DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 were filed with the amendment dated 07/21/2026.
Claims 2 and 8 have been canceled.
Claims 10-13 were withdrawn from examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/28/2024. These drawings are acceptable in view of the amendments to the Specification filed 07/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously set forth 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant contends that U.S. Pat. No. 5,853,485 (“Rudolph”) fails to disclose that each gas line from the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (see Remarks at pages 8-9). Applicant states that the cited second plurality of gas lines of Rudolph are coupled to both Rudolph’s’ first main gas line 404 and the second main gas line 424. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, claims 1 and 14 are apparatus claims with open ending “comprising.” Thus, even if the second plurality of gas lines are connected to two of the first plurality of gas lines, the claim would still be met. Second, each gas line (410/412 is one gas line; 430/432 is a second gas line) of the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines. Second gas line 410/412 is coupled to first gas line 404. Second gas line 430/432 is coupled to first gas line 424. Thus, each gas line of the plurality of second gas lines is coupled to one gas line of the first plurality of gas lines.
The rejection is maintained and made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,853,485 (“Rudolph”).
With regard to claim 1, Rudolph discloses an apparatus (Fig 15), comprising: a gas line matrix (gas lines from 410 and 430 to 460, see Fig 15); and an interchange assembly (from 406/426 to 410/430, see Fig 15) coupled to the gas line matrix (see Fig 15), (the distinguishing point between the gas line matrix and the interchange assembly is at 410, 430 for each line; NOTE: the application discloses just a point on the gas line that changes between the gas matrix and interchange assembly shown in Fig 1 of the application, thus as broadly claimed, the gas line matrix begins at 410/430 extending toward 460 and interchange assembly is from gas sources 406/426 extending to 410/430; the coupling at 410/430) wherein the interchange assembly comprises a first plurality of gas lines (404, 424), wherein each gas line (404, 424) comprises a first end (first ends at end of gas line at 410, 430) and a second end (second ends at end of gas line 422, 442); wherein: the first end of each (at 410, 430) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a first axis (horizontal axis, see annotated Fig 15) and the second end of each (at 422, 442) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a second axis (vertical axis), the first axis (horizontal axis) is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15), and the gas line matrix comprises a second plurality of gas lines (one line is from 410/412; other line is from 430 to 432) and each gas line from the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (gas matrix line 410/412 is coupled to gas line 404; gas matrix line 430/432 is coupled to gas line 424) (see annotated Fig 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
934
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, Rudolph discloses that each gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) comprises at least one right angle (line 404 has a right angle as it turns toward 410; line 424 has a right angle as it turns toward 430, and see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 14, Rudolph discloses a system (Fig 15), comprising: a reaction chamber (“reactor volume” 447; col. 13, lines 27-28); an interchange assembly (406/426 to 410/430, see Fig 15); a gas line matrix (gas lines from 410 and 430 toward 460, see Fig 15) coupled between the reaction chamber (447) (see Fig 15) and the interchange assembly (from 406/426 to 410/430, see Fig 15) (the distinguishing point between the gas line matrix and the interchange assembly is at 410, 430 for each line; NOTE: the application discloses just a point on the gas line that changes between the gas matrix and interchange assembly shown in Fig 1 of the application, thus as broadly claimed, the gas line matrix begins at 410/430 extending toward 460 and interchange assembly is from gas sources 406/426 extending to 410/430; the coupling at 410/430), wherein the interchange assembly comprises a first plurality of gas lines (404, 424), wherein each gas line (404, 424) of the first plurality of gas lines comprises a first end (first ends at end of gas line at 410, 430) and a second end (second ends at end of gas line 422, 442; see annotated Figs); wherein the first ends (ends at 410/430) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a first axis (horizontal axis) and the second ends (at 422, 442) of the first plurality of gas lines (404/424) aligns on a second axis (vertical axis), and wherein the first axis (horizontal axis) is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15); wherein the gas line matrix comprises a second plurality of gas lines (one line from 410 toward 412; another gas line from 430 toward 432) and each gas line from the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (2nd gas line 410/412 coupled to 1st gas line 404; and 2nd gas line 430/432 coupled to 1st gas line 424; see Fig 15); and a plurality of vessels coupled to the interchange assembly (vessel is the source for gas line 404 – col 12, line 41-42; “the first reactant gas as indicated by arrow 406”; another vessel is the source for gas line 424 – col. 13, lines 7-8: “second main gas supply line 424 for supplying a second reactant gas as indicated by arrow 426”) (a “vessel” is not shown but it is inherent that a container or vessel is needed in order to supply each of the first and second reactant gases).
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.
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.
Claims 4-7, 9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,853,485 (“Rudolph”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0023500 (“Reese”).
With regard to claim 4, Rudolph discloses that each gas line (404, 424) from the first plurality of gas lines comprises a first section (vertical section of 404; vertical section of 424) coupled to a second section (horizontal section of 404, horizontal section of 424), wherein the first section (vertical sections 404, 424) comprises the first end (at 410, at 430) and the second section (horizontal sections 404, 424) comprises the second end (at ends 422, 442) (see annotated Fig 15).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 5, Rudolph discloses that the first section (vertical sections of 404, 424) is parallel to the second axis (vertical axis) and is perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 6, Rudolph discloses that the second section (horizontal sections of 404, 424) is parallel to the first axis (horizontal axis) and is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 7, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the first section is Z-shaped and the second section is L-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the first section Z-shaped or the second section L-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the first and second sections would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A Z-shaped section is shown by the dotted line in annotated Fig 2, and a L-shaped section is shown by the dashed line in annotated Fig. 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first section of Rudolph be Z-shaped and the second section be L-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shapes of each section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shapes of each section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 9, Rudolph discloses each second section has a length that is different from the other second sections (as shown in annotated Fig 15, the second section (horizontal section) of 424 is longer than the second section (horizontal section) of 404. (see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 15, Rudolph discloses that each gas line (404, 424) from the first plurality of gas lines comprises a first section (vertical section of 404; vertical section of 424) coupled to a second section (horizontal section of 404, horizontal section of 424), and the first section (vertical sections 404, 424) comprises the first end (at 410, at 430) and the second section (horizontal sections 404, 424) comprises the second end (at ends 422, 442) (see annotated Fig 15).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2 of Reese).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 16, Rudolph discloses that the first section (vertical sections of 404, 424) is parallel to the second axis (vertical axis) and is perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal axis) (see annotated Fig 15); and that the second section (horizontal sections of 404, 424) is parallel to the first axis (horizontal axis) and is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 17, Rudolph discloses that each second section has a length that is different from the other second sections (as shown in annotated Fig 15, the second section (horizontal section) of 424 is longer than the second section (horizontal section) of 404. (see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 18, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein each first section is Z-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the first section Z-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the first section would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A Z-shaped section is shown by the dotted line in annotated Fig 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first section of Rudolph be Z-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shape of the first section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shape of the first section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 19, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein each second section is L-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second section L-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the second section would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A L-shaped section is shown by the dashed line in annotated Fig. 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second section of Rudolph be L-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shape of the second section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shape of the second section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 20, Rudolph discloses that each first section (vertical section of 404) is coupled to the corresponding second section (horizontal section of 404), each first section (vertical section of 404) is coupled to the gas matrix (at joint with 410), and each second section (horizontal section of 404) is coupled to a corresponding vessel (source of 406) from the plurality of vessels (vessel is the source for gas line 404 – col 12, line 41-42; “the first reactant gas as indicated by arrow 406”; another vessel is the source for gas line 424 – col. 13, lines 7-8: “second main gas supply line 424 for supplying a second reactant gas as indicated by arrow 426”) (a “vessel” is not shown but it is inherent that a container or vessel is needed in order to supply each of the first and second reactant gases).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector, the first section is coupled to the gas matrix with a second connector, and that the second section is coupled to the vessel with a third connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections or to components via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2 of Reese).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as first, second, third connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines, between the section and gas matrix, and between the second section and vessel of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights