DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Amended Claim 1 has been noted. The amendment has overcome specification objections, claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those specification objections, claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the last 21 lines, three new “when” clauses have been established. Change each of these “when” clauses to an if-then clause. For example, change “when the recovery device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism, the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism branch at an entrance of the recovery device and join at an exit of the recovery device” to -- if the recovery device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism, then the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism branch at an entrance of the recovery device and join at an exit of the recovery device --
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a stack device configured to stack the saggars in the up-down direction in which the material has been supplied by the supply device” (Claim 1)
“an unstack device configured to unstack the saggars stacked in the up-down direction after the saggars exited from the exit of the heat treatment furnace” (Claim 1)
“an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust which of the first saggar conveyed along the first conveying path and the second saggar conveyed along the second conveying path is to be sent off to the joining part first” (Claim 1)
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.
“a stack device configured to stack the saggars in the up-down direction in which the material has been supplied by the supply device” (from Claim 1) is being interpreted as a device comprising a gripper, and equivalents thereof
“an unstack device configured to unstack the saggars stacked in the up-down direction after the saggars exited from the exit of the heat treatment furnace” (from Claim 1) is being interpreted as a device comprising a gripper, and equivalents thereof
“an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust which of the first saggar conveyed along the first conveying path and the second saggar conveyed along the second conveying path is to be sent off to the joining part first” (from Claim 1) is being interpreted as a controller, and 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (CN 205537102 U) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu teaches of a heat treatment system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a heat treatment furnace (2) including an entrance (left end of element (2) relative to Fig. 1) and an exit (right end of element (2) relative to Fig. 1) (see at least [0031] and Figs. 1-2), and configured to heat-treat a material (“material”) in each of a plurality of saggars (4) stacked in an up-down direction while the saggars are conveyed from the entrance to the exit (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0021], [0033], [0035] and Fig. 1);
a supply device (supply device comprising elements (3-51) of each of elements (3-1)) configured to supply a non-heat-treated material (“material”) to each of the plurality of saggars (4) in which the material is not accommodated (see at least [0022], [0032], [0036] and Fig. 3);
a stack device (“palletizing”/ “stacking robot arm” (1-8)) configured to stack the saggars, in which the material has been supplied by the supply device, in the up-down direction (see at least [0013], [0021], [0024], [0030] and Fig. 1);
a first conveyor (1-5) configured to convey the saggars stacked in the up-down direction by the stack device to the entrance of the heat treatment furnace (see at least [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1);
an unstack device (“destacking robot arm” - (1.7)) configured to unstack the saggars stacked in the up-down direction after the saggars have exited from the exit of the heat treatment furnace (see at least [0013], [0021], [0024], [0035] and Fig. 1);
a recovery device (recovery device comprising elements (3-72) and (3-4) of each of elements (3-1)) configured to recover the material heat-treated in the heat treatment furnace from the saggars unstacked by the unstack device (see at least [0032], [0035] and Figs. 1, 3); and
a second conveyor (1-1) configured to convey the saggars exited from the exit of the heat treatment furnace to the unstack device (see at least [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1), wherein
at least one of the recovery device and the supply device comprises at least a first conveyor mechanism (1-6) and a second conveyor mechanism (1-3) (See Fig. 1 and note that there are two parallel lines that each have an element (3-1) wherein elements (3-1) each have their own recovery device and supply device - the lower parallel line (1-6) as shown in Fig. 1 constitutes a first conveyor mechanism that is a part of each recovery device and supply device of lower element (3-1) (relative to Fig. 1) while the upper parallel line (1-3) as shown in Fig. 1 constitutes a second conveyor mechanism that is a part of each recovery device and supply device of upper element (3-1) (relative to Fig. 1). Thus, “at least one of the recovery device and the supply device comprises at least a first conveyor mechanism and a second conveyor mechanism” as claimed.) (see at least [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1), the first conveyor mechanism being configured to convey a first saggar of the plurality of saggars (4) along a first conveying path (first conveying path along (1-6) that lower element (3-1) is disposed within as shown in Fig. 1), the second conveyor mechanism being configured to convey a second saggar of the plurality of saggars along a second conveying path (second conveying path along (1-3) that upper element (3-1) is disposed within as shown in Fig. 1), the second saggar being different from the first saggar (as is shown in Fig. 1), the second conveying path being different from the first conveying path (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1).
Note that the three new recitations of “when” in the last 21 lines of Claim 1 are being interpreted as a list of possible configurations that correspond to the recitation “wherein at least one of the recovery device and the supply device comprises at least a first conveyor mechanism and a second conveyor mechanism” wherein if “the recovery device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism” then only the conditions proceeding the first instance of “when” apply, if “the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism” then only the conditions proceeding the second instance of “when” apply, and if “each of the recovery device and the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism” then only the conditions proceeding the third instance of “when” apply. Therefore, the three new recitations of “when” in the last 21 lines of Claim 1 are being interpreted as a list of three possible options that correspond to the recitation “wherein at least one of the recovery device and the supply device comprises at least a first conveyor mechanism and a second conveyor mechanism” wherein only one of the three options is required by the claim.
In the instant case, Lu also teaches that (at least): when the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism (As is the case since the supply device (supply device comprising elements (3-51) of each of elements (3-1)) comprises two portions (portions in each of the upper/lower elements (3-1) relative to Fig. 1 respectively) wherein the first conveyor mechanism (1-6) is a part of the first portion of the supply device disposed in lower element (3-1) as is show in Fig. 1 and the second conveyor mechanism (1-3) is a part of the second portion of the supply device disposed in upper element (3-1) as is show in Fig. 1. Thus, “the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism” as claimed.), the first conveyor mechanism (1-6) and the second conveyor mechanism (1-3) branch at an entrance of the supply device (the entrance that feeds each of elements (3-1) where (1-3) divides into two parallel paths as shown in Fig. 1) and join at an exit of the supply device (the exit from each of elements (3-1) where the two parallel paths join as shown in Fig. 1), and the supply device further comprises a first supply unit disposed on the first conveying path (first supply unit (3-52) within element (3-1) that is disposed on path (1-6) as shown in Fig. 1) and a second supply unit disposed on the second conveying path (second supply unit (3-52) within element (3-1) that is disposed on path (1-3) as shown in Fig. 1), each of the first and second supply units being configured to supply the material into a corresponding one of the first saggar and the second saggar (see at least [0032], [0036] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lu also teaches of a branch part disposed upstream of the first conveying path and the second conveying path (the branch part where paths (1-6) and (1-3) diverge adjacent to element (1-7) as shown in Fig. 1), and configured to selectively send off each of the saggars to one of the first conveying path and the second conveying path (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024], [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1); and
a joining part disposed downstream of the first conveying path and the second conveying path (the joining part where paths (1-6) and (1-3) converge adjacent to element (1-8) as shown in Fig. 1), and configured to join the first conveying path and the second conveying path (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024], [0030], [0035] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu also teaches of an adjustment mechanism (the adjustment mechanism in the form of a controller that facilitates “mechanical automation and intelligent control of loading, stacking and destacking”) configured to adjust which of the first saggar conveyed along the first conveying path and the second saggar conveyed along the second conveying path is to be sent off to the joining part first (see at least [0024], [0035] and Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art and contends that:
“As already explained in the previous Amendment, independent claim 1 is distinguishable over the applied prior art because Lu discloses a linear return line 1-3 that branches into line 1-3 and line 1-6 (i.e., two lines) at a position upstream of the recovery section (see Lu, Fig. 1). Lu also discloses that the recovery section and the supply section are disposed on conveyor 1-3, the recovery section and the supply section are also disposed on conveyor 1-6 (see Fig. 1). The two conveyors 1-3 and 1- 6 join at a position downstream of the supply section disposed on conveyor 1-3 and the supply section disposed on conveyor 1-6. As such, Lu fails to teach or suggest that conveyors 1-3 and 1-6 join at the exit of a recovery section, or that conveyors 1-3 and 1-6 branch at the entrance of a supply section. Therefore, Lu clearly fails to teach or suggest a heat treatment system that meets all of the limitations now recited in independent claim 1.
Based on the above, Applicant respectfully submits that Lu fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations now recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw all grounds of rejection”
These arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 is still too broad to overcome the prior art of record (as is presented above in this Office Action). In the instant case, Lu does teach of at least one of the new “when” clauses now claimed in the list of Claim 1. Lu teaches that when the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism (As is the case since the supply device (supply device comprising elements (3-51) of each of elements (3-1)) comprises two portions (portions in each of the upper/lower elements (3-1) relative to Fig. 1 respectively) wherein the first conveyor mechanism (1-6) is a part of the first portion of the supply device disposed in lower element (3-1) as is show in Fig. 1 and the second conveyor mechanism (1-3) is a part of the second portion of the supply device disposed in upper element (3-1) as is show in Fig. 1. Thus, “the supply device comprises the first conveyor mechanism and the second conveyor mechanism” as claimed.), the first conveyor mechanism (1-6) and the second conveyor mechanism (1-3) branch at an entrance of the supply device (the entrance that feeds each of elements (3-1) where (1-3) divides into two parallel paths as shown in Fig. 1) and join at an exit of the supply device (the exit from each of elements (3-1) where the two parallel paths join as shown in Fig. 1), and the supply device further comprises a first supply unit disposed on the first conveying path (first supply unit (3-52) within element (3-1) that is disposed on path (1-6) as shown in Fig. 1) and a second supply unit disposed on the second conveying path (second supply unit (3-52) within element (3-1) that is disposed on path (1-3) as shown in Fig. 1), each of the first and second supply units being configured to supply the material into a corresponding one of the first saggar and the second saggar (see at least [0032], [0036], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Therefore, Claim 1 as amended is still too broad to overcome the prior art of Lu and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record by adding additional structural limitations. Such limitations could relate to, for example, the housing that covers both conveying paths simultaneously as shown in at least Fig. 1 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
(DE-102009010551-A1) (see attached original document and translation for reference)
(IT-1198305-B) (see attached original document and translation for reference)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 4/22/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights