CTNF 18/733,073 CTNF 87926 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cylindrical sidewall in combination with the bottom plate including a substantially rectangular portion and a protruding portion protruding outward in a horizontal direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note that Fig 1 shows the sidewall but does not show it in a manner that indicates it is cylindrical. No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The term “substantially rectangular” is interpreted consistent with Fig 11 of the instant specification as rectangular with corners that may be a different shape than 90 degree angle (e.g. cut/clipped or rounded corners) because Fig 11 shows cut/clipped corners. The term “exhaust port” is inclusive of an opening through which an upper or chamber end of an exhaust pipe may extend or be connected to or the upper or chamber end of the exhaust pipe extending into the bottom plate. 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ lifting mechanism ” in claim 9-25 interpreted as a shaft and actuator [0027] and equivalents thereof. “ exhaust mechanism ” in claim 9-25 for which no corresponding structure was identified. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 9-25 are 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. Claim 9 and 19 include the term “exhaust mechanism”. As indicated in the claim interpretation section above, “exhaust mechanism” has been interpreted as invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). No corresponding structure was identified because the specification merely recites “exhaust mechanism” (see [0035], [0040], [0042]) but fails to recite a structure and the drawings merely show a circular structure 80 which is not a recognized specific structure or shape to indicate what is the corresponding structure. Therefore, no corresponding structure has been disclosed. Because no corresponding structure was disclosed, the instant claim lacks adequate written description (MPEP 2818 IV). The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9-25 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 9 and 19 limitation “exhaust mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure was identified because the specification merely recites “exhaust mechanism” (see [0035], [0040], [0042]) but fails to recite a structure and the drawings merely show a circular structure 80 which is not a recognized specific structure or shape to indicate what is the corresponding structure. Therefore, no corresponding structure has been disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purpose of examination on the merits, any structure which performs the function of exhausting an interior of the processing container will be interpreted as meeting the claimed “exhaust mechanism”. This is not an indication that the term has a clear corresponding structure. 07-34-23 The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-11, 16, 18-20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0189987 of Amikura et al., hereinafter Amikura, in view of US Patent 585681 of Maydan et al., hereinafter Maydan . Regarding claim 9 and 19, Amikura teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 1), comprising: a processing container (10 Fig 1 [0019]) including: a cylindrical sidewall (20 Fig 1 [0020]); a ceiling plate (top plate 21 Fig 1 [0020]) that covers an upper opening of the cylindrical sidewall [0020]; and a bottom plate (22 Fig 1 [0020]) that covers a lower opening of the cylindrical sidewall [0020], wherein an internal space of the processing container is defined by the cylindrical sidewall, the ceiling plate, and the bottom plate (Fig 1), wherein the bottom plate includes a common exhaust port (connection for pipe 101 Fig 1&3 and [0034]); a first stage (mounting stand 11 Fig 1 [0021]) and a second stage (mounting stand 12 Fig 1 [0021]) that are disposed in the internal space of the processing container (Fig 1 and [0021]); a partition wall (14 Fig 1-2 [0019]) disposed in the internal space of the processing container (Fig 1 and 3) and configured to be vertically movable between an upper position and a lower position [0019], [0027] (see upper position in Fig 1 and lower position in Fig 3), wherein the partition wall includes a first cylindrical portion (one of 40 in Fig 2 [0025]) and a second cylindrical portion (other of 40 in Fig 2 [0025]), wherein when the partition wall is located at the upper position, a first processing space (one of “S” Fig 1 [0026-0030]), which is defined by the first stage and the first cylindrical portion (Fig 1 [0026-0030]), and a second processing space (other of “S” Fig 1 [0026-0030]), which is defined by the second stage and the second cylindrical portion(Fig 1 [0026-0030]), are formed, and wherein the first processing space and the second processing space are in communication with the common exhaust port [0034], [0040]; a lifting mechanism (16 Fig 1, shafts 51, 52 and actuator 50 Fig 1 [0030]) configured to move the partition wall vertically [0030]; and an exhaust mechanism (100 Fig 1) connected to the common exhaust port passing through the bottom plate in a vertical direction (Fig 1) and configured to exhaust an interior of the processing container [0034], [0040]. Amikura fails to teach explicitly that the bottom plate includes a substantially rectangular portion and a protruding portion protruding outward in a horizontal direction from the substantially rectangular portion. Amikura also fails to teach the common exhaust port includes a first portion that passes through the substantially rectangular portion in a vertical direction, and a second portion that passes through the protruding portion in the vertical direction. Regarding the bottom plate includes a substantially rectangular portion and a protruding portion protruding outward in a horizontal direction from the substantially rectangular portion, Amikura teaches a substantially rectangular plan view shape [0020] but fails to demonstrate or specifically disclose the shape of the bottom plate because Amikura only shows a cross sectional side view (Fig 1 & 3). In the same field of endeavor of chambers having two processing regions (abstract, Fig 13), Maydan teaches the bottom plate includes a substantially rectangular portion and a protruding portion protruding outward in a horizontal direction from the substantially rectangular portion (Fig 21, see annotated version below). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom plate of Amikura to include the shape of the bottom plate of Maydan because this bottom plate shape allows for two processing spaces and because Amikura has taught the apparatus is rectangular in plan view. Further the change merely represents a change in shape. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the bottom plate. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Regarding the common exhaust port includes a first portion that passes through the substantially rectangular portion in a vertical direction, and a second portion that passes through the protruding portion in the vertical direction, the combination of Amikura in view of Maydan remains as applied. As part of teaching the shape of the bottom plate, Maydan teaches the exhaust entrance (exhaust port) includes a first portion that passes through the substantially rectangular portion in a vertical direction, and a second portion that passes through the protruding portion in the vertical direction (see annotated Fig 21 below). Note that the port includes at least a portion which is extending vertically as shown by the top down view of Fig 21 of Maydan. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the positioning of the exhaust port as demonstrated by Maydan because Amikura teaches the exhaust line extending through the lower plate (Fig 1 of Amikura, see line 101 and plate 22), which results in an exhaust port passing through the bottom plate, but Amikura fails to teach the positioning beyond indicating it is outward of portions 15 [0034]. Therefore the specific positioning represents a mere rearrangement of parts and Maydan has taught the claimed positioning. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). PNG media_image1.png 755 540 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, Amikura teaches the apparatus further comprising a first shower head (one of 13 Fig 1) and a second shower head (other of 13 Fig 1) that are disposed above the first stage and the second stage (Fig 1, disposed above 11 and 13), respectively, in the processing container, wherein the first processing space is defined by the first shower head, the first stage, and the first cylindrical portion (one of processing space S Fig 1), and wherein the second processing space is defined by the second shower head, the second stage, and the second cylindrical portion (other of processing space S Fig 2). Regarding claim 11, 18, and 20, Amikura teaches the apparatus further comprising a first inner wall (one of 15 Fig 1) and a second inner wall (other of 15 Fig 1) that are disposed on the bottom plate to surround the first stage and the second stage (Fig 1 and [0015]), respectively, wherein a first gap is formed between the first stage and the first inner wall, and a second gap is formed between the second stage and the second inner wall (Fig 1, the stages are 11 and 12 Fig 1). Regarding claim 16 and 24, Amikura teaches the common exhaust port is disposed outside the first inner wall and the second inner wall in a plan view [0034] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-15, 17, 21-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amikura in view of Maydan as applied to claim 11 and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0041061 of Shoji et al., hereinafter Shoji . Regarding claim 12 and 21, Amikura in view of Maydan remains as applied to claim 11 and 20 above. Amikura teaches the first and second inner walls (15 Fig 3) having a cylindrical main body extending vertically and having an inner surface facing the stage (15 Fig 3 and Fig 4), but fails to teach the structures of the inner walls as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing apparatuses (abstract, [0005]), Shoji teaches the inner wall includes protrusions (302 Fig 3B) and grooves (grooves formed as open spaces between the protrusions 302, see Fig 3B) that are formed in an inner surface of the inner wall along the vertical direction (Fig 3B) and arranged alternately along a circumferential direction of the inner wall (grooves formed as open spaces between these protrusions, see Fig 3B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Amikura to include the inner wall of Shoji in place of each of the inner wall of Amikura because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (liner to allow baffled flow of gas being exhausted of Amikura structure 15) for another (liner of Fig 3A-B of Shoji to allow baffled flow of gas being exhausted) to achieve predictable results (indirect flow of gas to the exhaust). Regarding specifically the first and second inner walls, Amikura has taught the first and second inner walls and that they have the same structure, therefore the combination renders obvious both the first and second inner walls having the grooves and protrusions as claimed. Regarding claim 13 and 22, the combination remains as applied to claim 12 and 21 above. As part of the inner wall as applied in the combination as applied to claim 12 and 21, Shoji further teaches slits (208 shown not numbered Fig 3A) formed at lower ends of the grooves (note the claim does not require the slits to be formed in the inner surface). Shoji further teaches the plurality of grooves communicate with the plurality of slits (Fig 3A-B) and form a path extending downward toward the plurality of slits (demonstrated in Fig 2B). The combination as applied therefore teaches the processing space is in communication with the exhaust port (connection to line 101 of Amikura) via the gap (formed between the stage and the inner wall) and the slits (gas flow of the ring of Shoji is through the slits to the exhaust (see Fig 1A-1B). As indicated above, in the combination as applied this is for both inner walls. Also note that Amikura teaches flow from slits of the inner wall (15 Fig 1) to the exhaust [0042]. Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 above. Amikura teaches the partition wall (14 Fig 1) is configured such that when the partition wall is located at the upper position (Fig 1), a gap between the partition wall and the first inner wall and a gap between the partition wall and the second inner wall are blocked hermetically [0028], and wherein the partition wall is configured such that when the partition wall is located at the lower position (14 Fig 3), the partition wall surrounds the first inner wall and the second inner wall (inner walls are 15, surrounded by partition wall 14 Fig 3). Regarding claim 15 and 23, the combination remains as applied to claim 13 and 22 above. The combination fails to explicitly teach the slits are offset from a line between the center of the exhaust pipe and the center of the inner wall. This represents a mere rearrangement of the position of the wall by rotation of the wall. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the structures are not aligned because Amikura teaches the benefit of a blocked flow (Fig 5) and Shoji teaches the benefit of blocked flow [0042-0043] and this represents mere rearrangement of the position of the slits. Regarding claim 17 and 25, the combination remains as applied to claim 12 and 21 above. Amikura teaches slits and grooves (Fig 4) but fails to teach 7 slits and grooves because Amikura teaches 3. The increase to 7 represents a duplication of part and optimization of the number of slits to affect the control of the flow of the exhaust. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include 7 slits and grooves because this is a duplication of parts and an optimization of the flow dynamics of Amikura. Additionally, Shoji teaches the number of openings (slits) can be tuned [0030] and teaches the protrusions (302) may also be selected for the specific flow [0044-0045] . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 9-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,193, hereinafter ‘193 in view of Amikura and Maydan . Claims 1-6 of ‘193 teach all the limitations of instant claims 9-25 except for the processing container having a cylindrical wall, the exhaust mechanism connected to the exhaust port, the shape of the bottom plate, and the positioning of the exhaust port on the bottom plate. Amikura teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 1), comprising: a processing container (10 Fig 1 [0019]) including: a cylindrical sidewall (20 Fig 1 [0020]); a ceiling plate (top plate 21 Fig 1 [0020]) that covers an upper opening of the cylindrical sidewall [0020]; and a bottom plate (22 Fig 1 [0020]) that covers a lower opening of the cylindrical sidewall [0020], wherein an internal space of the processing container is defined by the cylindrical sidewall, the ceiling plate, and the bottom plate (Fig 1), wherein the bottom plate includes a common exhaust port passing through the bottom plate in a vertical direction (connection for pipe 101 Fig 1&3 and [0034]) and an exhaust mechanism (100 Fig 1) connected to the common exhaust port passing through the bottom plate in a vertical direction (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1-6 of ‘193 to include the shapes as taught by Amikura because ‘193 includes the chamber but does not indicate the shape and Amikura as cited above teaches these shapes for the processing chamber. Additionally claims 1-6 of ‘193 teach an exhaust pipe and Amikura teaches the exhaust mechanism is connected to an exhaust pipe to exhaust the processing space [0034]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1’6 of ‘193 to include an exhaust mechanism. Regarding the positioning of the exhaust port and the shape of the bottom plate as claimed, Maydan teaches the bottom plate includes a substantially rectangular portion and a protruding portion protruding outward in a horizontal direction from the substantially rectangular portion (Fig 21, see annotated version above). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1-6 of ‘193 to include the shape of the bottom plate of Maydan because this bottom plate shape allows for two processing spaces. Further the change merely represents a change in shape. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the bottom plate. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding the common exhaust port includes a first portion that passes through the substantially rectangular portion in a vertical direction, and a second portion that passes through the protruding portion in the vertical direction, as part of teaching the shape of the bottom plate, Maydan teaches the exhaust entrance (exhaust port) includes a first portion that passes through the substantially rectangular portion in a vertical direction, and a second portion that passes through the protruding portion in the vertical direction (see annotated Fig 21 below). Note that the port includes at least a portion which is extending vertically as shown by the top down view of Fig 21 of Maydan. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1-6 of ‘193 include the positioning of the exhaust port as demonstrated by Maydan because the specific positioning represents a mere rearrangement of parts and Maydan has taught the claimed positioning . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0037702 teaches a fin structure that rectifies the exhaust gas [0043]. US 2010/0243608 teaches a plurality of protrusions and grooves (Fig 2). US 2016/0027672 demonstrates rectangular processing chamber with elliptical inner wall (Fig 1). US 2007/0281085 teaches two chambers with an exhaust port (Fig 1-2) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30. 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. /MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 5 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 6 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 7 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 8 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 9 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 10 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 11 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 12 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 13 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 14 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 15 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 16 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 17 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 18 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 19 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 20 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 21 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/733,073 Page 22 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights