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 amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 02/26/2026.
Drawings
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 claimed features:
"each of the outer doors comprises a plurality of slots spaced apart longitudinally" and "selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the slots in the outer doors" in claim 1,
"selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors" in claims 14 and 18,
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "A system comprising: a plurality of segmented divider plates; at least one plate spacer; an apparatus comprising: a plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors coupled together to form a housing with a processing interior therein";
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein each of the outer doors comprises a plurality of slots spaced apart longitudinally";
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the slots in the outer doors";
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the number of different processing chambers within the apparatus is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number of plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots";
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "A system comprising: a plurality of segmented divider plates; at least one plate spacer; an apparatus comprising: a plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors coupled together to form a housing with a processing interior therein";
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors";
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the number and the size of the different processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number and the location of the segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number and the location of the plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots";
In claim 18, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "A system comprising: a plurality of segmented divider plates; at least one plate spacer; an apparatus comprising: a plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors coupled together to form a housing with a processing interior therein";
In claim 18, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors";
In claim 18, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the number of processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots";
In claim 19, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "the position of the divider plates selectively inserted in the slots";
In claim 20, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "the position of the divider plates selectively inserted in the slots".
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 1-21 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "wherein each of the outer doors comprises a plurality of slots spaced apart longitudinally", "wherein the apparatus is selectively configurable to modify a quantity of the different processing chambers for processing different materials by selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the slots in the outer doors"; and "wherein the number of different processing chambers within the apparatus is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number of plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots". However, the original disclosure fails to set forth the outer doors comprising the slots. Additionally, there is no mention of selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the slots in the original disclosure. Therefore, the claim limitations constitute new matter.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "wherein the apparatus is selectively configurable to form between three and six different processing chambers within the interior of the apparatus by selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors"; and "wherein the number and the size of the different processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number and the location of the segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number and the location of the plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots." However, the original disclosure fails to set forth five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors. Additionally, there is no mention of selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the five slots in the original disclosure. Therefore, the claim limitations constitute new matter.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "wherein the plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors are selectively reconfigurable to form between three and six processing chambers within the processing interior by selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors"; and "wherein the number of processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots." However, the original disclosure fails to set forth five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors. Additionally, there is no mention of selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the five slots in the original disclosure. Therefore, the claim limitations constitute new matter.
Claims 19 and 20 each recite the limitation "the position of the divider plates selectively inserted in the slots in the plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors" and constitute new matter due to the same reason as discussed above.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 1-21 is 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 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of slots spaced apart longitudinally", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "longitudinally" and which direction is considered to be "longitudinally". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of plate spacers". The claim has previously set forth "at least one plate spacer", which encompass a single plate spacer. However, the limitation recites "plate spacers" that has a different scope than "at least one plate spacer". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "segmented divider plates", "at least one plate spacer", "wherein the apparatus is selectively configurable to modify a quantity of the different processing chambers for processing different materials by selectively inserting either a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of the slots in the outer doors" and "wherein the number of different processing chambers within the apparatus is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number of plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots", which render the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not provide any functional or structural difference between a segmented divider plate and a plate spacer, and it is unclear whether "segmented divider plates" and "at least one plate spacer" are referring to same elements, or different elements with same structures, or different elements with different structures. Second, since a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer is selectively inserted into each of the slots in the outer doors, the maximum number of plates (either segmented divider plates or at least one plate spacer or both) that can be installed has been reached in the apparatus, and the number of different processing chambers in the apparatus has been fixed. Consequently, it is unclear how the quantity of the different processing chambers is modified by selectively inserting a "segmented divider plate" or a "plate spacer" in each of the slots in the outer doors. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "plate spacers". The claim depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth "at least one plate spacer", which encompass a single plate spacer. However, "plate spacers" in the limitation has a different scope than "at least one plate spacer". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "longitudinally" and which direction is considered to be "longitudinally". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the number of plate spacers". The claim has previously set forth "at least one plate spacer", which encompass a single plate spacer. However, the limitation recites "plate spacers", which has a different scope than "at least one plate spacer". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "segmented divider plates", "at least one plate spacer", "wherein the apparatus is selectively configurable to form between three and six different processing chambers within the interior of the apparatus by selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors" and "wherein the number and the size of the different processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number and the location of the segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots and the number and the location of the plate spacers selectively inserted into the slots", which render the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not provide any functional or structural difference between a segmented divider plate and a plate spacer, and it is unclear whether "segmented divider plates" and "at least one plate spacer" are referring to same elements, or different elements with same structures, or different elements with different structures. Second, since a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer is selectively inserted into each of five slots in the outer doors, the number of plates (either segmented divider plates or at least one plate spacer or both) that can be installed has been fixed in the apparatus, and the number of different processing chambers in the apparatus has been fixed as well. Consequently, it is unclear how the number and size of the different processing chambers is selectively configurable by selectively inserting a "segmented divider plate" or a "plate spacer" in each of the five slots in the outer doors. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to as to "longitudinally" and which direction is considered to be "longitudinally". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "segmented divider plates", "at least one plate spacer", "wherein the plurality of hinged, segmented outer doors are selectively reconfigurable to form between three and six processing chambers within the processing interior by selectively inserting a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer into each of five slots spaced apart longitudinally and positioned in the outer doors" and "wherein the number of processing chambers within the processing interior is determined by the number of segmented divider plates selectively inserted into the slots", which render the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not provide any functional or structural difference between a segmented divider plate and a plate spacer, and it is unclear whether "segmented divider plates" and "at least one plate spacer" are referring to same elements, or different elements with same structures, or different elements with different structures. Second, since a segmented divider plate or a plate spacer is selectively inserted into each of five slots in the outer doors, the number of plates (either segmented divider plates or at least one plate spacer or both) that can be installed has been fixed in the apparatus, and the number of different processing chambers in the apparatus has been fixed as well. Consequently, it is unclear how the number and size of the different processing chambers is selectively reconfigurable by selectively inserting a "segmented divider plate" or a "plate spacer" in each of the five slots in the outer doors. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the processing rotor". The claim has previously set forth "at least one of the processing rotors". In scenarios of two or more processing rotors, it is unclear which processing rotor is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the at least one of the processing rotors".
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Status of Claims
The amended claims define a significant number of limitations that are not clear, and the original disclosure does not provide a standard to ascertaining the features. See the above objections and 112 rejections. As no reasonable interpretations can be made to the independent claims 1, 14 and 18, no prior art rejections have been attempted in this Office action.
The claims should NOT be construed as reciting allowable subject matter. It is noted that all the pending claims are subjected to 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections as discussed above; and substantive amendments to the claims may result in prior-art-based rejections in a future Office action.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered. However, all of Applicants arguments are directed to the new limitations in the amended claims which render the claims unclear as detailed in the above objections and rejections. It is also noted that Applicant did not point out the basis for the new limitations in the original disclosure.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732