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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nathan Woodard of US 20180/306512 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard).
As to claim 1, Woodard teaches to a heating system for compressed parts capable of controlling process atmosphere and pressure, comprising:
an accommodating body having a cavity therein, wherein the cavity is capable of accommodating a component to be heated (Woodard, paragraph [0065], Fig. 5, teaches to inner enclosure 520 having a part 508 which reads as an accommodating body having a cavity therein; heat is provided to part 508);
a heating device disposed inside or outside of the accommodating body, wherein the heating device is used to heat the component to be heated (Woodard, paragraph [0065], Fig. 1, teaches to electrical heater that is used as heating device used to heat the component to be heated), so as to remove an impurity within the component to be heated (the term “so as to remove an impurity within the component to be heated” amounts to an intended use because the instant claim is directed to an apparatus; nonetheless, the electrical heater of Woodard is configured to remove an impurity, as Woodard, paragraph [0002], teaches to debinding process of removing the binder);
an atmosphere controlling device connected to the accommodating body, wherein the atmosphere controlling device is used to transport a reaction gas into the cavity (Woodard, paragraph [0065], Fig. 5, teaches to an atmosphere control system 505, wherein the atmosphere control system 505 is gaseous communication with a furnace chamber 510 that has working volume into which a part 508 is placed for thermal processing); and
a processing pressure adjusting device connected to the accommodating body (Woodard, paragraph [0042], teaches to an atmospheric control system including vacuum pumps), wherein the processing pressure adjusting device is used to control the processing pressure in the cavity (the term “used to control the processing pressure in the cavity” is an intended use because the instant claim is directed to an apparatus; nonetheless, the vacuum pumps of Woodard is configured to control the processing pressure in the cavity to reach vacuum).
As to claim 5, Woodard teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the processing pressure adjusting device uses an inert gas to adjust the processing pressure to be from 800 Torr to 10-2 Torr (Woodard, paragraph [0155], teaches to operating debinding process in vacuum or partial vacuum; Woodard, paragraph [0153], teaches to using the inert gas source 108, including argon).
As to claim 9, Woodard teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the impurity is an organic solvent within the component to be heated (Woodard, paragraph [0110], teaches that it may be preferable to initially debind the green part with a solvent wash to remove much of the binder material, leaving a brown part to be processed in a separate sintering oven; the well-known solvents used for these purpose are acetone, heptane, or alcohol and upon interaction, these solvents dissolve and extract the primary binder (like wax) to create tiny, open pores in the part), the reaction gas is capable of reacting with the organic solvent (Woodard, paragraph [0121], teaches that debinding objects typically requires a long time and can consume substantial quantities of process gas), and the processing pressure adjusting device controls the processing pressure in the cavity to be a negative pressure, so as to rapidly discharge gas within the component to be heated (Woodard, paragraph [0042], teaches to an atmospheric control system including vacuum pumps; the vacuum pumps controls the cavity pressure to be negative in relative pressure by rapidly discharging gas).
As to claim 10, Woodard teaches to the system of claim 9, wherein a heating temperature of the heating device ranges from 300 °C to 500 °C (Woodard, paragraph [0121], teaches that the debinding may occur at temperature ranging from 150 to 375°C).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Woodard of US 2018/0306512 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nam Ig Kang of KR 20070111089 A (hereinafter, Kang) and Nathan Woodard of US 2022/0016700 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard ‘700).
As to claim 2, Woodard teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein a bottom side of the accommodating body is an opening (Woodard, Fig. 11, teaches to wherein a bottom side on of the inner enclosure 520 is an opening).
Woodard does not explicitly teach the accommodating body is disposed on a cooling seat that is a hollow seat base, and a top side and a bottom side of the cooling seat are each an opening, wherein the accommodating body is disposed on the top side of the cooling seat.
In an analogous art, Kang teaches to the accommodating body is disposed on a cooling seat that is a hollow seat base (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches that furnace body 20 is disposed on heat insulating material 21 that is a hollow seat base; the heat insulating material 21 is read as the cooling seat because Kang, pg. 17, teaches that heating and cooling process occur on the heat insulating material 21), and a top side and a bottom side of the cooling seat are each an opening (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches that a top side and a bottom side of the heat insulating material 21 are each an opening; the top side is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein the accommodating body is disposed on the top side of the cooling seat (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches that the ceramic molded body C is accommodated in the enclosure surrounded by heat insulating material 21 and disc-shaped cover 22 on the top side of the furnace body 20).
Both Woodard and Kang relate to furnace for ceramic electronic element (Kang, pg. 1). Woodard does not explicitly teach the heating space of the furnace is disposed on a seat that has a hollow configuration. Woodard does teach the heating space of the furnace. Kang teaches that the heating space of the furnace is disposed on a seat that has a hollow configuration for providing a rotary mount that can be vertically moved for discharging and handling a product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard with the vertical movement configuration of Kang for providing a rotary mount that can be vertically moved for discharging and handling a product, thereby resulting in increased convenience in handling the product.
Woodard in view of Kang does not explicitly teach a liquid-cooling pipe is disposed on the cooling seat.
In an analogous art, Woodard ‘700 teaches to a liquid-cooling pipe is disposed on the cooling seat (Woodard ‘700, paragraph [0006], Fig. 1, teaches to cooling water 18 disposed on the insulation 12; cooling water 18 disposed on the insulation 12 necessarily teaches to a liquid-cooling pipe).
Both Woodard in view of Kang and Woodard ‘700 relate to a sintering and debinding system (Woodard ‘700, abstract). Woodard in view of Kang does not explicitly teach water cooling pipe. Woodard in view of Kang does teach to the furnace body 20 is disposed on heat insulating material 21. Woodard ‘700 teaches to cooling water 18 disposed on the insulation 12 for temperature control in optimizing the thickness of insulation 12 required for efficient cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard in view of Kang with the cooling water of Woodard ‘700 for temperature control in optimizing the thickness of insulation 12 required for efficient cooling, thereby resulting in a more efficient furnace system.
Woodard in view of Kang and Woodard ‘700 teaches to and the bottom side of the cooling seat is able to be sealed by using a bottom cover (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches to heat insulating material 21 having the bottom side; the bottom side is able to be sealed by using a bottom cover; rotary support 31 of Kang reads as a bottom cover);
wherein the bottom cover is connected to at least one bottom cover driving member (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches to the elevating means 40 consisting of a guide bar 43; a guide bar 32 reads as at least one bottom cover driving member);
and the at least one bottom cover driving member drives the bottom cover to be lifted or lowered, so that the bottom cover is placed on the bottom side of the cooling seat or is detached from the bottom side of the cooling seat (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches to the elevating means 40 consisting of a guide bar 43; a guide bar 32 reads as at least one bottom cover driving member; the guide bar 43 drives the pair of supports 41 to be lifted or lowered, so that the pair of supports 41 is placed on the bottom side of the heat insulating material 21 or is detached from the bottom side of the heat insulating material 21).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Woodard of US 2018/0306512 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gottfried Rohner of US 2017/0065382 A1 (hereinafter, Rohner).
As to claim 3, Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the heating device is disposed on an elevation seat.
In an analogous art, Rohner teaches to wherein the heating device is disposed on an elevation seat (Rohner, paragraph [0077], Fig. 3, teaches that a firing chamber heating 22 is disposed on a firing hood 12; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the firing hood 12 reads as the elevation seat).
Both Woodard and Rohner relate to furnace (Rohner, paragraph [0002]). Woodard does not explicitly teach a heating device that is disposed on an elevation seat. Woodard does teach a heating device. Rohner teaches to a heating device that can accommodate lifting movements for the closing or opening of the firing hood (Rohner, paragraph [0010]), thereby resulting in optimized heating or cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard with the firing hood of Rohner for the closing or opening of the firing hood, thereby resulting in optimized heating or cooling.
Woodard in view of Rohner teaches to wherein the elevation seat is connected to at least one elevation driving member (Rohner, paragraph [0077], Fig. 1, teaches that the firing hood 12 is connected to at least one joint 18 for carrying out lifting and tilting movements), and the at least one elevation driving member drives the elevation seat to be lifted or lowered, so that the elevation seat and the heating device are selectively disposed on the accommodating body (Rohner, paragraph [0077], Fig. 1, teaches that the firing hood 12 is connected to at least one joint 18 for carrying out lifting and tilting movements; the firing hood 12 and the furnace bottom 14 are selectively disposed on the chamber 20 for the closing or opening of the firing hood, thereby resulting in optimized heating or cooling).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Woodard of US 2018/0306512 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nam Ig Kang of KR 20070111089 A (hereinafter, Kang).
As to claim 4, Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the reaction gas is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and plasma.
In analogous art, Kang teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the reaction gas is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and plasma (Kang, pg. 12, Fig. 8, teaches to supplying either hydrogen or oxygen for oxidation or reduction).
Both Woodard and Kang relate to furnace for ceramic electronic element (Kang, pg. 1). Woodard does not explicitly teach the reaction gas is either hydrogen or oxygen. Woodard does teach using a process gas (Woodard, paragraph [0121]). Woodard teaches that the reaction gas is either hydrogen or oxygen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard with the oxygen or hydrogen of Kang for supplying a gaseous substance in furnace for oxidation or reduction, thereby resulting in an improved performance of the furnace system.
As to claim 6, Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein a working platform is disposed in the cavity, and the working platform allows the component to be heated to be placed thereon.
In an analogous art, Kang teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein a working platform is disposed in the cavity, and the working platform allows the component to be heated to be placed thereon (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches that a rotary support 30 is disposed in the furnace body 20, and the rotary support 30 allows ceramic molded body C to be heated to be placed thereon); wherein the working platform is connected to at least one working platform driving member (Kang, Fig. 3, teaches that the rotary support 30 is connected to the elevating means 40), and the at least one working platform driving member drives the working platform to be raised or lowered (the elevating means 40 comprises the guide bar 43, conveying port 42, and pair of supports 41).
Both Woodard and Kang relate to furnace for ceramic electronic element (Kang, pg. 1). Woodard does not explicitly teach lifting means configured to move a vertically moveable support. Woodard does teach the heating space of the furnace. Kang teaches that the heating space of the furnace is disposed on a seat that has a hollow configuration for providing a rotary mount that can be vertically moved for discharging and handling a product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard with the vertical movement configuration of Kang for providing a rotary mount that can be vertically moved for discharging and handling a product, thereby resulting in increased convenience in handling the product.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Woodard of US 2018/0306512 A1 (hereinafter, Woodard), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhanli Meng of CN 114543527 A (hereinafter, Meng).
As to claim 7, Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the component to be heated is an electroceramic.
In an analogous art, Meng teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the component to be heated is an electroceramic (Meng, paragraph [n0029], teaches that the heated workpiece 7 is a titanium alloy; titanium nitride, for instance, is a well-known electroceramic).
Both Woodard and Meng relate to furnace (Meng, paragraph [n0018]). Woodard does not teach heating an electroceramic. Woodard does teach to heating a ceramic. Meng teaches to heating a titanium alloy, which comprises electroceramic, in a furnace for removing reactants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the furnace system of Woodard with the heated workpiece of Meng for applying the thermal processing to a subset of ceramics, thereby resulting in an efficient debinding and sintering treatment.
As to claim 8, Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the accommodating body is a quartz tube, and the heating device is an infrared heater.
In an analogous art, Meng teaches to the system of claim 1, wherein the accommodating body is a quartz tube, and the heating device is an infrared heater (Meng, paragraph [n0012], Fig. 1, teaches to infrared heating tubes 4 arranged around the quartz tube 3; the infrared heating tube 4 reads as a heating device).
Both Woodard and Meng relate to furnace (Meng, paragraph [n0018]). Woodard does not teach to infrared heating tubes. Woodard does teach to microwave waveguides and electrical heaters. Meng teaches to infrared heating tubes for heating in a furnace for removing reactants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical heaters of Woodard with the infrared heating tubes of Meng for applying the thermal processing to a subset of ceramics, thereby resulting in an efficient debinding and sintering treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights