DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-21, 23, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-4, 6, 9-18, 25-28, 30, 33-40, 42, and 43 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 1 recites the limitation "the process of the liquid nozzles moving" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the presence of “at least two cavities”. Claim 1 recites that “the bottom of each cavity being provided with a fluid inlet hole”, and thus claim 1 is recites more than one “fluid inlet hole”. Therefore, the phrase “the fluid inlet hole” creates uncertainty in claim 1 because it is unclear which “fluid inlet hole” is referenced by the phrase “the fluid inlet hole”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in line 8 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites that “the second chuck is matched with the first chuck”, but the word “matched” here is considered (by the examiner) to be relative terminology that makes the scope of claim 3 unclear. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “match” as “a person or thing equal or similar to another”. In applicant’s own specification, applicant’s second chuck is different from the first chuck. Thus, applicant clearly isn’t trying to say that the second chuck is “equal” to the first chuck when applicant uses the word “matched”. Therefore, applicant is presumed to be trying to recite that the second chuck is “similar” to the first chuck. However, someone reading claim 3 then has to ask themselves: “how similar does the second chuck need to be to the first chuck to say that the second chuck is matched to the first chuck? How can I possibly know if my second chuck qualifies as matched to my first chuck?”
Claim 3 recites “the fluid inlet hole”. However, claim 1 recites the presence of more than one fluid inlet hole, and thus it is not clear which fluid inlet hole is referenced in claim 3 by the phrase “the fluid inlet hole”.
Claim 3 recites “the fluid outlet holes”. However, claim 1 recites the presence of more than one set of fluid outlet holes, and thus it is not clear which set of fluid outlet holes is referenced in claim 3 by the phrase “the fluid outlet holes”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fluid delivery pipes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a fluid delivery pipe”, but not a plurality of such pipes.
Claim 10 recites “the heater” in line 4. However, claim 9 recites having a heater on each fluid delivery pipe (and thus there is a plurality of heaters), and it is thus unclear which heater is referred to in claim 10 by the phrase “the heater”.
Claim 10 recites “the fluid delivery pipe” in lines 4-5. However, claim 9 recites “fluid delivery pipes” (plural), and thus it is not clear which fluid delivery pipe is referenced in claim 10 by the phrase “the fluid delivery pipe”.
Claim 10 recites “the radius corresponding to said certain area”. However, since an area is a two-dimensional space, this “certain area” will presumably contain more than one point along the radius of the substrate, and thus it is not clear what “the radius [singular] corresponding to said certain area” refers to.
Claim 10 recites “said certain area” in line 11, but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a certain area” of claim 1 or the “a certain area” of lines 8-9 of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " each fluid delivery pipe connected to each cavity " in the first two lines of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites “a fluid delivery pipe”, not a plurality of such pipes.
Claim 11 recites “the fluid delivery pipe” in lines 4-5 of claim 11, but since claim 11 earlier recites a plurality of such fluid delivery pipes, it is not clear which fluid delivery pipe is referred to by the phrase “the fluid delivery pipe”.
Claim 11 recites “the on-off valve” in line 4, but since claim 11 earlier recites a plurality of such valves, it is not clear which valve is referenced by the phrase “the on-off valve”.
Claim 11 recites “the mass flow controller” in line 6, but since claim 11 earlier recites a plurality of such mass flow controllers, it is not clear which valve is referenced by the phrase “the mass flow controller”.
Claim 11 recites “the heater” in line 8, but since claim 11 earlier recites a plurality of such heaters, it is not clear which heater is referenced by the phrase “the heater”.
Claim 12 recites “the heater” in line 4, but since claim 11 recites a plurality of heaters, it is not clear which heater is referenced by the phrase “the heater”.
Claim 12 recites “the fluid delivery pipe” in lines 4-5, but since claim 11 recites a plurality of fluid delivery pipes, it is not clear which heater is referenced by the phrase “the fluid delivery pipe”.
Claim 12 recites “said certain area” in line 10, but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a certain area” of claim 1 or the “a certain area” of lines 8-9 of claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cavity on the radius corresponding to said certain area" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the radius corresponding to said certain area” in line 11. However, since an area is a two-dimensional space, this “certain area” will presumably contain more than one point along the radius of the substrate, and thus it is not clear what “the radius [singular] corresponding to said certain area” refers to.
Claim 13 recites that “a mass flow controller and a heater are installed on each fluid delivery main pipe”. However, applicant has only recited one “fluid delivery main pipe”, not a plurality of such main pipes. It is thus not clear what applicant attempted to recite, and applicant has perhaps made a typographical mistake.
Claim 13 recites “the on-off valve” in line 6, but since claim 13 earlier recites a plurality of such on-off valves, it is not clear which on-off valve is referred to by the phrase “the on-off valve”.
Claim 13 recites “the mass flow controller” in line 8, but since claim 13 earlier recites a plurality of such mass flow controllers, it is not clear which mass flow controller is referred to by the phrase “the mass flow controller”.
Claim 13 recites “the heater in line 8, but since claim 13 earlier recites a plurality of such heaters, it is not clear which heater is referred to by the phrase “the heater”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first fluid delivery main pipe" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second fluid delivery main pipe" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first fluid delivery branch pipes" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first fluid delivery branch pipe" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second fluid delivery branch pipe" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “said certain area” in line 15, but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a certain area” of claim 1 or the “a certain area” of lines 11-12 of claim 14.
Claim 14 recites “the radius corresponding to said certain area” in line 13. However, since an area is a two-dimensional space, this “certain area” will presumably contain more than one point along the radius of the substrate, and thus it is not clear what “the radius [singular] corresponding to said certain area” refers to.
Claim 15 recites that “each fluid delivery main pipe is equipped with a mass flow controller, a heater is disposed on fluid delivery main pipes”. However, applicant has only recited one “fluid delivery main pipe”, not a plurality of such main pipes. It is thus not clear what applicant attempted to recite, and applicant has perhaps made a typographical mistake.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the heaters" in the last line of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier, claim 15 recites “a heater” in line 5, not a plurality of heaters.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first fluid delivery branch pipe" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second fluid delivery branch pipe" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the third fluid delivery branch pipe" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the fluid delivery main pipe” in line 4, but since claim 15 recites a plurality of fluid delivery main pipes, it is not clear which main pipe is referenced in claim 16 by the phrase “the fluid deliver main pipe”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first fluid deliver branch pipes" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the radius corresponding to said certain area” in line 14. However, since an area is a two-dimensional space, this “certain area” will presumably contain more than one point along the radius of the substrate, and thus it is not clear what “the radius [singular] corresponding to said certain area” refers to.
Claim 18 recites “said certain area” in line 14, but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a certain area” of claim 1 or the “a certain area” of lines 12-13 of claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the substrate region corresponding to said another cavity" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the first chuck". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A structure (such as a first chuck) does not necessarily have only a single upper surface. For example, a structure with an uneven uppermost outline might be considered to have more than one upper surface.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the process of heating and drying the substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0035516 by Ikeda.
With regard to claim 1, Ikeda teaches a substrate processing apparatus (the embodiment of Figure 13) comprising a computer controller, a clamp mechanism (comprising plate 11 and claws 12 in Figure 13) configured to hold the substrate, a spray head mechanism (not illustrated in Figure 13 but illustrated as comprising the collection of nozzles 31, 32, 33, 51, and 52 in Figure 1) including a liquid nozzle (not illustrated in Figure 13 but shown as item 33 in Figures 1, 4C, 4D, and 6), a rotary drive (not illustrated in Figure 13 but illustrated as item 21 in Figure 1) configured to drive the clamp mechanism to rotate, and a heating mechanism (comprising nozzles 73A, valves 74A, and source 76A) for ejecting heated fluid onto the bottom of the substrate (Par. 0025-0033 and 0136-0146). In the heating mechanism illustrated in Figure 13, nozzles 73A extend from a horizontal structure (shown but not labeled in Figure 12) located between the plate 11 and the substrate (Par. 0136-0146). In the horizontal structure, each nozzle 73A (eight different nozzles are visible in Figure 13, spaced along said horizontal structure) is fed by a unique feed conduit that is connected to a unique valve (the valves are items 74A in Figure 13). In the horizontal structure, two of those feed conduits read on applicant’s at least two cavities, and those two feed conduits are located at different radius positions. Each of the two feed conduits is considered to have a fluid inlet hole at its bottom wherein the feed conduit connects to a vertically-oriented conduit that leads down (when looking at Figure 13) towards the respective valve 74A. Each of the two feed conduits is considered to have a fluid outlet hole at its top, wherein the fluid outlet hole allows fluid to head towards the tip of the respective nozzle 73A for fluid ejection. Ikeda teaches that, as nozzle 33 moves from the center of the substrate to the edge of the substrate along the radial direction of the substrate, and as the nozzle 33 moves to a certain area above the substrate, the controller selectively opens one of the nozzles 73A while keeping other nozzles 73A closed such that the substrate is locally heated under the nozzle 33 (Par. 0136-0146) – thus controlling the thermal energy (heat is transferred from the ejected heated fluid to the substrate) of the ejected fluid in a cavity located between the substrate and the plate 11.
As discussed, in the apparatus of Ikeda, nozzles 73A extend from a horizontal structure (shown but not labeled in Figure 12) located between the plate 11 and the substrate (Par. 0136-0146). Ikeda doesn’t provide much detail about this horizontal structure and doesn’t teach that this horizontal structure has a plate shape. However, the horizontal structure serves to support the heating-fluid-ejecting nozzles and to support the feed conduits that feed heating fluid to the ejecting nozzles. In accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda by having the horizontal structure be plate shaped, as the horizontal structure could successfully perform its roles (including the support of the nozzles and the feed conduits) while having a plate shape.
Ikeda, in the embodiment of Figure 13, does not teach that each of the two feed conduits (that is, the two feed conduits that correspond to applicant’s at least two cavities) each having fluid outlet holes (plural). As discussed, each of the two feed conduits is considered to have a fluid outlet hole at its top, wherein the fluid outlet hole allows fluid to head towards the tip of the respective nozzle 73A for fluid ejection, but each of the two feed conduits does not have fluid outlet holes (plural). However, in another embodiment (illustrated in Figure 14) Ikeda teaches that heating nozzles adjacent to each other can be simultaneously used to locally heat a section of a substrate (Par. 0152-0162). In accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Duplication of Parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda such that each of the nozzles illustrated in Figure 13 is duplicated such that each nozzle illustrated in Figure 13 is actually a pair of side-by-side nozzles fed by a respective feed conduit with two fluid outlet holes at its top. In another embodiment (illustrated in Figure 14) Ikeda teaches that side-by-side nozzles can successfully be used to locally heat a section of the substrate, and the motivation for having each nozzle duplication is that a pair of nozzles could successfully be used to deliver heat (via ejected fluid) to a certain area of the substrate.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0035516 by Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 6,197,150 to Kwag.
With regard to claim 2, in the apparatus of Ikeda, the heating mechanism comprises a fluid delivery unit (comprising source 76A in Figure 13, the valves 74A, and piping therebetween). Ikeda teaches uses heated gas (such as nitrogen) as the ejected heating fluid (Par. 0164).
Ikeda does not teach having a heater set on the fluid delivery unit.
Kwag teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas (Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda such that the heater is located on piping of the fluid delivery unit in order to heat the nitrogen gas supplied to the ejection nozzles. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kwag, who teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0035516 by Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0325466 by Wang.
With regard to claim 6, Ikeda teaches uses heated gas (such as nitrogen) as the ejected heating fluid (Par. 0164).
Ikeda does not teach that the cavities for supplying heating nitrogen gas to different radial positions along the substrate are circular.
Wang teaches that when using outlets (items 109 in Figures 1 and 2) to deliver nitrogen gas to a particular radial position along a rotating substrate, the outlets can successfully do so while arranged in a circle (Par. 0017-0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda by having the plate and feed conduits shaped such that circular feed conduits are each configured to supply heating nitrogen gas to a circular arrangement of nozzles for delivering heat to a particular radial position of the rotating substrate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that when using outlets (items 109 in Figures 1 and 2) to deliver nitrogen gas to a particular radial position along a rotating substrate, the outlets can successfully do so while arranged in a circle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0035516 by Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 6,197,150 to Kwag.
With regard to claim 9, in the apparatus of Ikeda, the fluid delivery pipes (these pipes are the pipes with valves 74A in Figure 13 and leading to the feed conduits in the plate) that deliver heating fluid to the feed conduits in the plate are connected to the same fluid delivery main pipe (this fluid delivery main pipe is the pipe on which the mass flow controller 75A is located in Figure 13), and an on-off valve 74A is located on each fluid delivery pipe (Par. 0138-0140). Ikeda teaches uses heated gas (such as nitrogen) as the ejected heating fluid (Par. 0164).
Ikeda does not teach that each fluid delivery pipe comprises a heater.
Kwag teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas (Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda such that each fluid delivery pipe comprises a heater for heating the nitrogen gas supplied to the ejection nozzles. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kwag, who teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas.
The combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag does not explicitly teach that the mass flow controller 75A (Figure 13 of Ikeda) is configured to monitor the flow rate of the nitrogen gas. However, in the art of mass flow controllers, it is well known that a mass flow controller can be arranged to monitor the flow rate such adjustment(s) can be made if the desired flow rate is not occurring, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda in view of Kwag by having the mass flow controller configured to monitor the flow rate such that adjustment(s) can be made if necessary.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0035516 by Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 6,197,150 to Kwag.
With regard to claim 11, in the apparatus of Ikeda, the fluid delivery pipes (these pipes are the pipes with valves 74A in Figure 13 and leading to the feed conduits in the plate) that deliver heating fluid to the feed conduits in the plate each comprise an on-off valve 74A and an individual mass flow controller (Par. 0138-0140). Ikeda teaches uses heated gas (such as nitrogen) as the ejected heating fluid (Par. 0164).
Ikeda does not teach that each fluid delivery pipe comprises a heater.
Kwag teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas (Col. 3, line 42 to Col. 4, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda such that each fluid delivery pipe comprises a heater for heating the nitrogen gas supplied to the ejection nozzles. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kwag, who teaches that when attempting to provide heated nitrogen gas, a heater 30 arranged on a nitrogen supplying conduit can successfully be used to heat the nitrogen gas.
The combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag does not explicitly teach that the mass flow controllers are configured to monitor the flow rate of the nitrogen gas. However, in the art of mass flow controllers, it is well known that a mass flow controller can be arranged to monitor the flow rate such adjustment(s) can be made if the desired flow rate is not occurring, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda in view of Kwag by having the mass flow controllers configured to monitor their flow rate such that adjustment(s) can be made if necessary.
Claims Not Rejected with Prior Art
As discussed at the start of this office action, claims 1-4, 6, 9-18, 25-28, 30, 33-40, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to amend the claims in response the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner is hesitant to officially say that some of the dependent claims necessarily contain allowable subject matter. However, it is noted that claims 3, 4, 10, 12-18, 25-28, 30, 33-40, 42, and 43 can’t be rejected under the reviewed prior art, and these claims are discussed below.
With regard to claim 3, the most relevant prior art is the modified version of Ikeda presented by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1. Ikeda fails to teach the combination of first and second chucks recited in claim 3, wherein the interior of the second chuck is provided with first fluid delivery channels equal to the number of cavities, wherein the first fluid delivery channels are connected to the cavities through the fluid inlet holes. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the teachings of Ikeda to arrive at the invention recited by claim 3. Claims 4, 25-28, 30, 33-40, and 42-43 depend from claim 3.
With regard to claim 10, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag used to reject claim 9. The combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag fails to teach that during the process of the liquid nozzle moving from the center of the substrate to the edge of the substrate along the radial direction of the substrate, and when the liquid nozzle moves to a certain area about the substrate, control the heater to heat the fluid in the cavity on the radius corresponding to said certain area to a second thermal energy, wherein the fluid with the second thermal energy heats the substrate region corresponding to said certain area to a second temperature. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the teachings of Ikeda in view of Kwag to arrive at the invention recited by claim 10.
With regard to claim 12, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag used to reject claim 11. The combination of Ikeda in view of Kwag fails to teach that, during the process of the liquid nozzle moving from the center to the edge, the recited flow rate adjustment occurs or the recited temperature adjustment occurs. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the teachings of Ikeda in view of Kwag to arrive at the invention recited by claim 12.
With regard to claim 13, the most relevant prior art is the modified version of Ikeda presented by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1. Ikeda fails to teach the structure recited by claim 13, wherein each fluid delivery pipe is connected to two fluid delivery branch pipes that are each connected toa fluid delivery main pipe. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues for claim 13 are so stark that the examiner is especially unwilling to officially say that claim 13 now contains allowable subject matter. Applicant’s claim seems to be confused about whether one fluid delivery main pipe is present or a plurality of such main pipes. Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
With regard to claim 15, the most relevant prior art is the modified version of Ikeda presented by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1. Ikeda fails to teach the structure recited by claim 15, wherein each fluid delivery pipe is connected to three fluid delivery branch pipes and wherein each fluid delivery branch pipe is connected to the recited fluid delivery main pipe. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues for claim 15 are so stark that the examiner is especially unwilling to officially say that claim 15 now contains allowable subject matter. Applicant’s claim seems to be confused about whether one fluid delivery main pipe is present or a plurality of such main pipes. Claim 16 depends from claim 15.
With regard to claim 17, the most relevant prior art is the modified version of Ikeda presented by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1. Ikeda fails to teach that the configuration of branch pipes, fluid delivery main pipes, valves, heaters, and mass flow controllers recited in claim 17. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Ikeda to arrive at the invention recited by claim 17. Claim 18 depends from claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights