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. Claim Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, recites the limitation “ a driving unit configured to be provided on the chamber ”. Claim 2, recites the limitations “ a cooling medium supply pipe configured to be installed on the driving unit ”, and “ a cooling medium supplier configured to be connected to the cooling medium supply pipe ”. Claim 3, recites the limitation “ a cover body configured to be formed in a circular shape ”. Claim 4, recites the limitations “ a first nozzle configured to be formed on an upper inner circumferential surface of the cover body ”, and “ a second nozzle configured to be formed on an inner circumferential surface of the cover body ”. In each one of the claims 1-4, the use of phrase “ configured to be ” appears to suggest that the respective structural features of the cooling device are in ready mode onl y , and would be set up or assembled as needed which contradict s the cooling device as illustrated in in figure 2 for example , where the structural features of the cooling device are already assembled together . It is, therefore suggested to replace the respective limitations as follows: In claim 1: -- a driving unit provided on the chamber --. In claim 2: -- a cooling medium supply pipe installed on the driving unit --, and -- a cooling medium supplier connected to the cooling medium supply pipe --. In claim 3: -- a cover body configured to be formed in a circular shape --. In claim 4: -- a first nozzle configured to be formed on an upper inner circumferential surface of the cover body --, and -- a second nozzle configured to be formed on an inner circumferential surface of the cover body --. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation " the other side " in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Clai ms 1, 2, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim s 1, 2 and 8-12 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,342,480 , respectively . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,342,480 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: ( i ) the limitations of the instant claim 3, is substantially identical to the patented claim 3, except that the patented claim 3 characterizes the cover body to be box shaped, while in the instant claim 3, the cover body is circular shaped. However, with reference to MPEP 2144.04 .IV.B which pertains to the obviousness of changes in shape, similar to the instantly claimed cover body and the that of the patent claim, the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. The scope of the instant claim and the patented claim are coextensive. (ii) With respect to claim 5, the scope of the claim is substantially identical to the patented claim 5 since in both claims the objects are disposed on a jig tray and the jig tray is charged to the chamber through a transfer jig and then seated on at least a support ing member provided in the chamber. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being by DE29713958 (D’958; Also see the Espacenet Machine English Translation version “EMETV”: Description) Regarding claim 1, D’958 teaches a cooling device (1, see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0047]-[0054]) for heat treatment of a metallic workpiece (3, see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0012]-[0014]), the cooling device comprising: a chamber ( 7, see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0012]-[0014]) within which the workpiece in the form of a plurality of objects (3, see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0047]-[0054]) is disposed (see figure 1) ; a cooling unit (i.e. the combination of the mounting plate (4) that provided receiving bore(5) for the nozzles (6) see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0047]-[0054]) configured to cover the object and to spray a cooling medium onto the object (see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [0047]-[0054]). D’958 further teaches a mounting plate (4) for the nozzle (6) that is height adjustable by a drive unit in the f or m of a motor (see figure 1 and “EMETV”: Para [ 0053] - [ 0054], which substantially meets and/or reads on the claimed driving unit provided on the chamber and to move the cooling unit in an up and down direction . It should also be pointed out that the claimed “ individual cooling unit ” is interpreted to read on a single cooling unit because the claim as recited does not necessarily require a plurality of cooling units and so the claimed individual cooling unit is met by the mounting plate (4) and nozzles (6) assembly shown in figure 1 which is configured as a cooling unit. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and in addition, if claim 1 is amended to overcome the statutory double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: D’958 differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest as in claim 2: a cooling device for heat treatment in which the cooling unit comprises: a cover having one open side and a hollow interior formed therein in which the object is disposed; a cooling medium supply pipe installed on the driving unit, to move up and down, and fastened to other side of the cover to supply the cooling medium to the interior of the cover; and a cooling medium supplier connected to the cooling medium supply pipe and to supply the cooling medium. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bunge (US 6,394,793), Korec ki et al. (US 9,989,311), Wechselberger et al. (US 4,938,460) and Katsumata et al. (US 10,273,553) are also cited in PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8165 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30AM-5:00PM . 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 Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759