DETAILED ACTION
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.
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:
air introduction member that introduces air into the upper space, and a gas outlet provided in the upper space in claim 2
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification is/are (see pgpub citations):
air introduction member [Wingdings font/0xE0] pipe (para. 38)
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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hayami (US 4859251 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hayami discloses a heat treatment furnace comprising:
a degreasing chamber (Fig. 1; 12+14) for (i.e., capable for) degreasing a motor core;
a converted gas generation device (38);
a heating chamber (16) with which the degreasing chamber directly communicates (via pipe 54) and which is configured to (i.e., capable to) anneal the motor core that has passed through the degreasing chamber, by a converted gas generated by the converted gas generation device, as an in-furnace atmosphere gas (col. 4, lines 46-47); and
a gas flow formation section configured such that the converted gas in the heating chamber flows toward the degreasing chamber (col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, Hayami discloses the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising:
a cooling chamber (Fig. 1; 18) with which the heating chamber directly communicates (Fig. 2) and which is configured to cool the motor core that has passed through the heating chamber, by the converted gas (from valve 52) as an in-furnace atmosphere gas (col. 4, lines 61-64)).
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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami (US 4859251 A) in view of Ehrlichmann (US 4515089 A).
Regarding claim 2, Hayami discloses the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, except wherein the gas flow formation section comprises: a partition wall that partitions at least one half of the degreasing chamber into upper and lower parts, the partition wall being arranged such that a lower space on a lower side of the partition wall directly communicates with the heating chamber and an upper space on an upper side of the partition wall communicates with the heating chamber by way of the lower space, an air introduction member that introduces air into the upper space, and a gas outlet provided in the upper space.
However, Ehrlichmann teaches an incinerator comprising a gas flow formation section, wherein the gas flow formation section comprises:
a partition wall (element 27 + bottom of jacket 2 + top of jacket 14) that partitions at least one half of the degreasing chamber into upper (25) and lower parts (11), the partition wall being arranged such that a lower space on a lower side of the partition wall directly communicates with converted gas (from organic material 21) and an upper space (34) on an upper side of the partition wall communicates with the converted gas by way of the lower space, an air introduction member (32) that introduces air into the upper space, and
a gas outlet (46) provided in the upper space.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hayami to include the limitations recited in claim 2, such that the degreasing chamber is partitioned into a lower half and upper half, and where the upper half has an afterburning chamber for burning noxious fumes and to reduce air pollutants (see Ehrlichmann, in col. 7, lines 13-20, discussing where the upper/secondary burning chamber is used to reduce air pollutants).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hayami (see modification made for the rejection of claim 2) the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising: a flame curtain formation device (Ehrlichmann, burner 35) at an upstream end of the degreasing chamber.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami (US 4859251 A) in view of Urakata (US 20210238490 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hayami discloses the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, except wherein the degreasing chamber further comprises a heat exchanger through which the converted gas generated by the converted gas generation device flows before flowing into the heating chamber.
However, Urakata teaches a heat exchanger (syngas cooler) for extracting heat from the converted gas generation device (gasifier), and where the heat is used to generate useful energy (para. 46). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hayami wherein the degreasing chamber further comprises a heat exchanger through which the converted gas generated by the converted gas generation device flows before flowing into the heating chamber. The motivation to combine is so that any excess heat from the converted gas generation device can be used for downstream purposes (e.g., hot water heating).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights