DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakamura (JP H05222404 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a retort for thermally processing sinterable objects, comprising:
a retort body having an interior cavity (Fig. 2, 20) configured to receive at least one part for sintering;
the retort body including a retort inlet (Fig. 2, gas inlet of chamber 21) and a retort outlet (Fig. 2, gas outlet of chamber 22);
wherein the retort inlet is configured to be fluidly connected to a process gas inlet tube (Fig. 2, 25) and receive a flow of process gas;
wherein the retort inlet is fluidly connected (Fig. 2, connected via inlets 17a) to the interior cavity;
wherein the interior cavity is fluidly connected (Fig. 2, connected via outlets 18a) to the retort outlet; and
wherein the retort outlet is configured to be fluidly connected to an effluent gas outlet tube (Fig. 2, 26) via a Peclet sealing element (24) (Fig. 2 shows a tubular exhaust port 24 that is long in length relative to its diameter, as defined in para. 47 of the present application) (see middle of pg. 3 of the English translation disclosing where the Peclet sealing element has a seal material 27 to prevent gas leak or air entry).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 1 wherein the retort body is formed from a base plate (Fig. 2, 13), a lid (Fig. 1, 16) and a plurality of retort elements (Fig. 2, 31) stacked therebetween.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 1 wherein the Peclet sealing element (Fig. 2, 24) extends into an outlet plenum (Fig. 2, plenum defined by pallets 11 and the bottom surface of the base plate 13) from a wall (13) of the retort outlet.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 4 wherein the Peclet sealing element (Fig. 2, 24) extends from the wall (Fig. 2, 13) of the retort outlet towards the effluent gas outlet tube (Fig. 2, 26).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 1 wherein the retort inlet includes a sealing element (Fig. 2, 23+27) configured to engage an interior surface of the process gas inlet tube (Fig. 2, 25)
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted) a method of thermally processing sinterable objects, comprising: disposing an object in a retort having a retort inlet, an internal cavity and a retort outlet incorporating a Peclet sealing element; disposing the retort in a furnace (1) and conducting a thermal process within the retort (English translation, para. 2); and providing a flow of process gas through the retort inlet (English translation, second to last paragraph on pg. 3), the internal cavity where the process gas interacts with object and exits through the Peclet sealing element of the retort outlet (English translation, second to last paragraph on pg. 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP H05222404 A)
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura fails to disclose the retort of claim 2 wherein an outer layer of the retort body has a thickness selected such that a first permeation rate of contaminants through the outer layer is at least one order of magnitude less than a second permeation rate of contaminants between two of a plurality of stacked shelves.
However, this limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. First, Nakamura discloses the general condition where an outer layer (Fig. 2, 31a) is thicker than the layer of the shelf (Fig. 2, 31). Second, it is known that the thickness of a material is inversely proportion to the permeation rate through the material. Third, having a second permeation rate that is higher than the first permeation rate ensures that more of the carrier gas flows over the sinterable object, and not discharged to the retort outlet (see paras 2 and 7 discussing the importance of having the carrier gas flow over the sinterable object).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP H05222404 A) in view of Kanemitsu (TW I750227 B).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura fails to disclose the retort of claim 1 further comprising a fore volume shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet tube over a cleansing object in a flow path to the interior cavity.
However, Kanemitsu teaches an oven for sintering, comprising a fore volume (Fig. 1, 5) shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet (Fig. 1, 21) over a cleansing object (Fig. 1, 4) in a flow path to the interior cavity (Fig. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Nakamura to include a fore volume shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet tube over a cleansing object in a flow path to the interior cavity. The motivation to combine is so that the process gas is cleansed of dust and contaminants before contacting the sinterable object. The result is improved quality of the object.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP H05222404 A) in view of Wyttenbach (US 20140050658 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses a retort for thermally processing sinterable objects (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted), comprising:
a base plate (Fig. 2, 11+13) having a retort inlet and a retort outlet, the retort outlet incorporating a peclet sealing element, the base plate further having a fore volume (volume defined by the base plate 11+13);
a plurality of shelf units (Fig. 2, 31) successively stacked upon one another while a bottom-most one of the plurality of shelf units engages the base plate (Fig. 2), wherein each shelf unit includes an inlet plenum region (Fig. 2, 21), an outlet plenum region (Fig. 2, 22) and an interior cavity configured to receive an object to be sintered;
wherein when the base plate, the plurality of shelves and the top plate are assembled together to form a retort assembly, the retort assembly includes a process gas flow path through the retort inlet to the fore volume, from the fore volume to the inlet plenum, from the inlet plenum to the interior cavities of the plurality of shelf units, from the plurality of interior cavities to the plenum outlet and from the plenum outlet to the retort outlet through the Peclet sealing element.
Nakamura fails to disclose:
wherein when successively stacked upon one another the inlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an inlet plenum and the outlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an outlet plenum; and
a top plate configured to engage with an upper-most one of the plurality shelf units.
Wyttenbach teaches a solid/heat transfer gas reactor, comprising:
a plurality of shelf units (Fig. 6, 1);
wherein when successively stacked upon one another the inlet plenum regions (Fig. 6, 12) of the shelf units form an inlet plenum (Fig. 8, 122) and the outlet plenum regions (Fig. 6, 14) of the shelf units form an outlet plenum (Fig. 8, 114); and
a top plate (Fig. 6, 102) configured to engage with an upper-most one of the plurality shelf units.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Nakamura wherein when successively stacked upon one another the inlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an inlet plenum and the outlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an outlet plenum; and a top plate configured to engage with an upper-most one of the plurality shelf units. The motivation to combine to make the retort modular in design is to facilitate the installation, manufacture, expansion of the retort, and more (see paras. 16, 18 of Wyttenbach).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura fails to disclose the retort of claim 16 wherein an outer layer of the retort body has a thickness selected such that a first permeation rate of contaminants through the outer layer is at least one order of magnitude less than a second permeation rate of contaminants between two of the plurality of stacked shelves.
However, this limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. First, Nakamura discloses the general condition where an outer layer (Fig. 2, 31a) is thicker than the layer of the shelf (Fig. 2, 31). Second, it is known that the thickness of a material is inversely proportion to the permeation rate through the material. Third, having a second permeation rate that is higher than the first permeation rate ensures that more of the carrier gas flows over the sinterable object, and not discharged to the retort outlet (see paras 2 and 7 discussing the importance of having the carrier gas flow over the sinterable object).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 16 wherein the Peclet sealing element extends into the outlet plenum from a wall of the retort outlet (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 18 wherein the Peclet sealing element extends from the wall of the retort outlet towards an effluent gas outlet tube (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura discloses the retort of claim 16 wherein the retort inlet includes a sealing element configured to engage an interior surface of the process gas inlet tube (see rejection of claim 7).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP H05222404 A) in view of in view of Wyttenbach (US 20140050658 A1), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Kanemitsu (TW I750227 B).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura fails to disclose the retort of claim 16 wherein the fore volume is shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet tube over the cleansing object in a flow path to the inlet plenum.
However, Kanemitsu teaches an oven for sintering, comprising a fore volume (Fig. 1, 5) shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet (Fig. 1, 21) over a cleansing object (Fig. 1, 4) in a flow path to the inlet plenum (Fig. 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Nakamura to include a fore volume is shaped to facilitate the flow of the process gas from the process gas inlet tube over the cleansing object in a flow path to the inlet plenum. The motivation to combine is so that the process gas is cleansed of dust and contaminants before contacting the sinterable object. The result is improved quality of the object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts on page(s) 5-7 of the Remarks the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The Office Action mapped out which components in Nakamura corresponds to the elements recited in claims 1 and 4. Applicant is welcomed to point out which specific element is not disclosed by Nakamura, or to amend the claims to further distinguish the invention from the prior art.
According to para. 47 of Applicant’s specification, a Peclet seal is a seal that is long relative to its cross-section, and with an outflow through the tubing of a process gas that prevents backflow or diffusion of contaminants and ambient air through the tubing. Nakamura discloses a seal (24) that is long in length relative to its diameter (Fig. 2), and gases exit through the tubing to prevent backflow. Moreover, its performance can be defined by a Peclet number Pe = u x L/D, where u is gas velocity, L is length of the tube, and D is the diffusivity of the exhaust. Therefore, the cited seal in Nakamura meets the definition of a Peclet seal provided by Applicant’s Specification.
Applicant further asserts that the outlet-integrated configuration is not present or suggested in Nakamura, that a Peclet seal operates based on flow dynamics rather than by compression, and a Peclet sealing element is active and flow-based.
First, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to further define the structure and/or function of the Peclet seal to better distinguish it from Nakamura’s seal. Second, there is nothing in Applicant’s specification that states that a Peclet seal cannot also operate via compression. And third, Nakamura’s seal is active and flow based because an exhaust gas travels through the seal.
Applicant asserts on page(s) 8 of the Remarks the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
192
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Wyttenback was used to teach wherein when successively stacked upon one another the inlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an inlet plenum and the outlet plenum regions of the shelf units form an outlet plenum; and a top plate configured to engage with an upper-most one of the plurality shelf units. It was not used to teach a sealed, atmosphere-containing stacking arrangement.
Applicant asserts on page(s) 8 of the Remarks the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
310
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Regarding the airtight plenums, Applicant appears to be arguing subject matter that is not claimed. 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).
Applicant’s argument of non-analogous art is not persuasive since Nakamura discloses a sintering furnace where a circulating gas interacts with a solid to treat the solid. Wyteenbach relates to the field of solid/heat-transfer gas reactors, in which a chemical or physical reaction between a solid and a gas is provided, such as for example a thermochemical reaction or a physical adsorption/desorption reaction. Therefore, they are both in the same field of endeavor.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762