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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 6/19/26 has been entered. Claims 14-21, 23, 25, 27-28, 30-31, and 37 are currently pending examination, claims 1-13, 22, 24, 26, 29, and 32-36 have been canceled.
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 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.
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.
Claims 14-15, 17-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH04118168 (provided in 2/20/20 IDS; hereafter JPH) in view of Dany (US 2,819,889; hereafter Dany), Robbin (DE102015006098; provided in 7/11/19 IDS; hereafter Robbin), and Bruckner (US 2013/0167395; hereafter Bruckner).
Claim 14: JPH teaches a method for treating a workpiece comprising: conveying a workpiece through a treatment tunnel by means of a conveyor system comprising a trolley (See, for example, [0001-0004], Fig 1-2),
each trolley (F) comprises a chassis (21) and a securing device Fa) for at least one workpiece which are coupled together by means of a coupling device (Fb), the treatment tunnel having a floor with a first opening through which the coupling device extends (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0009-0010]).
Providing a guidance zone (20) with a driving area for the chassis outside the treatment tunnel (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0009-0010]).
arranging a gas compartment in the guidance zone adjacent to the treatment tunnel, and delimited by a separate housing (such as area bordered / enclosed by at least some portion of walls 14L and 14R which frame air curtain) comprising a barrier, (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1).
JPH teaches the gas compartment being positioned above a top portion of the guidance zone ( driving area) beneath the treatment tunnel (See, for example, Fig 1), but doesn’t explicitly teach the gas compartment and the barrier extending from the underside of the floor into the guidance zone. Dany teaches a method of improving the sealing a conveyance slot through which an externally mounted conveyance means passes (See, for example, col 1 lines 15-20). Dany like JPH similarly teaches wherein the sealing comprises the use of an air curtain (See, for example, col 2 lines 1-10); further wherein though exemplary depicted as sealing a roof slot, there is explicit teaching to its use to seal a slot in the bottom of the treatment tunnel (see, for example, col 4 lines 37-40). Dany further teaches wherein the air curtain sealing means comprises a separate housing comprising a barrier having an opening therein and which has been positioned between the outside wall of the treatment tunnel and the top portion (closest to said outside wall) of the driving area to achieve such improved sealing (See, for example, Fig 1-3, col 2 lines 1-31, col 3 lines 55-75). As both JPH and Dany are directed to sealing conveyance slots between treatment tunnels and guidance zones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated positioning the gas compartment with its associated housing and barriers extending from the underside of the floor into the guidance zone (with respect to JPH this being the underside of the floor) and a top portion of the driving area as such an orientation achieves the predictable result of forming an air curtain to improve the sealing between the treatment tunnel and the driving area and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
JPH doesn’t explicitly teach passing a plurality of workpieces through the tunnel by mean comprising a plurality of trolleys. Robbin similarly is concerned with providing barrier means between the treatment tunnel and the driving area to prevent passage of damaging materials there between (See, for example, Fig 4-6, [0053-0060]). Robbin teaches the method for treating comprise passing a plurality of workpieces through a treatment tunnel by means of a conveyor system comprising a plurality of trolleys (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1-10, [0001]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated treating plurality of workpieces by a conveyor system comprising a plurality of trolleys as such plural component systems are known in the art to achieve treatment for a plurality of workpieces and as such an incorporation would predictably improve process output by allowing more than singular workpiece to be processed, additionally, it is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Additionally /Alternatively, with respect to the claimed feature of the guidance zone being “delimited by a separate housing”, Robbin further teaches wherein positioning a sealing / shielding means at the bottom of the furnace tunnel (brushes 106 a/b) and the top of the driving area (108 a/b) can predictably shield / seal the tunnel and driving areas from another (See, for example, [0053], [0060]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated sealing brushes at the bottom of the furnace tunnel and top of the driving area as such means would predictably improve sealing / separation between the tunnel and driving areas. By such incorporation, the housing would further be delimited by the extending brushes.
With respect to the added limitation of the housing comprising a barrier having a first portion and a second portion and an opening therebetween; wherein each of the first portion and the second portion includes a first segment and a second segment, wherein the first segment of each of the first portion and the second portion extends downwards from the underside of the tunnel floor; the second segment of each of the first portion and the second portion extending laterally from an end of the first segment in a direction towards the first opening relative to the first segment so that a second opening is formed between the two second segments
refer to the following figure based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin:
[AltContent: textbox (Gap between underside of floor and each 2nd segment, allowing for them to be spaced apart therefrom)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the vertical portions depicted portions are identified as first segments of first / second portions and horizontal features of the extending brushes would read on the second segment of first / second portion. Additionally / alternatively it is noted that orientation of such features is readily optimizable since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
Per the above combination the third opening (air curtain inlet) is formed in the first portion so that a gas barrier is created between the treatment tunnel and the driving area, the gas barrier flowing into the gas compartment through the third opening in a first direction across the second opening (opening between the two second segments). Though Dany does further teach that is it known in the art for compartment features to be designed to create turbulence (See, for example, col 4 lines 21-36), they do not explicitly teach redirection of the flow by the first segment of the first portion or of the second portion to flow back across the first opening. Bruckner teaches a method for treating workpieces including the design, and use of an air curtain to reduce transfer of matter therebetween (See, for example, abstract, Fig [0015]). Bruckner teaches wherein by passing redirected air flows in opposing directions across opposing openings that inflow and outflow of air / atmospheres can be very substantially reduced (See, for example, [0015], [0025-33]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated redirection of the flow by the first segment of the first portion or of the second portion to flow back across the first opening since such redirected air flow essentially creates two air curtains which would very substantially reduce atmospheric transfer among the adjacent volumes.
Claim 15: PH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach whereinrein the gas compartment is connected via a first connecting passage with the treatment tunnel (such as area /interface between the volume where the air curtain passes and the interior of the furnace; further such as opening between brushes 106a/b)) and via a second opening formed as a second connecting passage with the driving area (such as area /interface between the volume where the air curtain passes and the top of the driving area; further such as opening between brushes 108a/b) (See, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH and Fig 6F Robbin),
wherein the chassis of a trolley in the driving area is movable and in the process the securing device is also taken into the treatment tunnel and the coupling device extends through the first and the second connecting passage and the gas compartment (see, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH; and Figures of Robbin).
Claim 17: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein the gas compartment is configured as a flow compartment, wherein the gas compartment housing to this end comprises one or more gas inlets (31a) and one or more gas outlets (31b) (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1 of JPH see too feature 21 of Bruckner).
Claim 18: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 15 above and further teach wherein the gas compartment is supplied by one or more gas inlets (31a) with gas for the gas barrier, which flows through the gas compartment along a flow path and in doing so in the gas compartment at least in part and at least in certain areas flows past a first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage (refer to rejection of claim 15) and thereafter is discharged through one or more gas outlets (31b) from the gas compartment (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1 of JPH).
Claim 19: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 18 above and further teach wherein over a full longitudinal extension of the first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage the gas barrier flows at least in part past these (see, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH wherein the air curtain / shielding means is formed over the entire length of the wall, thus it would span the full longitudinal extension of the passages, Robbin similarly teaches wherein the shielding means are desired along the full length of the tunnel [0055])).
Claim 20. JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 15 above and further teach wherein a flow section for the gas barrier is reduced, before gas of the gas barrier flows past the first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage, by means of a flow guiding device (see, for example, Fig 1 of JPH wherein at origin of 30a the gas source flow is shown as being reduced in area (depicted as going from circular in cross-section to rectangular)).
Claim 21: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 20 above and further teach wherein the flow guiding device comprises flow guiding elements (such as the narrowing walls at the narrowing interface of the air curtain origin 30a of Fig 1 of JPH).
Claim 23: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein the gas to be supplied to the gas compartment is conditioned by means of a conditioning device (such as an air circulation pipe, an air pump, and air cleaner and the like) (See, for example, [0010] of JPH).
Claim 25: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach the step of arranging a flow guiding device in the gas compartment (such as the narrowing walls at the narrowing interface of the air curtain origin 30a of Fig 1 of JPH) for forming flow slots between the low guiding device and the underside of the floor of the treatment tunnel (see, for example, Fig 1 of JPH and combination with Dany and Robbin applied to claim 14 above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH in view of Dany, Robbin, and Bruckner as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2006/0110280; hereafter Nelson).
Claim 16: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein in the purpose of the air curtain in the gas compartment is to shield the environments of the furnace and the driving areas from one another (See, for example, [0003-0004], [0019] of JPH), but is silent as to the relative pressure between the areas, so it does not explicitly teach the gas compartment develops a pressure that is higher than the pressure in the treatment tunnel and/or the pressure in the driving area. Nelson is directed to tunnel treatment systems comprising gas flow systems (See, for example, abstract, further to supplying of air curtains (See, for example, [0064]). Nelson further teaches use of air curtains as shielding means between environments (see, for example, Fig 2 [0064]). Nelson further teaches in order for air curtains to prevent passage of bordering environments, the curtain should be provided a positive pressure higher than the pressure in these bordering environments (See, for example, [0064]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated developing a pressure in the gas compartment that is higher than the pressure in the treatment tunnel and/or the pressure in the driving area as such a pressure would predictably enable the air curtain to achieve the desired benefit of shielding / preventing escape of the bordering environments through the curtain / gas compartment.
Claim 27-28, 30-31, and 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH in view of Dany, Robbin, and Nelson {Bruckner is cited solely as evidence}.
Claims 27 and 28: refer to the portions of the rejection of claim 14 relying solely on JPH in view of Dany and Robbin with respect to teaching conveying, providing a guidance zone, and generating limitations of claim 27, and the additional teaching of Nelson further relied upon in the rejection of claim 16 above for pressurization of the gas barrier. With respect to the resulting property of gas exiting the gas compartment and entering the treatment tunnel and driving area forming a portion of the respective atmospheres, {Bruckner} explicitly evidences that it is not possible to completely prevent inflow and outflow of atmosphere from chambers and associated air curtains (See, for example, [0007]) so at least some volume of gas would exit the gas compartment and form at least some portion of the respective adjacent atmospheres. Additionally / alternatively as gas barrier volume is in a more pressurized state (due to the teaching of Nelson) than the adjacent environments flow naturally occurs from a space of higher pressure volume to lower pressure volume according to fundamental principles of fluid dynamics / pressure equalization of gradients / diffusion.
With the remaining limitations refer again to the above annotated figure based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin, and the below annotated Figure. The gas compartment is as depicted between the tunnel housing (above) and the guidance zone (below) wherein a first connecting passage can be interpreted as all or some portion of the gap formed between the upper brush structures, and the second connecting passage can be interpreted as a lower portion (taken horizontally) of the gap formed between the lower brush structures. The gas compartment having a gas entrance (see as annotated below), and a gas exit (opposing / mirrored port, depicted above and correspondingly identified following designations below). Providing a flow guiding device within the gas compartment (as annotated in Fig below). Positioning the flow guiding device so that at least one flow slot is formed between the flow guiding device and the first connecting passage (flow slot is interpreted as space between the upper surface of the flow guiding device and the first connecting passage). A first portion of the flow guiding device is positioned vertically between the gas entrance and the second connecting passage (see Figure below). A second portion of the flow guiding device is positioned vertically between the second connecting passage and the gas exit (consider Figure below, and correspondingly designate the mirrored components on the opposing end).
PNG
media_image2.png
525
1143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 30-31: refer further to the rejection of claim 14 above including the first annotated figure, and Fig 1 of JPH.
Claim 37: Refer again to the above annotated figures based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin; wherein the flow guiding device comprises a first element (such as an upper portion (taken horizontally) of the lower left brush structure) spaced apart from a second element (such as an upper portion (taken horizontally) of the lower right brush structure) wherein the first element is positioned on a first side of the second connecting passage and the second element is positioned on a second side of the second connecting passage (refer to the figures based on these designations). A flow guide opening (gap there between these two upper portions) is formed between the first element and the second element, the flow guide opening being positioned below the at least one flow slot (flow slot is above and passes over the gap between the two upper portions of the brushes, see rejection of claim 27 above and the annotated figures based on the above designations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 6/19/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) rejections of the claims, therefore these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments directed to the art rejections filed 6/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that JPH requires an air vent opposite the air inlet, and that incorporation of the concept of Bruckner would eliminate the vent and require a fundamental redesign. The examiner disagrees. First, though JPH has taught a vent, there is no explicit teaching in JPH that such a feature must be maintained in any particular configuration, thus such a feature is ripe for optimization / alteration to achieve the disclosed benefits as articulated in Bruckner. Second, even assuming an outlet vent is requisite (which the examiner does not concede), the teaching of Bruckner similarly contains an outlet venting means (21), thus it would not fundamentally alter JPH, as venting could be retained. Applicant further argues there would be no room for such a reconfiguration and that the prior art does not explicitly provide how the system of Bruckner would fit into the system of JPH, further arguing the structure is confined to residing within the floor. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As described in the rejection above, by combination, the gas compartment is not limited to being in the floor of the treatment chamber, but rather extending downwards from the underside of the tunnel floor, thus making applicant’s argument moot as the prior art is not limited to solely within the floor. Secondly, JPH does not explicitly disclose that the drawings are to scale, per MPEP 2125 II. “Proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawing are not to scale”, thus arguments to limitations on sizing are not convincing as such sizing is not rigid. Further with respect to lack of explicit directions as to an exact blueprint to installing such a combination, such explicit step by step guidance is not requisite to motivate incorporation of the improving concept / features: “The [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) see also id. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the gas is not passively redirected by a wall segment”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only requires the first segment participates in redirection, it does not exclude active augmentation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the structure and teaching of Bruckner with respect to claim(s) 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on incorporation of argued air curtain structure from Bruckner, instead Bruckner is solely relied upon as an evidentiary reference.
With respect to Applicant’s additional arguments about flow guiding structure not being located inside the gas compartment, and newly amended content (directed to vertical portions), the examiner has added a second annotated Figure (above) to aid in the present interpretation of features / explanation of the examiners position; wherein the gas compartment can be interpreted as surrounding the flow guiding structure present therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights