DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 9-11 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.
I- Claim 9 is indefinite because “the first on/off valve” lacks proper antecedent basis.
II- Claim 10 is indefinite because “the second on/off valve” lacks proper antecedent basis.
III- Claim 11 is indefinite because “the predetermined pumping pressure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi 2020/0115801 in view of Kang Sung (KR10-2017-0037918).
Wakabayashi discloses a method of operating a process apparatus including a gas supplier (22), which comprises placing a solid phase reactant in a reactor (12); generating a reaction gas by applying heat (14) to the solid phase reactant (col. 1, para. [0018]); supplying a carrier gas (via element 30) inside the reactor; and transferring the reaction gas to a processor (70); supplying a process gas (50) to be mixed with the reaction gas discharged from the reactor and transferred to the processor as seen in Figure 1; wherein the solid phase reactant comprises at least one of a solid phase or liquid phase volatile material (col. 1, para. [0018]); wherein a controller (110) controls the first on/off valve which blocks and releases the supply of the carrier gas as seen in Figure 1; wherein a controller (110) controls the second on/off valve which blocks and releases the supply of a process gas (50). Wakabayashi et al. lack that applying a pumping pressure to an inside of the reactor by operating a gas pump. Kang Sung teaches the use of applying a pumping pressure to an inside of a reactor (100) by operating a gas pump (310).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to provide the pump of Kang Sung into the apparatus of Wakabayashi, in order to move the gas in a more efficient form.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 8 and 11 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 PM.
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, Paul R. Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754