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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102004009288 A1 to Trujillo et al. (Trujillo). A machine translation was relied upon for the basis of this rejection.
In reference to claim 1, Kanno discloses a vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus (“a vacuum carburizing...” is interpreted as intended use) comprising: a high-temperature decomposition unit (“Reaktor I”; Fig. 3) configured to heat exhaust gases discharged from a vacuum pump in the vacuum carburizing process (“configured to...” is interpreted as intended use; however, see par. 0035) to a temperature ranging from 500 to 1500° C (1000° C; par. 0035); and a high-temperature catalyst unit (“Reaktor II”) comprising a supported catalyst supporting a catalyst including one or more selected from a group including platinum (Pt; pars. 0011, 0017), palladium (optional), and alloys thereof (optional) and configured to allow the exhaust gases heated in the high-temperature decomposition unit to contact the supported catalyst (“configured to...” is interpreted as intended use; however, see par. 0011).
In reference to claim 2, Trujillo discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the high-temperature decomposition unit is configured to receive injected air to create an oxidizing atmosphere (par. 0030, Fig. 3; O2 and N2 are used, air is 99% O2 and N2).
In reference to claim 3, Trujillo discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 2, wherein the injected air and the introduced exhaust gases have a volumetric ratio ranging from 1:1 to 1:3 (since no structure such as a valves and a controller are positively recited to achieve the volumetric ratio, this limitation is interpreted as intended use that only requires structure capable of the use – see Fig. 3 – the valves depicted in Trujillo are capable of the use).
In reference to claim 4, Trujillo discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air is injected to maintain a hydrogen concentration inside the high-temperature decomposition unit at 4% by volume or less (again, since no structure such as a valves and a controller are positively recited to achieve the volumetric ratio, this limitation is interpreted as intended use that only requires structure capable of the use – see Fig. 3 – the valves depicted in Trujillo are capable of the use).
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0089461 A1 to Kanno et al. (Kanno).
In reference to claim 1, Kanno discloses a vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus (“a vacuum carburizing...” is interpreted as intended use) comprising: a high-temperature decomposition unit (5; Fig. 1) configured to heat exhaust gases discharged from a vacuum pump in the vacuum carburizing process (“configured to...” is interpreted as intended use) to a temperature ranging from 500 to 1500° C (650-850° C; par. 0028); and a high-temperature catalyst unit (2, 3) comprising a supported catalyst supporting a catalyst including one or more selected from a group including platinum (Pt; pars. 0015, 0019), palladium (pars. 0015, 0019), and alloys thereof (optional) and configured to allow the exhaust gases heated in the high-temperature decomposition unit to contact the supported catalyst (“configured to...” is interpreted as intended use; however, see pars. 0036-0037).
In reference to claim 5, Kanno discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the supported catalyst is a ceramic honeycomb carrier (par. 0033).
In reference to claim 6, Kanno discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the catalyst is supported on a catalyst support including Lanthanum (La) doped alumina (pars. 0019, 0054).
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.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of JP 2011-101842 A to Akamine et al. (Akamine). A machine translation was relied upon for the basis of this rejection.
In reference to claim 7, Kanno discloses the vacuum carburizing harmful exhaust gas reduction apparatus of claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose the supported catalyst further includes zeolite. However, Akamine discloses a similar high-temperature catalyst unit (see Figs.) that, like Kanno, provides for the removal of CO, NOx and hydrocarbons (par. 0002) at temperatures form 600-800 °C (par. 0034), the catalyst including platinum and/or palladium (par. 0011), wherein the supported catalyst further includes zeolite (par. 0011). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known catalyst composition disclosed by Akamine for the known composition of Kanno. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP 2020-079429 A and CN 206950943 U each disclose a vacuum carburizing apparatus and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
18 February 2026