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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/22/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/22/25 with exceptions noted in the action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the first and second height are per the annotated figure in the arguments and claim 1 is not taught because of this annotated figure.
Examiner asserts the claim states the first height is between the bottom surface and the uppermost surface of the furnace body. The first height was labeled between the bottom and the roller in the annotated remarks. The annotated second height is claimed between the bottom surface and the roller while the annotated figure in the remarks labeled the second height to be between the top of the furnace and the roller. Examiner has provided an annotated figure of the figure provided in the remarks. It is further noted in the figure the second height is approximately 90 pixels in height and the first height is approximately 260 pixels in height which is in the 30-50% range.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 8, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020130669 to Jung et al. (Jung).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a furnace body in which a material is transferred and heat treated (11, 12, or 13, Figures 1-4); a sagger disposed inside the furnace body and configured to receive and transport the material (22, Figures 1-4); a roller configured to transport the sagger (30, Figures 1-4); and a heater apart from the sagger (21, Figures 1-4), wherein the sagger seated on the roller comprises a plurality of saggers (shown in Figures 1-4), the heater comprises an upper heater disposed above the sagger (shown in Figures 1-4), and a lower heater disposed under the sagger (shown in Figures 1-4), based on a third direction which is a height direction of the furnace body, the lower heater is disposed closer to the roller than to a bottom surface of the furnace body (shown in Figures 1-4), the bottom surface being inside the furnace body, wherein when a height between the bottom surface inside the furnace body and an uppermost surface of a ceiling surface along the third direction, which is the height direction of the furnace body, is defined as a first height, and a height between the bottom surface inside the furnace body and a center of the roller is defined as a second height, a ratio of the second height to the first height is 30% to 50% (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches wherein a fifth height is between the bottom surface inside the furnace body and a center of the upper heater, a ratio of the fifth height to a first height is 50% to 80% (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Jung teaches wherein a first length between inner walls of the furnace body, and a second length between opposite ends of the plurality of saggers in a first direction which is orthogonal to a transport direction of each of the plurality of saggers and is a width direction of the furnace body, a ratio of the second length to the first length is 80% to 95% (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches wherein the saggers are disposed in a plurality of rows and layers, and when an interval between sagger unit bodies having saggers disposed in at least one pair of rows and a plurality of layers among the saggers disposed in the plurality of rows and layers is defined as a first interval, and an interval between each of opposite ends of all of the disposed saggers and each of inner walls of the furnace body is defined as a second interval, the first interval is smaller than the second interval (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Jung teaches wherein side supply pipes are provided on a side surface of the furnace body, and wherein the number of side supply pipes is equal to or less than the number of layers of the plurality of saggers provided in a plurality of layers in the third direction which is the height direction of the furnace body (shown in Figures 2-4).
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) 2, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of CN107940989 to Shao et al. (Shao).
Regarding claim 2, Jung is silent on wherein based on the third direction, the upper heater is disposed closer to the roller than to a highest point of a ceiling surface of the furnace body.
Shao teaches wherein based on the third direction, the upper heater is disposed closer to the roller than to a highest point of a ceiling surface of the furnace body (2, Figure 3 between lowest sagger and middle sagger or the one between the middle and upper saggers). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Shao to provide wherein based on the third direction, the upper heater is disposed closer to the roller than to a highest point of a ceiling surface of the furnace body. Doing so would allow the oven/furnace to process more components per unit time.
Regarding claim 9, Jung is silent on wherein a third height between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a seventh height between the center of the roller and an uppermost surface of the ceiling surface inside the furnace body, wherein a ratio of the third height to the seventh height is 25% to 50%.
Shao teaches wherein a third height between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a seventh height between the center of the roller and an uppermost surface of the ceiling surface inside the furnace body, wherein a ratio of the third height to the seventh height is 25% to 50% (2, Figure 3 between lowest sagger and middle sagger or the one between the middle and upper saggers both meet the limitation when the bottom heater is considered the lowest heater or the heater between the middle and lower sagger). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Shao to provide wherein a third height between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a seventh height between the center of the roller and an uppermost surface of the ceiling surface inside the furnace body, wherein a ratio of the third height to the seventh height is 25% to 50%. Doing so would allow the oven/furnace to process more components per unit time.
Regarding claim 12, Jung is silent on wherein when a seventh height is between the center of the roller and the uppermost surface of the ceiling surface the furnace body, and a eighth height is between the center of the roller and a top surface of the plurality of saggers stacked in a plurality of layers along the third direction, wherein a ratio of the eighth height of to the seventh height is 20% to 40%.
Shao teaches wherein when a seventh height is between the center of the roller and the uppermost surface of the ceiling surface the furnace body, and a eighth height is between the center of the roller and a top surface of the plurality of saggers stacked in a plurality of layers along the third direction, wherein a ratio of the eighth height of to the seventh height is 20% to 40% (the lowest roller with saggers on it). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Shao to provide wherein when a seventh height is between the center of the roller and the uppermost surface of the ceiling surface the furnace body, and a eighth height is between the center of the roller and a top surface of the plurality of saggers stacked in a plurality of layers along the third direction, wherein a ratio of the eighth height of to the seventh height is 20% to 40%. Doing so would allow the oven/furnace to process more components per unit time.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of KR101993209 to Sung et al. (Sung).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches wherein an upper discharge pipe is formed on an upper part of the furnace body (43, 46, or 49, Figures 1-4).
Jung is silent on a lower discharge pipe formed on the bottom surface of the furnace body, and the upper discharge pipe and the lower discharge pipe are disposed so as not to overlap each other based on the third direction.
Sung teaches a lower discharge pipe formed on the bottom surface of the furnace body, and the upper discharge pipe and the lower discharge pipe are disposed so as not to overlap each other based on the third direction (18, Figures 10, 13, and 14). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Sung to provide a lower discharge pipe formed on the bottom surface of the furnace body, and the upper discharge pipe and the lower discharge pipe are disposed so as not to overlap each other based on the third direction. Doing so would increase the venting capabilities of the device and ensure more even treatment of the materials.
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches wherein an upper discharge pipe is formed on an upper part of the furnace body (shown in Figures 1-4), wherein an inner surface of the upper discharge pipe comprises an inclined first surface communicating with an inside of the furnace body (lower section of 43, 46, or 49 and at least part of the top surface of 11, 12, or 13, Figures 1-4), and a second surface having a constant width (upper section of 43, 46, or 49, Figures 1-4), and wherein, relative to the third direction, a height of the inclined first surface is smaller than a height of the second surface (the first and second surface can be selected or divided to make this true).
Jung is silent on wherein an upper discharge pipe and a lower discharge pipe are respectively formed on an upper part and the bottom surface of the furnace body.
Sung teaches wherein an upper discharge pipe and a lower discharge pipe are respectively formed on an upper part and the bottom surface of the furnace body (18, Figures 10, 13, and 14). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Sung to provide wherein an upper discharge pipe and a lower discharge pipe are respectively formed on an upper part and the bottom surface of the furnace body. Doing so would increase the venting capabilities of the device and ensure more even treatment of the materials.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of CN108020082 to Zhang et al. (Zhang).
Regarding claim 6, Jung is silent on wherein a third height is between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a fourth height is between a center of the lower heater and the center of the roller, wherein a ratio of the fourth height to the third height is 60% to 90%.
Zhang teaches wherein a third height is between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a fourth height is between a center of the lower heater and the center of the roller, wherein a ratio of the fourth height to the third height is 60% to 90% (51 and 52, Figure 1). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Shao to provide wherein a third height is between the center of the roller and a center of the upper heater, and a fourth height is between a center of the lower heater and the center of the roller, wherein a ratio of the fourth height to the third height is 60% to 90%. Doing so would allow the device to apply heat and treat the products as desired.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of KR20210152898 to Jung et al (Jung898).
Regarding claim 13, Jung teaches wherein when the plurality of saggers are disposed in n rows in a first direction which is orthogonal to a transport direction of each of the plurality of saggers and is a width direction of the furnace body (shown in Figures 2-4), some saggers of the saggers disposed in the n rows are in contact with each other to constitute sagger unit bodies (shown in Figures 2-4), and each of the sagger unit bodies comprises one pair of first saggers and second saggers along the first direction, wherein facing surfaces of the first saggers and the second saggers are in contact with each other, and an outer surface of the first saggers and an outer surface of the second saggers are exposed and respectively constitute opposite surfaces of the sagger unit bodies (shown in Figures 2-4).
Jung is silent on the number of the sagger unit bodies is half the number of the n rows.
Jung 898 teaches multiple rows with sagger unit bodies comprising the rows (Figure 1 shows two rows). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Jung898 to provide multiple rows with sagger unit bodies comprising the rows. Doing so would allow the products to be treated more evenly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of CN209166115 to Urushizaki et al. (Urushizaki).
Regarding claim 14, Jung teaches wherein side supply pipes are provided on a side surface of the furnace body (42, 45, or 48, Figures 2-4), and the side supply pipe are apart from the roller (shown in Figures 2-4).
Jung is silent on wherein a center of each of the side supply pipes is disposed at a side higher than or on the same plane as the uppermost surface of each of the saggers based on the third direction which is the height direction of the furnace body.
Urushizaki teaches wherein a center of each of the side supply pipes is disposed at a side higher than or on the same plane as the uppermost surface of each of the saggers based on the third direction which is the height direction of the furnace body (35, Figure 1). 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 teachings of Jung with the teachings of Urushizaki to provide wherein a center of each of the side supply pipes is disposed at a side higher than or on the same plane as the uppermost surface of each of the saggers based on the third direction which is the height direction of the furnace body. Doing so would provide gas at a desired location to impart desired properties on a product.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762