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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/8/23, 4/7/23, and 1/15/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more leadthroughs must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the first and/or second fluid baffle have, independently of one another, one or more leadthroughs". It is unclear what a baffle leadthrough is. The element is not shown in the drawings or discussed in any detail in the specification. A google search for baffle leadthrough defines it as routing an electrical lead (like a pacemaker wire) or cable through a structural divider (a baffle), most commonly in complex cardiac surgery where artificial baffles direct blood flow, which is likely not the meaning intended by Applicant. A search of the relevant prior art for the terms leadthrough and baffle used together yielded only the instant application. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure is required to enable a baffle leadthrough.
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundolf et al. (DE 10312802 B3), as machine translated, previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Gundolf teaches “a workpiece carrier made of heat-resistant fiber-reinforced ceramic material for heat-treating workpieces arranged on it or received therefrom” (which reads upon “from a material selected from graphite, carbon fiber reinforced carbon (CFRC), oxide ceramic matrix composite (OCMC) or other ceramic material”; paragraph [0001]). Gundolf teaches that “Fig. 1 shows a workpiece carrier 11, which is formed from workpiece carrier elements 12 arranged at right angles to each other” (which reads upon “comprising a first and a second fluid baffle”; paragraph [0036]). Gundolf teaches that “these support elements 12 are arranged relative to each other using a plug-in technique” (which reads upon “that are manufactured independently of one another”; paragraph [0036]). Gundolf teaches that “a profile with a round cross-section is inserted into this recording section 18 as a spacer device 14” (which reads upon “wherein the first and the second fluid baffle are configured to delimit a substantially rotationally symmetrical flow channel”; paragraph [0039]). Gundolf teaches that “this makes it possible, for example, to position individual workpieces vertically in the square-shaped spaces 27, or to hold workpieces 16 with two or more columns, support feet or the like in the grid structure” (paragraph [0048]). Gundolf teaches that “different shapes and profiles of the spacers can be used for the respective application” (paragraph [0011]). Gundolf teaches that “the removable and interchangeable design of the spacer devices or spacer profiles to the individual workpiece carrier elements advantageously allows for flexible mounting and arrangement of identical or different workpieces or workpiece sizes” (which reads upon “with a clear width of ≥ 5 mm”; paragraph [0017]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific width of the openings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the width of the openings, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “the removable and interchangeable design of the spacer devices or spacer profiles to the individual workpiece carrier elements advantageously allows for flexible mounting and arrangement of identical or different workpieces or workpiece sizes” (which reads upon claim 2; paragraph [0017]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific width of the openings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the width of the openings, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 3, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “it is provided that the at least one sectionally formed spacer device can be fixed to the at least one workpiece carrier element by means of a screw, clamp, plug connection or the like” (paragraph [0020]; or the like reads on struts).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “the workpiece carrier elements 12 are made of heat-resistant fiber composite ceramic material, such as CFC, CSiC, SiC/SiC, OCMC” (paragraph [0037]; fiber reads on leadthrough).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf FIG. 4 shows each baffle has 4 support elements, 14.
Regarding claim 6, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “CFC (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Carbon) is intended as a heat-resistant fiber composite ceramic material for the workpiece carrier element” (paragraph [0019]). Gundolf teaches that “Another example of a fiber-reinforced ceramic material is CSiC (Carbon Silicon Carbon), OCMC (Oxid Ceramic Matrix Composites) or SiC/SiC (Silicon Carbide/Silicon Carbide)” (paragraph [0019]). Gundolf teaches that “a spacer device 14 is provided which has an elliptical or spherical first section 21 which transitions into a square or rectangular second section 22, and that the curved surface of the first section 21 can form a linear support for the workpiece 16” (paragraph [0041] and FIG. 2(c)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 1 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “this makes it possible, for example, to position individual workpieces vertically in the square-shaped spaces 27, or to hold workpieces 16 with two or more columns, support feet or the like in the grid structure” (paragraph [0048]). See also FIGs. 1 and 3-4.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gundolf teaches the fluid guide of claim 7 as stated above. Gundolf teaches that “the removable and interchangeable design of the spacer devices or spacer profiles to the individual workpiece carrier elements advantageously allows for flexible mounting and arrangement of identical or different workpieces or workpiece sizes” (paragraph [0017]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific width of the openings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the width of the openings, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733