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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 20200240012 to Uchida et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Uchida teaches an exhaust system Fig. 2 connected to a process chamber 7 in a semiconductor processing device 2 to discharge gases and control a pressure in the process chamber [0025, 0038-0040], comprising:
a switching device 41;
a first pressure control mechanism 12A, 13A, 15A;
and a second pressure control mechanism 12B, 13B, 15B; wherein:
the switching device is connected to the process chamber (as shown in Fig. 2), and is connected to the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism for switching between the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism to discharge the gases and control the pressure in the process chamber (as connected to the emission path 11);
the first pressure control mechanism includes a first pressure control pipeline (pipes for 12A, 13A, 15A) and a first controller (pressure control valve 15a), and the first pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber the first controller is disposed at the first pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a first pressure when the first pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit with the chamber isolation valve 13a);
and the second pressure control mechanism includes a second pressure control pipeline (pipes for 12B, 13B, 15B) and a second controller 15B, and the second pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the second controller is disposed at the second pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a second pressure when the second pressure control pipeline discharges the gases; (implicit with the chamber isolation valve 13b) [0008-0100].
Uchida does not expressly teach the second pressure is greater than the first pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the second pressure is greater than the first pressure, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 2, Uchida teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes an exhaust device 27, 36, the exhaust device is connected to the first pressure control pipeline through valve 31 and valve 41, and the first controller is used to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber [0008-0100].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Uchida teaches the first pressure control pipeline includes a first exhaust pipe (pipe at 13a to 41) and a variable diameter exhaust pipe (as shown above), one end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to the switching device (through the line), and the other end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to one end of the variable diameter exhaust pipe; the other end of the variable diameter exhaust pipe is connected to the exhaust device; and the first controller is arranged at one of the first exhaust pipe and the variable diameter exhaust pipe, or at a connection between the first exhaust pipe and the variable diameter exhaust pipe (as shown above).
In regards to Claim 4, Uchida teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes a detection component (the combination of 47, 21, 28), which is disposed at the first exhaust pipe and is used to detect a pressure signal in the first exhaust pipe (as shown in Fig. 2), and the first controller is used to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal (through controller 11).
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 5, Uchida teaches the detection component includes a first detection component 28 and a second detection component 47, the first detection component and the second detection component are arranged at the first exhaust pipe (see lines to 41 and the pipe at 13a to 21 together from 47 and 37), the second detection component 47 is located on a side of the first detection component facing away from the switching device (as it is at a farther location), and the first detection component has a detection range greater than a detection range of the second detection component (as it is sensing with 21 and not just a valve with 21).
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have a detection range greater than a detection range of the second detection component, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Uchida teaches a semiconductor processing device [0003-004], comprising a process chamber 7 and an exhaust system 27, 5, 11 according to any of claims 1-13. connected to the process chamber in a semiconductor processing device to discharge gases and control a pressure in the process chamber, wherein the exhaust system comprises: a switching device 41;
a first pressure control mechanism 12A, 13A, 15A;
and a second pressure control mechanism 12B, 13B, 15B; wherein:
the switching device is connected to the process chamber (as shown in Fig. 2), and is connected to the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism for switching between the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism to discharge the gases and control the pressure in the process chamber (as connected to the emission path 11);
the first pressure control mechanism includes a first pressure control pipeline (pipes for 12A, 13A, 15A) and a first controller (pressure control valve 15a), and the first pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber the first controller is disposed at the first pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a first pressure when the first pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit with the chamber isolation valve 13a);
and the second pressure control mechanism includes a second pressure control pipeline (pipes for 12B, 13B, 15B) and a second controller 15B, and the second pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the second controller is disposed at the second pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a second pressure when the second pressure control pipeline discharges the gases; (implicit with the chamber isolation valve 13b) [0008-0100].
Uchida does not expressly teach the second pressure is greater than the first pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the second pressure is greater than the first pressure, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 15, Uchida teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes an exhaust device 27, 36, the exhaust device is connected to the first pressure control pipeline through valve 31 and valve 41, and the first controller is used to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber [0008-0100].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Uchida teaches the first pressure control pipeline includes a first exhaust pipe (pipe at 13a to 41) and a variable diameter exhaust pipe (as shown above), one end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to the switching device (through the line), and the other end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to one end of the variable diameter exhaust pipe; the other end of the variable diameter exhaust pipe is connected to the exhaust device; and the first controller is arranged at one of the first exhaust pipe and the variable diameter exhaust pipe, or at a connection between the first exhaust pipe and the variable diameter exhaust pipe (as shown above).
In regards to Claim 17, Uchida the first pressure control mechanism further includes a detection component (the combination of 47, 21, 28), which is disposed at the first exhaust pipe and is used to detect a pressure signal in the first exhaust pipe (as shown in Fig. 2), and the first controller is used to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal (through controller 11).
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 18, Uchida teaches the detection component includes a first detection component 28 and a second detection component 47, the first detection component and the second detection component are arranged at the first exhaust pipe (see lines to 41 and the pipe at 13a to 21 together from 47 and 37), the second detection component 47 is located on a side of the first detection component facing away from the switching device (as it is at a farther location), and the first detection component has a detection range greater than a detection range of the second detection component (as it is sensing with 21 and not just a valve with 21).
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have a detection range greater than a detection range of the second detection component, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Uchida and that of the claim.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2012/0304930 to Verdict.
In regards to Claim 1, Verdict teaches an exhaust system Fig. 4 connected to a process chamber 402 in a semiconductor processing device [0003; 0047, Fig. 4] to discharge gases and control a pressure in the process chamber, comprising: a switching device PV-1/PV-2; a first pressure control mechanism (line and components along 406); and a second pressure control mechanism (line and components along 404); wherein the switching device is connected to the process chamber 402, and is connected to the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism for switching between the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism to discharge the gases and control the pressure in the process chamber (as shown in Fig. 4); the first pressure control mechanism includes a first pressure control pipeline 406 and a first controller 432, and the first pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the first controller is disposed at the first pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a first pressure when the first pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit for pressure control); and the second pressure control mechanism includes a second pressure control pipeline 404 and a second controller 422, and the second pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the second controller is disposed at the second pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a second pressure when the second pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit from the controller therein) [0022-0068].
Verdict does not expressly teach the second pressure is greater than the first pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the second pressure is greater than the first pressure, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Verdict teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes an exhaust device 450, the exhaust device is connected to the first pressure control pipeline, and the first controller is used to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber [0024-0038].
In regards to Claim 14, Verdict teaches a semiconductor processing device Fig. 4, comprising a process chamber and an exhaust system a connected to the process chamber in a semiconductor processing device to discharge gases and control a pressure in the process chamber (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the exhaust system comprises: a switching device PV-1/PV-2; a first pressure control mechanism (line and components along 406); and a second pressure control mechanism (line and components along 404); wherein the switching device is connected to the process chamber 402, and is connected to the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism for switching between the first pressure control mechanism and the second pressure control mechanism to discharge the gases and control the pressure in the process chamber (as shown in Fig. 4); the first pressure control mechanism includes a first pressure control pipeline 406 and a first controller 432, and the first pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the first controller is disposed at the first pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a first pressure when the first pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit for pressure control); and the second pressure control mechanism includes a second pressure control pipeline 404 and a second controller 422, and the second pressure control pipeline is connected to the switching device and is used to discharge the gases in the process chamber; the second controller is disposed at the second pressure control pipeline to control the process chamber to maintain a second pressure when the second pressure control pipeline discharges the gases (implicit from the controller therein) [0022-0068].
Verdict does not expressly teach the second pressure is greater than the first pressure.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the second pressure is greater than the first pressure, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 15, Verdict teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes an exhaust device 450, the exhaust device is connected to the first pressure control pipeline, and the first controller is used to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber [0024-0038].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the exhaust device to discharge the gases in the process chamber, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict and that of the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2012/0304930 to Verdict in view of United States Patent Application No. 20200240012 to Uchida et al.
The teachings of Verdict are relied upon as set forth above.
In regards to Claims 3 and 16, Verdict teaches the first pressure control pipeline includes a first exhaust pipe 406 and a exhaust pipe downstream of the throttle valve 432, one end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to the switching device PV1/PV2, and the other end of the first exhaust pipe is connected to one end of the exhaust pipe; the other end of the exhaust pipe is connected to the exhaust device 450; and the first controller is arranged at one of the first exhaust pipe and the exhaust pipe (as it is in between the two in Verdict), or at a connection between the first exhaust pipe and the exhaust pipe (as it is in between the two in Fig. 4).
Verdict does not teach the exhaust pipe downstream of the controller is a variable diameter exhaust pipe.
Uchida teaches that a portion of the pipe downstream of the controller can have a variable diameter, as shown in the above annotated copy of Fig. 2.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the pipe portion that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a varying diameter or in this case, a conical pipe. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 4 and 17, Verdict teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes a detection component 409, 426 (manometer, which is disposed at the first exhaust pipe and is used to detect a pressure signal in the first exhaust pipe, and the first controller is used to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal [0038; implicit, system controllers, 0022-0068].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to control the pressure in the process chamber according to the pressure signal, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claims 5 and 18, Verdict teaches the detection component includes a first detection component 409 and a second detection component 426, the first detection component and the second detection component are arranged at the first exhaust pipe, the second detection component is located on a side of the first detection component facing away from the switching device, and the first detection component has a detection range greater than a detection range of the second detection component, as broadly recited as 409 is measuring a greater range of pressure being upstream of the exhaust line.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have a detection range or detect a range that is greater than another, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida and that of the claim.
In regards to Claims 6 and 19, Verdict teaches the first pressure control mechanism further includes a pressure differential detection component (leak check ports 180, 182), two ends of the pressure differential detection component are respectively connected to the first pressure control pipeline and the second pressure control pipeline (as shown in Fig. 1, but omitted in Fig. 4), for detecting a pressure difference signal between the two; and when the pressure difference signal reaches a first threshold, the switching device switches from discharging through the first pressure control pipeline to discharging through the second pressure control pipeline, and the first controller is turned off, as generally disclosed in [0025].
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have a detection range or detect a range that is greater than another, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Verdict in view of Uchida and that of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-15 and 20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, does not expressly teach a switch with an air inlet, an air outlet, and a main body with a piston that sides and selectively connects the air inlet and the air outlet connected to the exhaust control pipelines as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 6383300 to Saito which teaches an exhaust system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights