figs 13, 20, and 24 would provide this),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources, the two waveguides, and the one reaction portion are disposed such that respective microwaves emitted from the two microwave irradiation sources pass through the two waveguides and contact an entire surface of the one reaction portion (see Figs 13, 20, and 24, noting that “(50) The chimney can be completely situated above the upper wall of the application cavity of the microwaves,” see col 5 lines 13-14 and Fig 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
880
1375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Jacqualt (US 5420401) discloses:
A microwave irradiation apparatus comprising:
two microwave irradiation sources (microwave generator or magnetron 20, col 2 lines 15-18);
two waveguides (waveguide 18); and one reaction portion (muff 32),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources are disposed such that respective microwave emission units thereof face one another (the magnetrons are opposing, as shown in Fig 1, and each antenna protrudes into the corresponding waveguide, which are also opposing),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources, the two waveguides, and the one reaction portion are disposed such that respective microwaves emitted from the two microwave irradiation sources pass through the two waveguides and contact an entire surface of the one reaction portion (col 2 lines 45 – col 3 line 13, the materials between the waveguides and the muff are transparent to microwaves. Note that the muff absorbs all the microwaves to heat the contents.).
PNG
media_image5.png
547
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ohno (US 2014/0073065) discloses:
A microwave irradiation apparatus comprising:
two microwave irradiation sources (21 (EW1), 22 (EW2), ¶33, ¶35, ¶36, ¶70);
…and one reaction portion (semiconductor substrate 11),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources are disposed such that respective microwave emission units thereof face one another (see electromagnetic waves A and B in Fig 1),
wherein the two microwave irradiation sources, …, and the one reaction portion are disposed such that respective microwaves emitted from the two microwave irradiation sources … contact an entire surface of the one reaction portion (¶40, ¶53), and
wherein when a microwave traveling direction is a z-axis direction (vertical in Fig 1) and directions perpendicular to the microwave traveling direction are an x-axis direction and a y-axis direction, an orthogonal projection area of a surface (xy plane) expanding in an x-axis and a y-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the z-axis direction is larger than each of orthogonal projection areas of a surface (xz plane) expanding in the x-axis and a z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the y-axis direction and a surface (yz plane) expanding in the y-axis and the z-axis in the reaction portion when viewed in the x-axis direction (A semiconductor substrate, e.g. a silicon wafer according to ¶17, is very thin with a length and width much greater than the thickness. Although the figures only show the width much greater than the thickness, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the length (into the page) is also much greater than the thickness because that is how semiconductor substrates are shaped. Thus, the area looking from the top is greater than the area shown from the front or expected from the side.).
Ohno does not explicitly disclose:
two waveguides;
Strouse (US 20060061017) discloses a method for making colloidal nanoparticles. “In a typical large scale reaction (5 ml or greater), the reactants are placed in a standard round bottom flask (Kirmax, Pyrex or Chemglass) and placed in a RT chamber and irradiated with continuous or pulsed power with dual magnetrons until the desired temperature is reached” (¶81).
Murai (US 20180236559) discloses a method of producing metal nanoparticles by irradiating with two opposing microwave oscillators 13 (¶24).
PNG
media_image6.png
583
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee (US 2021/0229060) teaches a method of making quantum dots by applying microwaves from several magnetrons to a reaction tube have a diameter of 0.1 to 5 mm. “When the inner diameter DFR is less than about 0.1 mm, the area of the reaction tube FR may be reduced, thereby reducing the productivity of the quantum dot manufacturing apparatus. In addition, when the inner diameter DFR is greater than about 5.0 mm, the microwave may not be sufficiently delivered to the center of the reaction tube FR, thereby decreasing the uniformity of the quantum dot material synthesized in the reaction tube FR” (¶69). Thus, Lee teaches that thickness of the reaction portion is a result effective variable for even radiation/heating.
PNG
media_image7.png
900
633
media_image7.png
Greyscale
JP 6393344 teaches “The optimum shape of the reaction tube 7 in the microwave irradiation field 2 may vary depending on the microwave frequency (in the range of 300 MHz to 300 GHz), the microwave mode, the type of liquid, and the like. By appropriately selecting the shape of the reaction tube 7 in the microwave irradiation field 2, the effect of the microwave irradiation can be controlled. Examples of the shape of the reaction tube 7 include a linear shape, an S-shape, a coil shape, and a mixed shape thereof.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights