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 .
Objected Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In The Claims
Claim 1, line 6, “shaft inside” should be -- shaft and inside --.
Claim 11, line 10, “shaft inside” should be -- shaft and inside --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-17 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/541,019 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ring heater disposed around the shaft and inside the process chamber of current Application 18/541,018, and the ring heater disposed around the shaft and outside the process chamber of copending Application No. 18/541,019 have the same results for removing or cleaning the contaminants on the shaft, thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to selectively locate the ring heater around the shaft and inside the process chamber for providing the energy beam toward the shaft.
The laser source located outside the process chamber as recited in claims 6 and 17 of current Application 18/541,018 is considered to be obvious variation in design, because the laser source is separate from the ring heater and in communication with fiberoptic cables which terminate along the inner surface of the ring heater, and the plurality of optical energy emitters comprise ends of the fiberoptic cables as recited in claims 6 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/541,019, thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to selectively locate the laser source outside the process chamber for providing the energy beams toward the shaft.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art fails to disclose a workpiece processing system and/or a beam-line ion implantation system, which includes laser light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting optical energy toward the shaft and having a wavelength between 6 µm and 10 µm as recited in claims 5 and 16.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Cong et al. (2014/0263268) and Oki et al. (2016/0204005) disclose an ion implantation system using energy beams to heat a disc plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881