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 .
Claims 1 – 11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 is/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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the step of “heating a processing container…” and the limitation “a state in which the processing container is heated”. It is unclear by the claim if both limitations are the same or if the second one if referred back to the “heating a processing container…”. Revising the original specification, Fig. 14 shows steps S203, S204, and S205, related to “heating” and para[0114] discloses “the controller 61 heats the processing space 311 of the processing container 31 by using the heater 51 (step S203). Thereby, the temperature of the processing container 31 increases. Heating by the heater 51 is continued until step S210 is completed”. Thus, it is also unclear by the original written description of the invention if the element “heating a processing container…” and “a state in which the processing container is heated…” are different terminology referred to the same meaning. It is also known that when matter is heated, it changes from one state of matter to another. Is in this way, the element “state” is used in the claim? Since the terms are not clearly defined by the claim, by the written description and common knowledge, clarification and amendment are kindly requested.
Claims 2 – 8 are also rejected for depending on claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the step of “heating the processing container…” and the limitation “a state in which the processing container is heated”. It is unclear by the claim if both limitations are the same or if the second one if referred back to the “heating the processing container…”. Revising the original specification, Fig. 14 shows steps S203, S204, and S205, related to “heating” and para[0114] discloses “the controller 61 heats the processing space 311 of the processing container 31 by using the heater 51 (step S203). Thereby, the temperature of the processing container 31 increases. Heating by the heater 51 is continued until step S210 is completed”. Thus, it is also unclear by the original written description of the invention if the element “heating the processing container…” and “a state in which the processing container is heated…” are different terminology referred to the same meaning. It is also known that when matter is heated, it changes from one state of matter to another. Is in this way, the element “state” is used in the claim? Since the terms are not clearly defined by the claim, by the written description and common knowledge, clarification and amendment are kindly requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “a jig of a substrate shape which is loaded into the processing container, in a state in which the processing container is heated, and is provided with a distance sensor configured to measure a distance to a ceiling surface of the processing container and a memory configured to store a measured value from the distance sensor” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is allowed as it further limit claim 9.
Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claims 2 – 8, the claims would be allowable as they further limit claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kasberger et al. (US 2025/0264343 A1) suggest a sensor for measurement of distance or position, in particular a capacitive or inductive or eddy-current effect sensor, having a carrier and a sensor element disposed on the carrier or integrated into the carrier (see claim 1).
Cloutier et al. (US 11,125,795 B2) disclose a capacitive sensor having a sensing body having at least two layers of electrically conductive material positioned parallel to one another and electrically insulating media between the at least two electrically conductive layers, the sensing body having a thickness normal to the electrically conductive layers, the sensing body having at least one aperture formed across its thickness and allowing fluid flow circulation therethrough (see claim 1).
Rohner et al. (US 12,085,386 B2) teach a capacitive distance measuring sensor for measuring a distance to an object, wherein the capacitive distance sensor comprises: at least one first planar sensor electrode, wherein the at least one first planar sensor electrode is designed, together with an opposite area of the object, to form a capacitance dependent on the distance, such that the distance is determined on the basis of a capacitance measurement (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights