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 furnace, ceiling, inner face, sidewall, heated process zone as in claim 1; an opening in one of… as in claim 2 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 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 1-2, 10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a body, said body comprising a refractory material and attaching to one of said furnace ceiling.” It seems the wrong part of speech for “attaching” is used, or needs a modifier, such as “capable of attaching”, “capable of being attached”.
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (US 2018/0070410) in view of Schlipf (US 2010/0147826).
Regarding Claim 1, Mochizuki discloses, A heating element module (heating tube 30) for a high temperature furnace (See title), said furnace having a heated process zone (space 18), a ceiling with an inner face and a sidewall with an inner face, both of said inner faces being exposed at least in part to said process zone (Fig 1 shows a ceiling and sidewall having inner faces., said heating element module comprising:
An electric heating element, said first electric heating element comprising a resistive metal having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said first electric heating element; (Fig 1 shows an electric heating element 51 having a covered portion and an exposed portion. The covered portion is covered by helical grooves in the surface of heat resistant body 49, See Paragraph [0036])
a body, said body comprising a refractory material and attaching to one of said furnace ceiling and said furnace sidewall, said body holding at least in part said first electric heating element such that said first element exposed portion is exposed at least in part to said furnace process zone when said body is attached to one of said furnace ceiling and said sidewall, (the body 31 is made from silicon-nitride based ceramic and attaches to the ceiling through a hole in iron wall 14, See Fig 2 and Paragraphs [0029]-[0032]) said body further holding at least in part said second electric heating element covered portion such that said second element exposed portion is exposed at least in part to said furnace process zone when said body is attached to one of said furnace ceiling and said sidewall, said first electric heating element exposed portion being separated from said second electric heating element exposed portion. (The body holds the covered portions and would expose the portions to the process zone as this is how it is inserted into the furnace.)
Mochizuki fails to disclose a second electric heating element, said second electric heating element comprising a resistive metal and having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said second electric heating element; and
However, Schlipf is in the field of electrical heating elements, where the device comprises two heating elements 11 and 12 both with exposed and covered portions, covered by elements 45. (See Figs 1 and 2 and Paragraph [0052]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention Mochizuki in view of Schlipf to provide the second electric heating element, said second electric heating element comprising a resistive metal and having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said second electric heating element as a duplication of parts is considered to be within the skill of a worker in the art. Also, the second heating element would allow for greater heating at a lower current as well as switching between heating elements to avoid thermal overload.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mochizuki discloses, Fig 2 shows an opening in the sidewall or ceiling with the opening and body having a tapered fit into the opening. Regarding claim 4, Mochizuki shows the heating elements being rod shaped. Regarding claim 10, Figs 2-6 show a portion of the heating element being embedded in the body.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (US 2018/0070410) in view of Schlipf (US 2010/0147826) and Woodard et al (US 2020/0016654).
The teachings of Mochizuki have been discussed above. Mochizuki fails to disclose the heating element is made from Silicon Carbide. However, Woodard discloses a heating element for a furnace heater being made from Silicon Carbide. (See Paragraph [0006]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Mochizuki in view of Woodard in order to provide the Silicon Carbide heating element since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. SiC would also be an obvious choice for a furnace heater as it is one of the few materials capable of reaching the temperatures needed for the furnace.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, 9, 11is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (US 2018/0070410) in view of Schlipf (US 2010/0147826) and Force et al (US 2017/0188635).
The teachings of Mochizuki have been discussed above. Mochizuki fails to disclose, at least a portion of Said first heating element exposed portion horizontally overlaps at least a portion of said second heating element exposed portion; the first and second heating elements exposed portion has a U-shape.
Force discloses a device having multiple U-shaped heating elements 220A, 220B with portions overlapping in a horizontal direction. (See Fig 6 and Paragraph [0097]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Mochizuki in view of Force to provide the U-shaped and/or overlapping heating elements for generating a desired heating profile to a larger volume of space may be heated at one time.
Regarding Claim 11, Mochizuki discloses, A heating element module (heating tube 30) for a high temperature furnace (See title), said furnace having a heated process zone (space 18), a ceiling with an inner face and a sidewall with an inner face, both of said inner faces being exposed at least in part to said process zone (Fig 1 shows a ceiling and sidewall having inner faces., said heating element module comprising:
An electric heating element, said first electric heating element comprising a resistive metal having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said first electric heating element; (Fig 1 shows an electric heating element 51 having a covered portion and an exposed portion. The covered portion is covered by helical grooves in the surface of heat resistant body 49, See Paragraph [0036])
a body, said body comprising a refractory material and attaching to one of said furnace ceiling and said furnace sidewall, said body holding at least in part said first electric heating element such that said first element exposed portion is exposed at least in part to said furnace process zone when said body is attached to one of said furnace ceiling and said sidewall, (the body 31 is made from silicon-nitride based ceramic and attaches to the ceiling through a hole in iron wall 14, See Fig 2 and Paragraphs [0029]-[0032]) said body further holding at least in part said second electric heating element covered portion such that said second element exposed portion is exposed at least in part to said furnace process zone when said body is attached to one of said furnace ceiling and said sidewall, said first electric heating element exposed portion being separated from said second electric heating element exposed portion. (The body holds the covered portions and would expose the portions to the process zone as this is how it is inserted into the furnace.)
Mochizuki fails to disclose a second electric heating element, said second electric heating element comprising a resistive metal and having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said second electric heating element; and
However, Schlipf is in the field of electrical heating elements, where the device comprises two heating elements 11 and 12 both with exposed and covered portions, covered by elements 45. (See Figs 1 and 2 and Paragraph [0052]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention Mochizuki in view of Schlipf to provide the second electric heating element, said second electric heating element comprising a resistive metal and having a covered portion and an exposed portion, said exposed portion generating heat when an electric current is directed across said second electric heating element as a duplication of parts is considered to be within the skill of a worker in the art. Also, the second heating element would allow for greater heating at a lower current as well as switching between heating elements to avoid thermal overload.
Mochizuki fails to disclose, regarding claims 11, 13-14, at least a portion of Said first heating element exposed portion horizontally overlaps at least a portion of said second heating element exposed portion; the first and second heating elements exposed portion has a U-shape.
Force discloses a device having multiple U-shaped heating elements 220A, 220B with portions overlapping in a horizontal direction. (See Fig 6 and Paragraph [0097]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Mochizuki in view of Force to provide the U-shaped and/or overlapping heating elements for generating a desired heating profile to a larger volume of space may be heated at one time.
Regarding claim 12, Figs 2-6 show a portion of the heating element being embedded in the body.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (US 2018/0070410) in view of Schlipf (US 2010/0147826), Force et al (US 2017/0188635) and Woodard et al (US 2020/0016654).
The teachings of Mochizuki have been discussed above. Mochizuki fails to disclose the heating element is made from Silicon Carbide. However, Woodard discloses a heating element for a furnace heater being made from Silicon Carbide. (See Paragraph [0006]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Mochizuki in view of Woodard in order to provide the Silicon Carbide heating element since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. SiC would also be an obvious choice for a furnace heater as it is one of the few materials capable of reaching the temperatures needed for the furnace.
The teachings of Mochizuki have been discussed above. Mochizuki fails to disclose the heating element is made from Silicon Carbide. However, Woodard discloses a heating element for a furnace heater being made from Silicon Carbide. (See Paragraph [0006]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Mochizuki in view of Woodard in order to provide the Silicon Carbide heating element since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. SiC would also be an obvious choice for a furnace heater as it is one of the few materials capable of reaching the temperatures needed for the furnace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights