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
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Additionally, 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 curved exhaust path of claim 4 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On paragraph 0057, “20P” should be “2P”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1,10, and 19, the claims disclose the plurality of exhaust regions are blocked from communicating with each other by passing through the exhaust hole. It is unclear how this is possible, since the drawings show that the hole partition wall 1W only extends across the inside surface of exhaust hole 620, thus the two exhaust regions can communicate with each other by passing though the exhaust hole 620. Additionally, fig 8 shows that the two exhaust regions can communicate with each other across exhaust hole 620, since wall 1W does not fully bisect hole 620, so the innermost instances of duct connection portion 611 of each exhaust region 610 can communicate with each other. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims are interpreted to mean that the plurality of exhaust regions can communicate with each other only in the exhaust hole region. Claims 2-9,11-18,20 are dependent on claims 1,10,and 19, and are thus rejected as well.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BPC Ventilation’s YouTube video “Quiet Vent - 6 Point Top Entry Distribution Box - Installation Guide”, hereafter known as BPC, in view of John (US 1827727 A), hereafter known as John.
Regarding claim 1, BPC discloses an integrated exhaust duct (0:02, metal duct, BPC) comprising:
an integrated duct body having a plurality of exhaust regions and an exhaust hole communicating with the plurality of exhaust regions (0:02, the duct has two exhaust regions, one on each side of the top exhaust hole, each region has three duct connections, BPC);
and a hole partition wall disposed inside the exhaust hole to divide the exhaust hole so that the plurality of exhaust regions are blocked from communicating with each other by passing through the exhaust hole (not disclosed)
BPC does not disclose a hole partition wall; however, John teaches a hole partition wall inside the hole (fig 2, partition wall C partitions the outlet hole of the pipe, and is inside the pipe hole, John) so that the plurality of exhaust regions can communicate with each other only in the exhaust hole region (fig 2, the two exhaust regions inside the pipe are blocked from communication with each other throughout the length of the pipe, only able to communicate in the regions encompassed by the pipe hole, John) John describes an air conduit line with internal dividers, a field related to BPC and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of John into BPC and add the partition wall of Brouwer into the top exhaust hole of the duct of BPC. Since the top exhaust hole of BPC is 90 degrees from the duct connection holes of BPC, the hole partition wall of John would reduce erosion of the duct walls of BPC by solid particles in the air as it changes direction (col 1, lines 6-11, John).
Claims 2,4, 8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BPC in view of John, in further view of Kawano (US 6290266 B1), hereafter known as Kawano.
Regarding claim 2, BPC in view of John discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 1, wherein
the exhaust region includes a plurality of duct connection portions to which a plurality of exhaust ducts are connected (0:06, BPC, each region has three duct connection portions. 0:13 BPC, two ducts are connected, with the ability to connect more.)
and a common exhaust path formed from the plurality of duct connection portions to the exhaust hole (0:05, BPC, the six duct connection portions all connect to the top hole, thus there is a common exhaust path between.)
and in the common exhaust path, an exhaust path partition wall is disposed so that a plurality of individual exhaust paths are formed from the plurality of duct connection portions to the exhaust hole (not disclosed).
BPC in view of John does not disclose exhaust path partition walls within the exhaust path. However, Kawano teaches partition walls within the air travel path (fig 4a, walls 5 and 6 partition the exhaust path indicated by the arrows, Kawano). Kawano describes an air conduit line with internal dividers, with one air opening connected to several smaller ones, a field closely related to BPC, John, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Kawano into BPC in view of John and add the partition walls of Kawano into the duct box of BPC in view of John. Since the exhaust hole of BPC is in the middle of the duct connection portions, the internal partition walls of fig 4a are mirrored to form a structure resembling fig 7a of Kawano, with two sections of walls curved inward towards the middle exhaust hole. The partition walls of Kawano reduces pressure loss and evens out the sucked fluid velocity (col 1, lines 24-35 Kawano), increasing the effectiveness of the duct box.
Regarding claim 4, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2, wherein an outlet of each of the plurality of duct connection portions is formed in a direction different from a direction oriented to the exhaust hole (0:05, the top exhaust hole is in a different direction than the plurality of duct connection portions, BPC), and the individual exhaust path is curved from the duct connection portion to the exhaust hole (fig 4a Kawano, the exhaust path is curved from the intake end 3 to the output end 2, in the case of BPC in view of John and Kawano, the path is curved from the duct connection portions to the exhaust hole.)
Regarding claim 8, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2, wherein a cross-sectional area of the duct connection portion, a cross-sectional area of the individual exhaust path, and a cross-sectional area of each divided portion of the exhaust hole, through which gas flows in the integrated duct body, are formed to sequentially increase (0:05, BPC, the duct connection portions are 75mm circles, with cross section area 4417.8 mm^2, the exhaust path behind them are rectangular with the same width, thus having cross sectional area of 5625 mm^2, the top exhaust hole is 150mm in diameter and is divided in half by the partition of John, thus having a cross section area of 8837.7mm^2, a sequential increase).
Regarding claim 9, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2, wherein two exhaust regions are formed as a set, (0:05, the two regions, one to each side of the top hole, are formed together as a set, BPC) and the two common exhaust paths of the two exhaust regions are disposed to correspond to each other with the exhaust hole interposed therebetween (fig 7a, Kawano, the two common exhaust paths of the duct connection portions correspond to each other and the exhaust hole is in between).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BPC in view of John and Kawano, in further view of Woodgears’ website “2 x 45 deg. elbow vs. 90 deg. elbow air resistance”, hereafter known as Woodgears.
Regarding claim 3, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2,
wherein an outlet of each of the plurality of duct connection portions is formed in a direction different from a direction oriented to the exhaust hole (0:05, the top exhaust hole is in a different direction than the plurality of duct connection portions, BPC),
and the individual exhaust path is divided into a plurality of portions from the duct connection portion to the exhaust hole (fig 4a, Kawano, the path from the plurality of openings on the right to the single opening on the left is divided. In the case of BPC in view of John and Kawano the path from the duct connection portions to the top hole is divided.)
wherein each of the plurality of portions extend straight (fig 4a, Kawano, the exhaust path initially extends straight down) ,
and each of a connection portion between the duct connection portion and the individual exhaust path and a connection portion between the plurality of portions is bent and a gap angle thereof is formed to be an obtuse angle (fig 6, Kawano, the exhaust path is bent, but the bend is a single 90 degree bend).
BPC in view of John and Kawano does not disclose the bend to be an obtuse angle. However, Woodgears teaches using two obtuse angles to replace a single 90 degree duct angle (video image, first paragraph, two 45 degree bends, each of which result in an obtuse angle, are used in series to form an overall 90 degree change in direction, Woodgears). Woodgears is a webpage about air carrying ducts used to remove particles, a field closely related to BPC, John, Kawano, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Woodgears into BPC in view of John and Kawano and change the single 90 degree bend of BPC in view of John and Kawano into two consecutive 45 degree bends as shown in Woodgears. The two 45 degree bends result in less air resistance (page 1, data list, Woodgears), making the duct more efficient at moving air.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BPC in view of John and Kawano, in further view of buyductings.com’s product page “Duct Transition”, hereafter known as Duct Transition.
Regarding claim 5, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the exhaust hole has an internal side surface inclined toward a center direction of the exhaust hole as it approaches an outlet of the exhaust hole. However, Duct Transition teaches an exhaust hole with internal side surfaces inclined towards the center direction of the exhaust hole (third product image, Duct Transition). Duct Transition is a product page for connectors that transition ducts of different geometry, a field related to BPC, Kawano, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Duct Transition into BPC in view of John and Kawano and use the connector of duct transition to transition between the rectangular duct box and the round top exhaust hole. The connector of Duct Transition provides a gradual change between the two geometries and smooths the air flow traveling between (first description paragraph, Duct Transition), which increases the efficiency of the duct box.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BPC in view of John and Kawano, in further view of De Waal (EP 0594261 A1), hereafter known as De Waal.
Regarding claim 7, BPC in view of John and Kawano discloses the integrated exhaust duct according to claim 2, wherein the duct connection portion is formed so that an inlet thereof is perpendicular to an outlet thereof (0:05, the top exhaust hole is perpendicular to the plurality of duct connection portions, BPC), and a valve having a guide inclined surface for guiding a direction of gas is installed in a portion in which the inlet and the outlet of the duct connection portion communicate with each other (not disclosed).
BPC in view of John and Kawano does not disclose a valve with an inclined guide surface between the inlet and outlet of the duct connection portion. However, De Waal teaches a valve (fig 1, De Waal) having an inclined guide surface for guiding a direction of gas (fig 1, surface 2 guide the direction of the gas within pipe 1, De Waal). De Waal describes mounting a valve for regulating air flow in a duct, a field related to BPC, Kawano, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of De Waal in to BPC in view of John and Kawano and install the valve of De Waal into each of the duct connection portions of the duct box of BPC in view of John and Kawano. The valve can open and close the pipe (page 3, paragraph 2 and 6, De Waal), allowing one to adjust the air flow to each duct as needed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (JP 5280141 B2), hereafter known as Taniguchi, in view of BPC and in further view of John.
Regarding claim 19, Taniguchi discloses a substrate processing apparatus (title, Taniguchi) comprising:
a plurality of process chambers in which processes are performed on each substrate (fig 2, chambers 21-24, page 11, second paragraph, Taniguchi);
a plurality of exhaust ducts connected to a plurality of exhaust lines formed in the plurality of process chambers (fig 2, pipes 52-55, page 12, para 1, Taniguchi);
and an integrated exhaust duct connected to the plurality of exhaust ducts (not disclosed), wherein the integrated exhaust duct comprises:
an integrated duct body having a plurality of exhaust regions and an exhaust hole communicating with the plurality of exhaust regions (not disclosed);
and a hole partition wall disposed inside the exhaust hole to divide the exhaust hole so that the plurality of exhaust regions are blocked from communicating with each other passing through the exhaust hole (not disclosed),
wherein the exhaust region includes a plurality of duct connection portions to which a plurality of exhaust ducts are connected (not disclosed),
and a common exhaust path formed from the plurality of duct connection portions to the exhaust hole (not disclosed).
Taniguchi does not disclose an integrated exhaust duct connected to the plurality of exhaust ducts, nor its structural details. However, BPC teaches an integrated exhaust duct connected to the plurality of exhaust ducts (0:09, duct box of BPC is connected to a plurality of ducts and can serve the function of an integrated exhaust duct), wherein the integrated exhaust duct comprises:
an integrated duct body having a plurality of exhaust regions and an exhaust hole communicating with the plurality of exhaust regions (0:02, the duct has two exhaust regions, one on each side of the top exhaust hole, each region has three duct connections, BPC);
wherein the exhaust region includes a plurality of duct connection portions to which a plurality of exhaust ducts are connected (0:06, BPC, each exhaust region has three duct connection portions. 0:13 BPC, two ducts are connected, with the ability to connect more),
and a common exhaust path formed from the plurality of duct connection portions to the exhaust hole (0:05, BPC, the six duct connection portions all connect to the top hole, thus there is a common exhaust path between.)
BPC is a product information video for a duct box with many openings leading to one opening, a field related to Taniguchi and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of BPC into Taniguchi and connect the duct box of BPC to the plurality of exhaust ducts 52-55 of Taniguchi. The box of BPC combines the output of the ducts of Taniguchi into one duct, simplifying the exhaust gas transportation system.
Taniguchi in view of BPC does not disclose a hole partition wall disposed inside the exhaust hole to divide the exhaust hole so the plurality of exhaust regions are blocked from communicating with each other passing through the exhaust hole. However, John teaches a hole partition wall inside the hole (fig 2, partition wall C partitions the outlet hole of the pipe, and is inside the pipe hole, John) so that the plurality of exhaust regions can communicate with each other only in the exhaust hole region (fig 2, the two exhaust regions inside the pipe are blocked from communication with each other throughout the length of the pipe, only able to communicate in the regions encompassed by the pipe hole, John) John describes an air conduit line with internal dividers, a field related to BPC and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of John into Taniguchi in view of BPC and add the partition wall of Brouwer into the top exhaust hole of the duct of Taniguchi in view of BPC. Since the top exhaust hole of Taniguchi in view of BPC is 90 degrees from the duct connection holes, the hole partition wall of John would reduce erosion of the duct walls of BPC by solid particles in the air as it changes direction (col 1, lines 6-11, John).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi in view of BPC and John, in further view of Kawano.
Regarding claim 20, Taniguchi in view of BPC and John discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 19, but does not disclose wherein in the common exhaust path, an exhaust path partition wall is disposed so that a plurality of individual exhaust paths are formed from the plurality of duct connection portions to the exhaust hole.
However, Kawano teaches a common exhaust path with partition walls within so that a plurality of individual exhaust paths are formed (fig 4a, walls 5 and 6 partition the exhaust path indicated by the arrows, Kawano). Kawano describes an air conduit line with internal dividers, with one air opening connected to several smaller ones, a field closely related to Taniguchi, BPC, John, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Kawano into Taniguchi in view of BPC and John and add the partition walls of Kawano into the duct box of Taniguchi in view of BPC and John. Since the exhaust hole of BPC is in the middle of the duct connection portions, the internal partition walls of fig 4a are mirrored to form a structure resembling fig 7a of Kawano, with two sections of walls curved inward towards the middle exhaust hole. The partition walls of Kawano reduces pressure loss and evens out the sucked fluid velocity (col 1, lines 24-35 Kawano), increasing the effectiveness of the duct box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heo (KR 20130002735 U) and Han (KR 200202381 Y1 ) discloses an air distributor for a duct with curved and angled internal walls
Adamcikas (GB 380068 A) discloses duct bends with internal walls
Kawano (US 5531484 A) discloses duct elbow with internal walls
Highley (US 1974109 A) discloses curve conduit with internal wall
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights