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 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, and 19-21 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1, 16, and 19 is/are amended. Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 21 is/are new.
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.
Claim 1-6, 8-17, and 19-21 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 recites “wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device” in lines 7, 11, and 11 respectively. The instant specification discloses “… the apparatus has an appropriate volume to contain a refractory crucible suspended or supported within an RF induction heating coil…” at paragraph [0025], and “… crucible 190 suspended or supported within an RF induction heating coil 170…” at paragraph [0016] however the instant specification does not wherein the refractory metal crucible is suspended from or supported by (emphasis added) a crucible, nor does the instant specification disclose wherein the refractory metal crucible is suspended from or supported by a heating device broadly (i.e., for heating devices besides crucibles), and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Correction is required.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford et al. (“Processes for the production of ultra pure metals from oxide and their cold rolling to ultra-thin foils for use as targets and as reference materials”, supplied with IDS filed 02/02/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Clifford teaches a metallothermic reduction system with a movable water-cooled copper collector (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches the reduction system comprises a vacuum pump and collects metal by heating metal in a crucible and collecting it upon a cooled copper collector above the crucible (i.e., sublimating/distilling the metal) (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), therefore the metallothermic reduction system of Clifford comprises a sublimation/distillation apparatus. Clifford teaches a resistance heated crucible (i.e., a crucible comprising an open end and a heating device thermally coupled to the crucible) (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), a water cooled copper collector (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) disposed above the open end of the crucible (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches a vacuum pump and vacuum seals (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), thus the chamber of Fig. 1-2 comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Clifford teaches the actively cooled collection substrate may be moved to a collecting location 1 mm above the crucible (Fig. 2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), therefore the actively cooled collection substrate is disposed directly above the open end of the crucible.
Regarding claim 3, Clifford teaches the actively cooled collection substrate may be moved to a collecting location 1 mm above the crucible (i.e., the actively cooled collection substrate is movable to selectively seal the actively cooled collection substrate onto the crucible) (Fig. 2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Clifford teaches wherein the crucible comprises a refractory metal crucible, wherein the refractory metal crucible comprises tantalum (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6, Clifford is silent to wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to generate a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment.
Claim 6 discloses generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber, such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the refractory metal crucible ,the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment, which results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. As claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Clifford teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 6, including a vacuum chamber and a vacuum pump, Clifford teaches all of the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claims 10-12, Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate. Claims 10-12 only further limit a composition that is disposed onto the actively cooled substrate during operation (i.e., the material worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claims 10-12.
Regarding claims 13-14, Clifford does not teach wherein a lutetium composition is disposed within the crucible. Claims 13-14 only further limit a composition that is disposed within the crucible (i.e., the material worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claims 13-14.
Regarding claim 15, Clifford teaches a protrusion extending from the actively cooled collection substrate toward the crucible such that it extends into the crucible when the actively cooled collection substrate is sealed onto the crucible (Fig. 2), where as the protrusion is attached to the actively cooled collection substrate, the protrusion comprises a cool finger extending from the actively cooled collection substrate cool finger as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Clifford teaches a metallothermic reduction system with a movable water-cooled copper collector (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches the reduction system comprises a vacuum pump and collects metal by heating metal in a crucible and collecting it upon a cooled copper collector above the crucible (i.e., sublimating/distilling the metal) (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), therefore the metallothermic reduction system of Clifford comprises a sublimation/distillation apparatus. Clifford teaches a resistance heated tantalum crucible (i.e., a refractory metal crucible comprising an open end and a heating device thermally coupled to the refractory metal crucible) (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), a water cooled copper collector (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) disposed above the open end of the crucible (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches a vacuum pump and vacuum seals (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), thus the chamber of Fig. 1-2 comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford is silent to wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to generate a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Claim 16 discloses generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber, such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the refractory metal crucible ,the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment, which results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. As claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Clifford teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 16, including a vacuum chamber and a vacuum pump, Clifford teaches all of the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate, a lutetium composition comprising Lu-177 is disposed within the refractory metal crucible, and the ytterbium composition faces the open end of the refractory metal crucible. Claim 17 only further limits compositions that are disposed onto the actively cooled substrate and refractory metal crucible during operation (i.e., the materials worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitations of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the materials or articles worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Clifford teaches a metallothermic reduction system with a movable water-cooled copper collector (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches the reduction system comprises a vacuum pump and collects metal by heating metal in a crucible and collecting it upon a cooled copper collector above the crucible (i.e., sublimating/distilling the metal) (Fig. 1-2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), therefore the metallothermic reduction system of Clifford comprises a sublimation/distillation apparatus. Clifford teaches a resistance heated crucible (i.e., a crucible comprising an open end and a heating device thermally coupled to the refractory metal crucible) (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), a water cooled copper collector (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) disposed above the open end of the crucible (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1). Clifford teaches a vacuum pump and vacuum seals (Fig. 1, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), thus the chamber of Fig. 1-2 comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate, a lutetium composition comprising Lu-177 is disposed within the refractory metal crucible, and the ytterbium composition faces the open end of the refractory metal crucible. These limitations only further limit compositions that are disposed onto the actively cooled substrate and refractory metal crucible during operation (i.e., the materials worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitations of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the materials or articles worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Clifford teaches the actively cooled collection substrate may be moved to a collecting location 1 mm above the crucible (Fig. 2, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 1), therefore the actively cooled collection substrate is disposed directly above the open end of the crucible.
Regarding claim 1 in the alternative, Clifford teaches a vacuum distillation still (i.e., a sublimation/distillation apparatus) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), a crucible comprising an open end (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), induction coils which heat the crucible (i.e., a heating device thermally coupled to the crucible) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), and a water cooled tantalum collector disposed above the open end of the crucible (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2). Clifford teaches the device to be a vacuum distillation still with a vacuum pump, where the crucible, heating device, and actively cooled collection substrate are within a quartz tube in communication with the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), thus the quartz tube comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2 in the alternative, Clifford teaches wherein the actively cooled collection substrate is disposed directly above the open end of the crucible (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4-5 in the alternative, Clifford teaches wherein the crucible comprises a refractory metal crucible wherein the refractory metal crucible comprises tantalum (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6 in the alternative, Clifford is silent to wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to generate a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment.
Claim 6 discloses generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber, such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the refractory metal crucible ,the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment, which results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. As claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. As Clifford teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 6, including a vacuum chamber and a vacuum pump, Clifford teaches all of the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Clifford teaches wherein the heating device comprises an induction coil (i.e., a heating coil) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 10-12 in the alternative, Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate. Claims 10-12 only further limit a composition that is disposed onto the actively cooled substrate during operation (i.e., the material worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claims 10-12.
Regarding claims 13-14 in the alternative, Clifford does not teach wherein a lutetium composition is disposed within the crucible. Claims 13-14 only further limit a composition that is disposed within the crucible (i.e., the material worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claims 13-14.
Regarding claim 16 in the alternative, Clifford teaches a vacuum distillation still (i.e., a sublimation/distillation apparatus) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), a refractory metal crucible comprising an open end (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), induction coils which heat the refractory metal crucible (i.e., a heating device thermally coupled to the crucible) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), and a water cooled tantalum collector disposed above the open end of the crucible (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2). Clifford teaches the device to be a vacuum distillation still with a vacuum pump, where the crucible, heating device, and actively cooled collection substrate are within a quartz tube in communication with the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), thus the quartz tube comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Claim 16 discloses generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber, such that when the reduced pressure environment is generated the refractory metal crucible ,the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate are housed within the reduced pressure environment, which results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. As claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, generating a reduced pressure environment of 10 torr or less within the vacuum chamber comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. As Clifford teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 16, including a vacuum chamber and a vacuum pump, Clifford teaches all of the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17 in the alternative, Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate, a lutetium composition comprising Lu-177 is disposed within the refractory metal crucible, and the ytterbium composition faces the open end of the refractory metal crucible. Claim 17 only further limits compositions that are disposed onto the actively cooled substrate and refractory metal crucible during operation (i.e., the materials worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitations of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the materials or articles worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19 in the alternative, Clifford teaches a vacuum distillation still (i.e., a sublimation/distillation apparatus) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), a crucible comprising an open end (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), induction coils which heat the crucible (i.e., a heating device thermally coupled to the crucible) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), and a water cooled tantalum collector disposed above the open end of the crucible (i.e., an actively cooled collection substrate) (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2). Clifford teaches the device to be a vacuum distillation still with a vacuum pump, where the crucible, heating device, and actively cooled collection substrate are within a quartz tube in communication with the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 2.1. Metallothermic reduction: paragraph 2), thus the quartz tube comprises a vacuum chamber housing the crucible, the heating device, and the actively cooled collection substrate.
Clifford does not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Clifford only differs from claim 1 in that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, while Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and does not concern itself with how the crucible is supported, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as what component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Clifford does not teach wherein an ytterbium composition is disposed on the actively cooled collection substrate, a lutetium composition comprising Lu-177 is disposed within the refractory metal crucible, and the ytterbium composition faces the open end of the refractory metal crucible. These limitations only further limit compositions that are disposed onto the actively cooled substrate and refractory metal crucible during operation (i.e., the materials worked upon), as opposed to any physical limitations of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the materials or articles worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. As Clifford teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed structural components, Clifford teaches an apparatus according to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20 in the alternative, Clifford teaches wherein the actively cooled collection substrate is disposed directly above the open end of the crucible (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Clifford teaches two electrodes where the electrodes cannot be considered a “heating device thermally coupled to the crucible” as the electrodes only supply power to the crucible, where the crucible itself is then heated (see pg. 6-7 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instant application does not provide any special definition of “heating device”, therefore the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning. As the electrodes are responsible for providing the electrical current to the crucible which results in the heating of the crucible, the electrodes of Clifford comprise a “heating device” as claimed.
Further, such a narrow interpretation of “heating device” would render the configuration used in the instant application (an induction coil which induces heating of the crucible) to not be a heating device, as the heating device itself is not heated to heat the crucible through e.g., direct contact with the heating device, but instead the induction coil only performs an activity that results in heating of the crucible.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the embodiments of Figs. 1-2 and Fig. 3 of Clifford do not teach wherein the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device (see pg. 7-8 of remarks), the Examiner notes that while Clifford does not teach in either embodiment that the crucible is suspended from or supported by the heating device, Clifford teaches a crucible suspended or supported to be within the heating device, and it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the crucible suspended from or supported within the heating device, as which component structurally supports the crucible within the heating device would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights