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 .
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 container as recited in claim 1 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: An attachment mechanism in claim 5 wherein attachment is a functional language with the term mechanism being a generic placeholder for means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
An attachment mechanism is interpreted as a mounting bracket and a tie-down chain as disclosed in the specification (para 0037 on page 10), or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the oven” on line 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 11, 13 and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US 2012/0125312) in view of Moon et al (US 2014/0174301) and Hanson (US 2008/0083728).
Nam discloses the structure of the heated enclosure (e.g., oven) claimed including a hollow housing (2) to retain heat within the housing and has a top and a bottom (see Figure 4), at least two independent heated zones (S1, S2) with independent temperature controls (para 0019 and 0055) and dedicated over-temperature protection (i.e., temperature is controlled; para 0080 and 0081) defining an upper heated zone (S1) and a lower heated zone (S2) in the housing wherein the lower heated zone is configured to accept a container, a height adjustable divider plate (10) separating the upper heated zone and the lower heated zone and minimizing heat transfer therebetween. But, Nam does not show that the divider plate made of an insulation material which can be removable, and a heat shield affixed between a source of heating and the container.
Moon discloses it is known to provide a heated enclosure that is provided with a divider plate (43) which is made of an insulating material (para 0043) that can not only removable but also height adjustable to provide the heated zones with different cavity or heated zone size.
Hanson discloses it is known to provide a heater enclosure with a source of heating (50) with a heat shield (48) that is provided between the source of heating and a container or an object which can be provided on a bottom wall (24) wherein the heat shield is provided to prevent localized hot spots on the bottom of the heater enclosure (para 0003 and 0024) which would prevent a localized hot spot for an object or container placed on the bottom wall.
In view of Moon and Hanson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nam with the divider plate that is removable and height adjustable to provide for a different cavity size of the heated zones wherein the divider plate is made of an insulating material to predictably insulate each of the heated zones to maintain its desired heating temperatures with a reduced or minimized heater transfer therebetween as taught by Moon, and it would have been obvious to adapt a heat shield affixed between a source of heating and the container or object (that can placed in the lower heated zone) wherein the heat shield would predictably prevent a localized hot spots for heating a container/object placed in the lower heater zone as taught by Hanson. With regard to the recitation of the container, it is noted that the recitation of the container is related as a material or an article worked upon by the claimed apparatus wherein the inclusion of the container/article worked upon by the apparatus does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
With respect to claim 2, Moon further discloses guide rails (shown by a plurality of rails 36) upon which the divider plate can be inserted and removed from the housing.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Nam discloses the source of heating that comprises a first heater (20) in the upper heated zone (S1) and a second heater (30) in the lower heated zone (S2) wherein the first heater and the second heater would have been affixed to the housing in the respective upper and lower heated zone to effectively and predictably heat the respective upper and lower heated zone without being collapsed or detached from the housing.
With respect to claim 5, Hanson discloses a bottom wall (24), as an attachment mechanism, having a support surface that retain a container placed thereon.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Moon discloses for a circulation fan (52) for facilitating ventilation and air circulation in the lower heated zone, and an exhaust inlet (80a) and a fresh inlet (70; para 0048 that supplies air to the entire area 40 of the heated zones) that provide ventilation and fresh air to the upper heated zone.
With respect to claim 13, Moon discloses at least one access port (200) that is configured to accommodate an external structure (220).
With respect to claim 15, Nam in view of Moon and Hanson discloses the structure claimed wherein it is noted that the preamble of the chemical delivery system is deemed as an intended use of the heated enclosure that does not limit the structure claimed. Also, see MPEP 2111.02.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Moon and Hanson as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Tiech et al (US 4,441,002) or Ueda (US 4,599,503).
Nam in view of Moon and Hanson discloses the heated enclosure except for a scale chamber having a weighing scale located within the scale chamber as claimed.
Tiech discloses a heated enclosure having a scale chamber where a weight scale (20) is located therein to measure a weight of a container that can be placed on the scale and allowing determination of an amount of material in the container wherein heating of the container/object is further controlled (time and power of the heating; column 7, lines 41-47) that depends on an amount or weight of the container/load.
Ueda also discloses it is known to provide a heated enclosure having a scale chamber where a weight scale (42) is located therein to measure a weight of a container (26) placed on the scale and allowing determination of an amount of material in the container wherein heating of the container/object is further controlled (time and power of the heating; column 1,lines 40-45) that depends on an amount or weight of the container/load.
In view of Tiech or Ueda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adapt Nam, as modified by Moon and Hanson, with a scale chamber having a weight scale that would measure or sense a weight of the container/load remaining or present placed on the weighing scale which would allow the heating source to be further controlled in time and power to effectively bring about a desired heating temperature and heating time of the container/load as desired.
With respect to claim 7, Tiech discloses the weight scale having an insulated scale platform (26) on which a container can directly sit thereon wherein the scale platform is sized to accommodate almost an entire footprint or a bottoms surface of the oven as illustrated in Figure 1 wherein the scale chamber is substantially insulated from the heated zone as the scale chamber is located outside of the heated zone (10). And, Ueda also discloses the weight scale having an insulated scale platform (28) on which a container (26) can directly sit thereon wherein the scale platform is sized to accommodate almost an entire footprint or a bottoms surface of the oven as illustrated in Figure 1 wherein the scale chamber is substantially insulated from the heated zone as the scale chamber is located outside of the heated zone (12).
With respect to claim 8, Ueda further shows the scale chamber that is ventilated via a fan (30; also, see Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9, Tiech discloses a multiplicity of elevation rails (shown by support pins 22) affixed to the scale platform (26)
With respect to claim 14, Ueda discloses process piping in an interconnect passthrough (34) formed in an opening of the housing that is in fluid communication between the container (26) and an external delivery system (e.g., 38) that is indicative of a heating operation wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nam as modified to include the piping or exhaust in an interconnect passthrough opening to monitor the heating operation (e.g., an end of heating process; also see column 3, lines 3-9) of the container/load.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Moon and Hanson as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Henderson (US 5,656,170).
Nam in view of Moon and Hanson discloses the heated enclosure except for a pressure relief flap valve.
Henderson discloses it is known to provide a heated enclosure having a pressure relief flap valve (25) to control a pressure level of the enclosure (also, see column 8, lines 1-19.
In view of Henderson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nam, as modified by Moon and Hanson, with the heated enclosure having a pressure relief flap valve to predictably control the pressure of the heated enclosure at a desired level including overpressure protection for safe use of the heated enclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takagi (US 4,217,855), Ohara (US 8,12,862), and Ito (US 5,100,526) disclose for a heated enclosure for delivering a resultant vapor via a heating source/element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights