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. DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) The “a single opening on a front side of the fixture, such that the fixture is configured” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be: “a single opening on a front side of the fixture, wherein the fixture is configured”. (2) The “ a cavity such that the fixture is configured” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be: “a cavity, wherein the fixture is configured”. ( 3 ) Claim 9 raises same issue of item (2) above. (4) It is respectfully requested add an appropriate quotation mark, such as comma (“,”), between “top surface” and “and the bottom lid surface” of Claim 8, such as: “ wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface , and the bottom lid surface of the fixture is contoured to match a shape of a major bottom surface of the substrate”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim interpretation (1) In regards to the “ wherein the substrate comprises a gradient coating with a first thickness at the opening and a second thickness at a rear of the cavity, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness ” of Claims 3 and 11, and further “wherein the substrate comprises a gradient coating with a first thickness at the opening and a second thickness at a rear of the cavity on the major top side, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and wherein the substrate comprises a second gradient coating ont the major bottom side of the substrate” of Claim 17, The limitation is constructed such that the gradient coating is included on the substrate to be processed, in other words, the substrate has the coating as a pre-coating. Emphasized again, the claim is examined as it purely is written, not based on the disclosure. Further, the substrate is not a structural part constituting the claimed apparatus, rather it is a product to be processed by the claimed apparatus, therefore, the feature regarding to the substrate does not add a patentable weight to the claimed apparatus. Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of processing a substrate, it will be considered meeting the limitation, see the MPEP citations below. MPEP citations: It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114). 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 1-20 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. (1) Across the claim list, the term “air” in the “air gap” is not clear. Does it mean the gap has an atmosphere status provided by an air? It is not clear what structure feature is required to mee the “air” status. For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of merely “gap”. (2) The “the major top side of the substrate” of Claim 1 is not clear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for th e limitation “the major” . Second, the “major ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not clearly defined and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of an examination, the limitation will be examined inclusive of “a side of the substrate”. ( 3 ) The “a substrate comprising a major top side, wherein the first major top side is to be deposited with a coating of a material via chemical vapor deposition” of Claim 9 is not clear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first major”. Does the “first major” means the earlier recited “a major” or another major? Second, the “major” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not clearly defined and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of an examination, the limitation will be examined inclusive of “a substrate comprising a side, wherein the side is to be deposited with a coating of a material via chemical vapor deposition”. ( 4 ) The “the major top surface” of Claims 2 and 10 are not clear. does it mean the “major top side” of Claims 1 and 9, or “a surface of the major top side” or another surface ? The “the major top surface” of Claims 8 and 10 raises the same issue. ( 5 ) Claims 6 and 14 are not clear. First, t he “a gap distance from the lid surface to the major top side” is not clear. Claims 6 and 14 are dependent from Claims 1 and 9. Claims 1 and 9 recite “a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”. It is not clear what structural difference is required between the “gap opening distance” and “gap distance” , because the distance appears the same from the lid surface to the major top side . See also 112(d) below. Second, the “with depth into the cavity” is not clear. Does it mean the earlier recited “cavity depth” or another depth? If it is intended to be the same, it is respectfully requested to amend it, such as: “ along the cavity depth”. See also 112(d) below. ( 6 ) Claims 7 and 15 are not clear. First, Claims 7 and 15 are dependent from Claims 1 and 9, thus Claims 7 and 15 have all the features of Claims 1 and 9. In the present instance, Claims 1 and 9 recite the broad recitation “air gap”, and the dependent claims 7 and 15 also recites “second air gap” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Second, similarly, Claims 1 and 9 recite the broad recitation “lid surface”, and the dependent claims 7 and 15 also recites “a bottom lid surface” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is respectfully requested to amend them by use of both “first” and “second” or both “top” and “bottom”. ( 7 ) The “coating ont the major bottom side of the substrate” of Claim 17 is not clear, because of the “ ont ”. It is respectfully requested to appropriately amend it. (8) The “with depth into the cavity” of Claim 20 raises the same issues as the claims 6 and 14, as discussed in the item (5) above. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 6 , 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. (1) The “a gap distance from the lid surface to the major top side” of Claims 6 and 14 fails to further limit the claim s 1 and 9 limitations. Claims 1 and 9 recite “a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”. It appears that the “a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate” of Claims 1 and 9 is one of the “gap distance from the lid surface to the major top side”, in other words, Claims 6 and 14 broaden the scope of the feature of Claims 1 and 9 , thus they fail to further limit. (2) The “with depth into the cavity” of Claims 6 and 14 fails to further limit the claims 1 and 9 limitations. Claims 1 and 9 recite “cavity depth”, which is narrower than the “depth” of Claims 6 and 14, thus Claims 6 and 14 fail to further limit. (3) The “with depth into the cavity” of Claim 20 raises the same issues as the claims 6 and 14, as discussed in the item (2) above. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 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 – (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. Claims 1- 4, 7-12 and 1 5 -1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onda et al. (US 5785763 , hereafter ‘ 763 ). Regarding to Claim 9 , ‘ 763 teaches: evaporation system (Fig. 2, line 43 of col. 4), and t he gaseous evaporation source thus produced travels upward toward the substrate 4 … the source is condensed and deposited onto the substrate 4 forming a film (lines 41-46 of col. 5, note the system is capable of depositing a gradient coating, for instance, on a vertical side surface of the substrate , the claimed “A chemical vapor deposition coating system for depositing a gradient coating”); A semiconductor substrate or wafer 4 (Fig. 2, lines 57-58 of col. 4, note the film is intrinsically formed on an exposed surface of the substrate, Fig. 2 shows lower and side surfaces are exposed, the claimed “the system comprising: a substrate comprising a major top side, wherein the first major top side is to be deposited with a coating of a material via chemical vapor deposition ”); The wall 5a surrounds the substrate 4 when attached onto the holder 3. In other words, the substrate 4 is contained in the collimator 5 (lines 15-18 of col. 5, the claimed “and a fixture for the substrate, the fixture configured to house the substrate during deposition of the coating, wherein the fixture is configured to surround the substrate on all sides of the substrate except for a single front side of the substrate ”); window 5b formed at a lower end of the wall 5a (lines 12-13 of col. 5), and this gaseous source enters the inside of the collimator 5 through the window 5b and travels through the collimator 5 to the, substrate 4 (lines 42-44 of col. 5, the claimed “and wherein the fixture comprises: an opening on a front side of the fixture, and wherein the fixture is configured to restrict egress of the material to the substrate from all directions except through the opening”); Fig. 2 shows a cavity from the window 5b to the holder 3 and the cavity includes a gap between the wall 5a and the vertical side surface of the substrate 4 (the claimed “and a cavity such that the fixture is configured to leave an air gap between a lid surface of the fixture and the major top side of the substrate”); Fig. 2 shows a distance, measured from the window 5b to the holder 3, is greater than a gap distance, measured from a surface of the wall 5a to the vertical side of the substrate (the claimed “and wherein a cavity depth, measured from the front side of the fixture to a back of the cavity, is greater than a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”). Regarding to Claim 1, ‘763 teaches: evaporation chamber 1 (Fig. 2, line 45 of col. 4), and the gaseous evaporation source thus produced travels upward toward the substrate 4… the source is condensed and deposited onto the substrate 4 forming a film (lines 41-46 of col. 5, the claimed “ A fixture for depositing a gradient coating in a chemical vapor deposition chamber”); the wall 5a surrounds the substrate 4 when attached onto the holder 3. In other words, the substrate 4 is contained in the collimator 5 (lines 15-18 of col. 5), and window 5b formed at a lower end of the wall 5a (lines 12-13 of col. 5), and this gaseous source enters the inside of the collimator 5 through the window 5b and travels through the collimator 5 to the, substrate 4 (lines 42-44 of col. 5, the claimed “the fixture comprising: a single opening on a front side of the fixture, such that the fixture is configured to house a substrate during deposition of a coating and configured to surround the substrate on all sides of the substrate except for a single front side of the substrate, and wherein the fixture is configured to restrict egress of coating material to the substrate from all directions except through the single opening”); Fig. 2 shows a cavity from the window 5b to the holder 3 and the cavity includes a gap between the wall 5a and the vertical side surface of the substrate 4 (the claimed “a cavity such that the fixture is configured to leave an air gap between a lid surface of the fixture and the major top side of the substrate”); Fig. 2 shows a distance, measured from the window 5b to the holder 3, is greater than a gap distance, measured from a surface of the wall 5a to the vertical side of the substrate (the claimed “and wherein a cavity depth, measured from the front side of the fixture to a back of the cavity, is greater than a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”). Regarding to Claim s 2 and 10 , In the left side of Fig. 2 of ‘763 shows parallel arrangement between the wall 5a and the vertical side of the substrate 4 (the claimed “wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface”) Regarding to Claim s 3 and 11 , ‘763 teaches the substrate 4, see also the claim interpretation above (the claimed “wherein the substrate comprises a gradient coating with a first thickness at the opening and a second thickness at a rear of the cavity, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness”). Regarding to Claims 4 and 12, Fig. 2 of ‘763 shows the distance, measured from the window 5b to the holder 3, is more than ten times greater than the gap distance, measured from a surface of the wall 5a to the vertical side of the substrate 4 (the claimed “wherein the cavity depth is ten times greater than the gap opening distance”). Regarding to Claims 7 -8 and 15 -16 , In the right side of Fig. 2 of ‘763 shows another parallel arrangement between the wall 5a and the vertical side of the substrate 4 (the claimed “wherein the fixture is configured to leave a second air gap between a bottom lid surface of the fixture and a major bottom side of the substrate” of Claim s 7 and 15 , and “wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface and the bottom lid surface of the fixture is contoured to match a shape of a major bottom surface of the substrate” of Claims 8 and 16 ) . Regarding to Claims 17 - 18 , Claims 17-18 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 3- 4 rejection above. Claims 1- 3 and 9- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by J. W. Burd et al. (US 3441000 , hereafter ‘ 1000 ). Regarding to Claim 9, ‘ 1000 teaches: apparatus for the production of epitaxial films (Fig s . 1 and 4 , title ) , and a deposition chamber 10 (line 25 of col. 4, note the apparatus is capable of depositing a gradient coating, for instance, on a vertical side surface of the substrate, the claimed “A chemical vapor deposition coating system for depositing a gradient coating”); the wafers W (line 60 of col. 4 , the claimed “the system comprising: a substrate comprising a major top side, wherein the first major top side is to be deposited with a coating of a material via chemical vapor deposition”); Fig. 1 shows a plug 5 having the wafer support plate 17 (see also line 55 of col. 5, note the plug 5 has a single opening on a front side of the plug at the inlet port 14, thus, the gas is provided only through the single opening on the front side of the plug, the claimed “and a fixture for the substrate, the fixture configured to house the substrate during deposition of the coating, wherein the fixture is configured to surround the substrate on all sides of the substrate except for a single front side of the substrate and wherein the fixture comprises: an opening on a front side of the fixture, and wherein the fixture is configured to restrict egress of the material to the substrate from all directions except through the opening”); Fig. 1 shows a cavity from the front side opening of the plug 5 to the apex 16 and the cavity includes a gap between a surface of the plug 5 and a top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “and a cavity such that the fixture is configured to leave an air gap between a lid surface of the fixture and the major top side of the substrate”); Fig. 1 shows a distance, measured from the front side opening of the plug 5 to the apex 16, is greater than a gap distance, measured from the surface of the plug 5 and the top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “and wherein a cavity depth, measured from the front side of the fixture to a back of the cavity, is greater than a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”). Regarding to Claim 1, ‘ 1000 teaches: apparatus for the production of epitaxial films (Figs. 1 and 4, title), and a deposition chamber 10 (line 25 of col. 4, note the apparatus is capable of depositing a gradient coating, for instance, on a vertical side surface of the substrate , the claimed “A fixture for depositing a gradient coating in a chemical vapor deposition chamber”); Fig. 1 shows a plug 5 having the wafer support plate 17 (see also line 55 of col. 5, note the plug 5 has a single opening on a front side of the plug at the inlet port 14, thus, the gas is provided only through the single opening on the front side of the plug, the claimed “the fixture comprising: a single opening on a front side of the fixture, such that the fixture is configured to house a substrate during deposition of a coating and configured to surround the substrate on all sides of the substrate except for a single front side of the substrate, and wherein the fixture is configured to restrict egress of coating material to the substrate from all directions except through the single opening”); Fig. 1 shows a cavity from the front side opening of the plug 5 to the apex 16 and the cavity includes a gap between a surface of the plug 5 and a top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “a cavity such that the fixture is configured to leave an air gap between a lid surface of the fixture and the major top side of the substrate”); Fig. 1 shows a distance, measured from the front side opening of the plug 5 to the apex 16, is greater than a gap distance, measured from the surface of the plug 5 and the top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “and wherein a cavity depth, measured from the front side of the fixture to a back of the cavity, is greater than a gap opening distance, measured from the lid surface at the opening to the major top side of the substrate”). Regarding to Claims 2 and 10, Fig. 1 of ‘1000 shows parallel arrangement between the surface of the plug 5 and the top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface”). Regarding to Claims 3 and 11, ‘1000 teaches the wafer W, see also the claim interpretation above (the claimed “wherein the substrate comprises a gradient coating with a first thickness at the opening and a second thickness at a rear of the cavity, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness”). 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 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claims 4 - 8 and 1 2 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘1000) in view of Moslehi et al. (US 20120085278, hereafter ‘278). Regarding to Claims 4- 6 and 12-1 4 , As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, ‘1000 teaches the cavity depth is greater than the gap opening distance, thus ‘1000 merely does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of: Claims 4 and 12: wherein the cavity depth is ten times greater than the gap opening distance. Claims 5 and 13: wherein the cavity depth is one hundred times greater than the gap opening distance. Claims 6 and 14 : wherein the lid surface is graded or sloped such that a gap distance from the lid surface to the major top side decreases with depth into the cavity . ‘278 is analogous art in the field of deposition system ( title ). ‘ 278 teaches in order to vary the effect of chamber volume, gas speed, gas temperature, etc. on the epi growth ( Fig. 3, [00 37 ] ), and the lid top or bottom may be positioned to create a sloped chamber wall (with an acute interior angle such as angle a shown in FIG. 2). This adjustment changes the chamber volume and/or forms a tapered space for the reactant gas to flow through the chamber, increases the gas velocity and thus eliminating and compensating for the detrimental impact of the reactant's depletion on deposition uniformity as it flows from wafer 44 to wafer 46 ([0038]). Emphasized herein, ‘278 clearly acknowledges that the chamber volume is an adjustable parameter, and the volume can be adjusted a size of the opening. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the cavity volume of the plug of ‘1000, by adjusting a size of either the cavity depth or the gap opening distance, as recited, for the purpose of obtaining a desired effect of chamber volume, gas speed, gas temperature, etc. and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding to Claims 7 - 8 and 15 - 16 , Fig. 1 of ‘1000 shows parallel arrangement between the surface of the plug 5 and the top surface of the wafer W (the claimed “wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface”). ‘1000 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of: Claims 7 and 15: wherein the fixture is configured to leave a second air gap between a bottom lid surface of the fixture and a major bottom side of the substrate . Claims 8 and 16: wherein the lid surface is contoured to match a shape of the major top surface and the bottom lid surface of the fixture is contoured to match a shape of a major bottom surface of the substrate . ‘278 further teaches Chamber 40 comprises a quartz lid top and a quartz lid bottom forming a space for the reactant gas to pass through and over the wafers positioned on susceptor 42, which optionally may have a window frame shape to allow for dual side deposition of multiple wafers ([0038], note Fig. 3 shows a second gap between a bottom lid surface and a bottom side of the substrate , and both surfaces can have a parallel arrangement . Further note, the susceptor 42 can have a hole for exposing both top and bottom surface of one substrate, thus dual side deposition of the same substrate ). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the plug 5 of ‘1000, so to have additional gap between a bottom lid surface and a bottom side of the substrate, for the purpose of providing a design for dual side deposition , thus increasing production efficiency . Regarding to Claim 17, ‘1000 teaches the wafer W, see also the claim interpretation above (the claimed “wherein the substrate comprises a gradient coating with a first thickness at the opening and a second thickness at a rear of the cavity on the major top side, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and wherein the substrate comprises a second gradient coating ont the major bottom side of the substrate”). Regarding to Claims 18-19, Claims 18-19 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 4-5 or 12-13 rejection above. Regarding to Claim 20, Figs. 1 and 4 of ‘1000 show the lid surface is straightened then sloped, thus it can be considered being a “stepped surface” (the claimed “wherein the lid surface stepped surface such that a gap distance from the lid surface to the major top side decreases with depth into the cavity”). In case the applicants argue that the feature is not a step, Fig. 3 of ‘278 shows a linearly tapered path. A sloped or tapered path can be constructed by linear sloped path or multiple stepped path , for instance, see the illustration below, in other words, they are mere obvious variants. Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have obtained the tapered path of ‘278, by either linear sloped path or multiple stepped path , for the purpose of providing various flow control, and/or further, for its suitability as known tapered path with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1440 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9am-5pm PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5166 . The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718