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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 should read, “… each channel (C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) comprises its own temperature control means …”
Claim 7 should read, “… wherein each sub-module (22) is provided with its own air recycling system …”
Claim 10 should read, “… the temperature at the exit from the firing module (3) down to the ambient temperature …” Since the temperature is understood to be decreasing in the cooling module.
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 8-9 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 8. The term “about” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a temperature of about 700°C” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… a temperature of
Regarding claim 9. The term “about” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a temperature of about 1230°C” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… a temperature of
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080304941 A1 to Morita in view of WO 2019107651 A1 to Park.1
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Park.
Regarding claim 1. Morita teaches a kiln for firing ceramic slabs (T) [intended use which the device of Morita is capable of] comprising:
a heating module (2) [fig. 3, heating area 2a], a firing module (3) [fig. 3, keeping area 2b], a cooling module (4) [fig. 3, cooling area 2c], consecutively connected to each other along an advancement direction (Y) of the slabs (L) [fig. 3, the three areas are consecutively connected along direction 100], which define a process chamber (C) provided with an inlet opening (A) [fig. 3, right side of the figure, the start of direction 100] and an outlet opening (B) [fig. 3, left side of the figure, end of direction 100];
a transport system (T1,T2) arranged along the process chamber (C) from the inlet opening to the outlet opening [fig. 3, roller conveyors 6], structured to transport the slabs (L) along the advancement direction (Y) [para. 37, “In the baking furnace 2, as a conveying means for conveying setters 5 mounting substrates 4 serving as substrates 13 of the front surface plates 12 or substrates 20 of the back surface plates 19 of PDP 11, the roller conveyers 6, for example, are provided in four lines for example.”] wherein the process chamber (C) comprises at least a first channel (C1) and at least a second channel (C2) [fig. 3, four lines are provided], thermally isolated from one another [fig. 3, the four lines are thermally isolated due to heat insulating walls 7], each of which extends along the advancement direction (Y) from the inlet opening (A) to the outlet opening (B) [fig. 3, each of the four lines extend from the inlet to the outlet];
wherein the transport system (T1, T2) comprises at least a first transport line (T1) and at least a second transport line (T2), respectively arranged along the first channel (C1) and along the second channel (C2) from the inlet opening (A) to the outlet opening (B) [fig. 3, each of the four lines have their own conveyors 6];
PNG
media_image1.png
499
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the heating module (2) and/or the cooling module (4) comprise a plurality of sub-modules (22,42), flanked to one another along the slab advancement direction (Y);
each sub-module (22,42) is separated from the adjacent sub-modules by means of insulating partitions, provided with openings, aligned with each other along the advancement direction, to allow the transit of the slabs (L), and wherein each sub-module (22,42) is provided with temperature adjusting means independent of the other sub-modules (22,42).
Park teaches a heating module and/or a cooling module comprising a plurality of sub modules [fig. 2, the heating zone 21 and cooling zone 23 are comprised of a plurality of sub modules, where the sub modules are divided by the partitions 63], flanked to one another along an advancement direction [fig. 2, the sub modules are flanked in the advancement direction shown by the arrow], each sub module being separated from the adjacent sub modules by means of insulating partitions [fig. 2, partitions 63, where the partitions are understood to be at least partially insulating, p. 5 para. 6], provided with openings, aligned with each other along the advancement direction, to allow the transit of workpieces [fig. 2, the partitions 63 can be seen to have aligned openings for the transfer of workpieces in the conveyance direction], and wherein each sub module is provided with temperature adjusting means independent of the other sub modules [p. 5 para. 6, “In the heating zone 21 and the holding zone 22, heaters 62 are installed on the upper and lower sides of the feed roll 60. A partition wall 63 is provided in each zone to divide the zone into a plurality of zones. And the barrier ribs 63 are provided to transmit heat energy differently in each section.”].
PNG
media_image2.png
883
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Morita to implement suitable partitions in the heating and cooling modules, as taught by Park. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of transmitting heat energy differently in each section of the zones, as suggested by Park in the portion of p. 5 para. 6 cited above.
Regarding claim 2. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the first channel (C1) and the second channel (C2) comprise respective temperature control means which are activatable and adjustable independently of one another [Morita paras. 37, “Each electric heater 9 may be divided into some pieces in the width direction 102 corresponding to the size of the heat treatment room 8, and controlled to obtain the target temperature distribution.” And 44, “Each electric heater 9 may be so configured as to be able to control the heating amount separately, or be so configured as to be able to at least control the heating amount for each temperature zone provided in the conveying direction of the substrates.”].
Regarding claim 3. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the first and second line (T1,T2) are operable independently of one another [Morita para. 37, the four exemplary lines are understood to operate independently of one another, e.g. each heater 9 is controllable and the paths are insulated from each other].
Regarding claim 4. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the process chamber (C) comprises two or more channels (C1,C2,C3,C4,C5), thermally isolated from one another, each of which extends along the advancement direction (Y) from the inlet opening (A) to the outlet opening (B) and is provided with a respective transport line (T1,T2,T3, T4, T5) [Morita fig. 3, four channels are provided between the inlet on the right and the outlet on the left, which are separated by heat insulating walls 7 and provided with roller conveyors 6].
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 4, wherein each channel (C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) comprises its own temperature control means, activatable and adjustable independently with respect to the temperature control means of the other channels [Morita para. 37, “Each electric heater 9 may be divided into some pieces in the width direction 102 corresponding to the size of the heat treatment room 8, and controlled to obtain the target temperature distribution.” Therefore, each channel would be made up of a plurality of individually controlled heaters 9 to obtain a desired temperature distribution].
Regarding claim 6. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 4, wherein the transport lines (T1,T2, T3, T4, T5) are operable independently of one another [Morita fig. 3, each conveyor line 6 is substantially separate from the others, and would be understood to operate independently from the others].
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the heating module (2) comprises a plurality of sub-modules (22), flanked to one another along the advancement direction of the slabs (L) and separated from one another by means of isolating partitions, provided with openings, aligned to one another along the advancement direction, in order to enable the transit of the slabs (L) [Park has these features in the heating module 21, as noted in the rejection to claim 1], and
But fails to teach wherein each sub-module (22) is provided with its own air recycling system independent of the other sub-modules (22).
Park further teaches each sub module having its own air recycling system independent of the other sub modules [p. 5 para. 6, “In the lower part of the firing furnace 20, there is provided a supply port 64 communicating with the inner path to supply gas to the inside, and an outlet 65 through which gas is discharged is installed in the upper part.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Morita to implement suitable gas supply ports 64 and outlets 65 to the sub modules, as taught by park. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing for the furnace to be suitably ventilated, as suggested by Park in the portion cited above.
Regarding claim 8. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the heating module (2) is provided [Morita fig. 3, heating area 2a] to heat the slabs (L), starting from the ambient temperature or from a temperature higher than the ambient temperature [Morita fig. 3, it is understood that the workpieces are heated from substantially ambient temperatures].
But fails to explicitly teach heating to a temperature of 700°C.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, since the heaters 9 of Morita are individually controlled to obtain a target temperature distribution, Morita para. 37, the device of modified Morita is understood to be capable of heating the workpieces to the claimed temperature.
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the firing module (3) is provided [Morita fig. 3, keeping area 2b] to heat the slabs (L) from the temperature at the exit from the heating module (2) [Morita fig. 3, it is understood that the workpieces would be heated from the temperature at the exit from the heating module if any further heating occurs].
But fails to explicitly teach heating to a temperature of 1230°C.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, since the heaters 9 of Morita are individually controlled to obtain a target temperature distribution, Morita para. 37, the device of modified Morita is understood to be capable of heating the workpieces to the claimed temperature.
Regarding claim 10. The device of modified Morita teaches the kiln according to claim 1, wherein the cooling module (4) is provided [Morita fig. 3, cooling area 2c] to cool the slabs (L) from the temperature at the exit from the firing module (3) [Morita para. 39, “a cooling area 2c for cooling them up to a predetermined temperature.” Where it is understood that the workpieces would be cooled from the temperature at the exit of the firing module].
But fails to explicitly teach cooling to the ambient temperature or a temperature below 150°C.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, since the heaters 9 of Morita are individually controlled to obtain a target temperature distribution , Morita para. 37, and the cooling means 11 are provided for cooling to a predetermined temperature, Morita para. 42, the device of modified Morita is understood to be capable of cooling the workpieces to the claimed temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Please Note: Since the claims include a number of parenthesis ( ), the mapping of the prior art will be expressed using brackets [ ] throughout this action to avoid confusion.