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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 13 February 2026 has been fully considered. Accordingly, the previous U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 9-13 and 15 are withdrawn. It is acknowledged that claims 1 and 3-18 are amended, claim 2 is canceled, and claims 33-37 have been added by Applicant. This amendment is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “a metering device” and “valves that… isolate the filter device from gas exchange with a reaction chamber” in claim 33, “wherein the oxidation inlet is located to direct a stream of oxidant in a manner to agitate filter residues in the reaction chamber” in claim 34, “wall that delimits a reaction chamber” and “indirectly heat the oxidant prior to its supply” in claim 35, and “the oxidant supply passes through the wall of the reaction unit” in claim 37.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the treatment chamber is within the collection container 6 and therefore cannot be below it. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Fig. 1 of Shutz clearly shows the treatment chamber 8 as separate and below the collection container 6. Applicant also argues that Shutze does not disclose supplying a metered or predefined amount of filter residues to the treatment chamber. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the operation of Shutze is described as a batchwise operation, wherein a discrete quantity of filer residues is introduced, the chamber is sealed, and the material is treated before removal. Such operation necessarily requires limiting the amount of material introduced per cycle to a finite quantity corresponding to the chamber capacity or operational parameters. Further, Applicant argues that Shutze does not discloses the oxidant supply as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this limitation reads, “an oxidant supply and an inlet for supplying an oxidant to the reaction unit”. As pointed out in the rejection below, Shutze discloses “a feed line 5 for raw gas” (see [0028]), which is fully capable of supplying an oxidant, and “oxidation reaction occurs when the treatment chamber is opened and comes into contact with oxygen” (see [0009]), which explicitly discloses an oxidant entering the treatment chamber, which necessarily requires an entrance or inlet for the oxidant supply, in this case oxygen, to enter the treatment chamber. Lastly, Applicant argues that Shutze does not disclose indirect heating of the supplied oxidant prior to its introduction to the reaction chamber. This argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 33-37 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. Specifically, the limitations claiming “a metering device” and “valves that… isolate the filter device from gas exchange with a reaction chamber” in claim 33, “wherein the oxidation inlet is located to direct a stream of oxidant in a manner to agitate filter residues in the reaction chamber” in claim 34, “wall that delimits a reaction chamber” and “indirectly heat the oxidant prior to its supply” (prior to supply, specifically) in claim 35, and “the oxidant supply passes through the wall of the reaction unit” in claim 37 are not supported by the original disclosure. Claim 36 does not comply with the written description requirement by virtue of its dependence on claim 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shutze discloses a passivation device (reduce their chemical reactivity; see [0009]) for passivating filter residues of a filter device (The metallic particles separated by the at least one filter element; see [0007]) arranged in a process gas circuit of an additive manufacturing apparatus (in a generative powder-based manufacturing process; see [0001]), the filter device comprising a particle collection area (collecting container 6; see [0028]) that receives particles filtered from the process gas circuit as the filter residues (A collection container 6 is arranged vertically below the filter elements 2…into which metallic particles cleaned by the filter elements 2 can fall due to gravity; see [0027]), the particle collection area having an opening that discharges the filter residues (the metallic particles can fall from the collection container into the treatment chamber when the first opening is opened; see [0015]), the passivation device comprising: a reaction unit (treatment chamber; see [0008]) positioned below the particle collection area of the filter device (see Fig. 1, Parts 8 and 6), the reaction unit comprising: an oxidant supply (oxidation reaction occurs when the treatment chamber is opened and comes into contact with oxygen; see [0009]) and an inlet for supplying an oxidant to the reaction unit, the oxidant reacting with the filter residues in an exothermic reaction (a feed line 5 for raw gas; see [0028] or “oxidation reaction occurs when the treatment chamber is opened and comes into contact with oxygen”; see [0009]), a coupling unit configured to couple the reaction unit to the particle collection area of the (A treatment chamber is connected to the collection container, or can be connected to it, in the area of the bottom of the collection container; see [0008]) filter device and introduce filter residues into the reaction unit (A powder bed 9 with the separated metallic particles forms in the collecting container 6. A treatment chamber 8 is arranged in the powder bed 9 and is provided with a first opening through which separated metallic particles from the powder bed 9 can enter the treatment chamber 8; see [0028]), the coupling unit comprising at least one portioning unit that selectively closes or opens a passage between the filter device and the reaction unit to respectively prevent or allow the filter residues to pass through the opening of the particle collection area (A gas-tight, sealable first opening is formed at the bottom of the collection container, through which metallic particles separated from the raw gas enter the treatment chamber when a first sealing element releases the first opening; see [0008]), the portioning unit limiting an amount of filter residues that a proportioning unit supplies to the reaction unit to a predefined value (no substances can enter the treatment chamber, or at least not in an uncontrolled manner; see [0010]); a discharge unit configured to discharge passivated filter residues from the reaction unit (metallic particles in the treatment chamber 8 can be discharged. These can be transported in a closed transport container 7 for further treatment or disposal; see [0028]), and an energy supply unit configured to effect the exothermic reaction between the filter residues and the oxidant in the reaction unit (the treatment in the treatment chamber can also be carried out in such a way that a laser beam for agglomerating, sintering and/or melting metallic particles is directed through a window into the treatment chamber onto the metallic particles arranged in the treatment chamber; see [0019]).
Regarding Claim 18, Shutze discloses a passivation device according to claim 1, wherein the coupling unit forms a gas lock (The first and second closure elements should be activated in such a way that at least one closure element is gas-tight in the treatment chamber at all times. The treatment chamber can therefore function like a lock; see [0011] and “The first and second openings are each provided with a fluid-tight closure element”; see [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Ernst (WO-2008079115-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Shutze discloses the passivation device according to claim 1.
Shutze teaches the ability to support a pressure surge (see [0015]), but does not explicitly teach specific pressure capacities of any units. However, Ernst discloses coupling units (vanadium chloride boilers and aluminum chloride boilers; see Pg. 11 Para 2) that are designed to resist a pressure difference of up to 8 bar in the closed state (titanium tetrachloride boilers are maintained at pressures of up to about 800kPa [see Pg. 11 Para 2] and vanadium chloride boilers as well as aluminum chloride boilers are maintained at pressures greater than the titanium tetrachloride boilers [see Pg. 11 Para 2]).
Shutze and Ernst are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of passivation of metal powders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shutze by incorporating the teachings of Ernst and designing the coupling unit to withstand said pressure difference. Doing so would allow for support of a pressure surge, which is common when cleaning filter elements (see Shutze [0015]) and would prevent titanium chloride from backing up into the alloy constituent boilers (see Ernst Pg. 11 Para 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Shutze discloses the passivation device according to claim 1.
Shutze does not explicitly teach a pressure compensation valve. However, Ernst discloses pressure relief valves (PSV) and rupture disks (PSE) within the system (see Pg. 6 Para 2). Ernst does not explicitly teach pressure compensation on the reactor chamber wall itself, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there would be at least one PSV and/or PSE disposed on the reactor as nearly all reactor systems require pressure relief of some sort. Pressure relief is a safety requirement and is understood to be present in all reactor systems, even if not explicitly disclosed.
Regarding Claim 5, Shutze and Ernst together disclose the passivation device according to claim 4. Modified Shutze does not explicitly teach the reaction chamber being configured to resist a pressure difference of up to 8 bar, however this would be necessitated by the coupling unit upstream of the reaction chamber. If the coupling unit is rated to withstand a pressure difference of 8 bar, then the reactor must be configured to withstand the same pressure difference to avoid an overpressure scenario. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the reactor to have the ability to resist a pressure difference that is the same or greater than that of the upstream units.
Regarding Claim 6, Shutze discloses the passivation device according to claim 1.
Shutze does not explicitly teach the reaction unit being a conveying screw. However, Ernst does disclose passivation occurring in a screw conveyer, and therefore the screw conveyer being a reaction unit (It should be understood that material entering the cooling and passivation conveyor 135 is under a protective atmosphere from the heat treatment calciner 130 but exits through the conveyor exit 136 at lower temperatures and with some air being present. An alternative method for passivation is…; see Pg. 13 Para 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included air passivation in the screw conveyer because would provide a lower oxygen concentration (see Ernst Pg. 13 Para 2).
Claims 8-9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Ernst (WO-2008079115-A1) and Screw Conveyor Corporation (Catalog and Engineering Manual).
Regarding Claim 7, Shutze and Ernst together disclose the passivation device according to claim 6.
Modified Shutze does not explicitly teach a reversible conveying screw. However, Screw Conveyor Corporation teaches a conveying screw design wherein a direction of rotation of the conveying screw is switchable (positive material discharge in any desired direction; see Pg. 22).
Modified Schutze discloses the use of a conveying screw (extruder; see Shutze [0032] and “passivation conveyor”; see Ernst Pg. 13 Para 2). KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Also, the claimed screw conveyor design is standard in industry (see Screw Conveyor Corporation, Pg. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to try the design taught by Screw Conveyor Corporation.
Regarding Claim 8, Shutze and Ernst together disclose the passivation device according to claim 6, wherein the conveying screw is formed as a reaction chamber, as explained in the claim 6 rejection.
Modified Shutze does not explicitly teach the exact structure of the conveying screw. However, the claimed limitations describe a very common and typical conveying screw design as shown by Screw Conveyor Corporation. Screw Conveyor Corporation teaches a conveyer screw that comprises a cylindrical screw core surrounded by a screw helix (see Pg. 3 Part A) and a screw tube (see Pg. 3 Part E). By design, the material being conveyed travels inside the screw tube. Therefore, when using a conveying tube as a reaction chamber, as disclosed by Ernst (see claim 6 rejection), the screw tube would have naturally acted as a wall of the reaction chamber.
Modified Schutze discloses the use of a conveying screw (extruder; see Shutze [0032] and “passivation conveyor”; see Ernst Pg. 13 Para 2). KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Also, the claimed screw conveyor design is standard in industry (see Screw Conveyor Corporation, Pg. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to try the design taught by Screw Conveyor Corporation.
Regarding Claim 9, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together disclose the passivation device according to claim 8. Screw Conveyor Corporation further discloses at least one of a depth of a flight (multiple diameter feeder; see Pg. 18), a pitch of a flight (stepped pitch; see Pg. 16), vary along the cylinder axis of the screw core. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shutze by incorporating variations along the screw conveyor, as taught by Screw Conveyor Corporation. Doing so would eliminate dead areas in the bin and reduce the chance of material bridging or spoiling (see Screw Conveyor Corporation, Pg. 19).
Regarding Claim 13, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together discloses the passivation device according to claim 9. Ernst further discloses the inlet being positioned at an oxidation zone near an end of the two ends of the oxidation zone that is closer to the coupling unit (see Fig. 3 Parts 130, 131). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to properly match the inlet temperature (see Ernst, Pg. 11 Para 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together disclose the passivation device according to claim 8. Shutze further discloses a resistance heater being forming the energy supply unit (electrical resistance heater; see [0020]).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Ernst (WO-2008079115-A1), Screw Conveyor Corporation (Catalog and Engineering Manual), and Ullom (US-10731081-B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together discloses the passivation device according to claim 9. Shutze further discloses a conveying screw comprising at least one compression zone (extruder and compression; see [0032]). Ernst further discloses a conveying screw comprising at least on oxidation zone (passivation conveyer; see Pg. 13 Para 2 and “by passivation, it is meant that a small amount of oxygen is introduced to the powder to form titanium dioxide…”; see Pg. 1 Para 5 – Pg. 2 Para 1).
Modified Shutze does not explicitly teach a flight depth being correlated to specific zones. However, Ullom discloses a screw conveyor acting as a reactor (see Abstract), which has a compression zone and reaction zone (see Fig. 1), and wherein the pitch ratio is smaller in the compression zone (pitch ratio in this zone is between 1.5 and 2.0; see Col. 14 Lines 63-64) than in the reaction zone (pitch ratio between 2.0 to 5.0; see Col. 18 Lines 14-15). The pitch ratio can be decreased by either decreasing the flight depth or increasing flight spacing (see Col. 9 Lines 36-45). It is therefore understood that the pitch ratio being smaller in the compression zone can be achieved by using a smaller flight depth in the compression zone, even if Ullom achieves the desired ratios by adjusting flight spacing. The reaction zone taught by Ullom is not explicitly taught to be an oxidizing zone, but when modifying Shutze with Ullom, a reaction zone would logically and naturally correspond to the oxidation zone of Shutze, as the reaction taught by Shutze is an oxidation reaction.
Shutze discloses the use of a screw conveyor (extruder; see Shutze [0032]) and modified Shutze discloses the use of a conveying screw as a reaction chamber (“passivation conveyor”; see Ernst Pg. 13 Para 2). KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to try the screw conveyor design taught by Ullom. Doing so enables adjustment of residence times (see Ullom Col. 9 Lines 43-46).
Regarding Claim 11, Shutze, Ernst, Screw Conveyor Corporation, and Ullom together disclose the passivation device according to claim 10. Ullom further discloses the conveying screw comprising more than one reaction zone (see Col. 9 Lines 53-55). The reaction zones taught by Ullom are not explicitly taught to be oxidizing zones, but when modifying Shutze with Ullom, a reaction zone would logically and naturally correspond to the oxidation zone of Shutze, as the reaction taught by Shutze is an oxidation reaction. This design would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is versatile and adaptable to applications having varied raw material compositions (see Ullom Col. 10 Lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 12, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together discloses the passivation device according to claim 9. Mixing is a natural effect of a screw conveyor, and is therefore implicitly disclosed when disclosing screw conveyors such as those disclosed by Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation. Modified Shutze, however, does not explicitly teach a mixing zone. However, Ullom does disclose at least one mixing zone along the cylinder axis of the screw core (mixing section; see Col. 9 Line 49 and Fig. 1 Zone 4), in which a section of the conveying screw is configured as a mixing element along the cylinder axis (in which a ribbon mixer having open segments with flighting designed to promote mixing; see Col. 9 Lines 50-51). Including a mixing section would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would thoroughly mix the materials (see Ullom Col. 15 Line 57).
Regarding Claim 14, Shutze, Ernst, and Screw Conveyor Corporation together discloses the passivation device according to claim 8. Modified Shutze does not explicitly disclose a the passivation device including a plurality of inlets. However, Ullom does disclose a plurality of inlets (see Fig. 1 Parts 100, 400, and 500). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have allowed for re-injection of materials (see Ullom Col. 11 Lines 8-11).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Ernst (WO-2008079115-A1), Screw Conveyor Corporation (Catalog and Engineering Manual), Ullom (US-10731081-B2), and Repasky et al. (US-8262755-B2), hereinafter “Repasky”.
Regarding Claim 15, Shutze, Ernst, Screw Conveyor Corporation, and Ullom together disclose the passivation device according to claim 11.
Modified Shutze does not explicitly teach multiple inlets associated with multiple oxidation zones. However, Repasky discloses at least one inlet being positioned at each oxidation zone that is present (“one or more reactant interstage feed gas lines, each line being in flow communication with any interstage reactant gas flow path or with the reactant zone of any oxidation stage”; see Abstract and “introducing an oxidant gas into any of the oxidant gas inlet regions of the oxidation stages”; see Col. 5 Lines 6-8).
Shutze and Repasky are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of oxidation reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shutze by incorporating the teachings of Repasky and associating an inlet with every oxidation zone. Doing so allows the reactant conversion in each stage to be controlled and an excess of oxygen can be avoided (see Col. 11 Lines 38-42).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Paternoster et al. (US-20180361662-A1), hereinafter “Paternoster”.
Regarding Claim 17, Shutze discloses a passivation device according to claim 1.
Shutze does not explicitly disclose a porous inlet. However, Paternoster discloses at least on inlet forming as a gas-permeable porous area in the wall of the reaction chamber (the filling chamber comprises a bottom having a porous plate and/or perforated plate through which gas can be guided into the powder container and/or into the filling chamber independently of one another; see [0010]).
Shutze and Paternoster are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shutze by incorporating the teachings of Paternoster and including a porous wall inlet. Doing so would allow for guiding of the gas (see Paternoster [0010]).
Claims 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutze (DE-102017207415-A1) in view of Repasky et al. (US-8262755-B2), hereinafter “Repasky”.
Regarding Claim 33, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1, with a few exceptions which are addressed here. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection for the rationale of the rejection of the shared limitations. Shutze discloses a metering device which controls a flow of oxidant to the reaction unit (a metered supply of oxygen or an oxygen-containing gas mixture is connected to the treatment chamber, with which a predetermined oxygen content or a predetermined oxygen concentration in the treatment chamber can be set; see [0021]), the coupling unit having valves that respectively open and close a channel between the particle collection area (metallic particles separated from the raw gas enter the treatment chamber when a first sealing element releases the first opening; see [0008])and the reaction unit in a manner to isolate the filter device from gas exchange with a reaction chamber (The first and second sealing elements should be activated in such a way that at least one sealing element is gas-tight at all times, thus sealing the treatment chamber; see [0011]).
Shutze does not explicitly teach heating the oxidant flow. However, Repasky discloses a heat source heating the flow of oxidant (preheated air or oxygen is introduced via oxidant inlet line; see Col. 17 Lines 7-9). Regarding the limitation claiming, “to a desired temperature for passivation”, it is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that temperature can be controlled to achieve desired results. The courts have held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so can enable control of temperature to be maintained within required ranges (see Repasky, Col 22 Lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 34, Shutze and Repasky together disclose the passivation device of claim 33. Shutze further discloses wherein the oxidation inlet is located to direct a stream of oxidant in a manner to agitate filter residues in the reaction chamber. The feed should be arranged and designed in such a way that oxygen or a gas mixture flows around the metallic particles. This can go so far that the metallic particles are swirled around in the supplied gas stream; see [0021]).
Regarding Claim 35, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1, with a few exceptions that are addressed here. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection for the rationale of the rejection of the shared limitations. Shutze discloses the reaction unit comprising a wall that delimits a reaction chamber (see Fig. 1, Part 8), and the energy supply unit comprising a heating device arranged on the wall of the reaction unit for providing heat to the reaction chamber, and indirectly to the oxidant entering the reaction chamber (a heating device, in particular an electric resistance heater, can be provided in/on the treatment chamber; see [0020]). Shutze doesn’t disclose heating the oxidant supply prior to entering the reaction chamber. However, Repasky discloses a heating device (upstream heater; see Col. 21 Line 36) configured to heat the oxidant prior to its supply to the reaction chamber (preheated air or oxygen is introduced via oxidant inlet line; see Col. 17 Lines 7-9). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so can enable control of temperature to be maintained within required ranges (see Repasky, Col 22 Lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 36, Shutze and Repasky together disclose the passivation device of claim 35. Shutze further discloses wherein the heating device is provided on an outside of the wall of the reaction unit (a heating device, in particular an electric resistance heater, can be provided on the treatment chamber; see [0020]).
Regarding Claim 37, Shutze and Repasky together disclose the passivation device of claim 35. Repasky further discloses wherein the oxidant supply passes through the wall of the reaction unit (oxidant inlet line 9 into oxidant side of first stage; see Col. 17 Lines 9-10, and Fig. 1 Part 9). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow the oxidant to contact the oxidant side (see Repasky Col. 17 Line 10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights