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 “second control unit” (Claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In this case, the provided figures only show one control unit. 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 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: "lifting and lowering unit” in claim 5, “first measuring unit” in claim 6, and “second measuring unit” in claim 7.
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.
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 limitations "lifting and lowering unit” in claim 5, “first measuring unit” in claim 6, and “second measuring unit” in claim 7 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “…moves up and down…” (lifting and lowering unit; claim 5), “…measures a temperature of the hollow portion…, (first measuring unit, claim 6),” and “…measures a temperature of the coil…” (second measuring unit; claim 7) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Terms “lifting and lowering” and “measuring” convey only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 5-7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Lifting and Lowering Unit
Figure 1 shows lifting and lowering unit 4 wherein paragraph 0039-0040 describe the lifting and lowering unit having a cylindrical shape that covers the lower opening of induction heating element 2 and having a surface 41 for receiving the object to be heated. Drive unit 5 is attached to the lower part of lifting and lowering unit 4 and raises and lowers the lifting and lowering unit 4.
First Measuring Unit
Figure 1 shows measuring unit 9 and paragraph 0045 details that unit 9 measures the temperature of hollow portion SP1 and transmits information (voltage value, etc.) indicating the temperature to control unit 10. Here, the first measuring unit is understood to refer to an electronic measuring unit.
Second Measuring Unit
Figure 1 shows measuring unit 16 and paragraph 0066-0067 details that unit 16 measures the temperature of coil 1 and is in communication with control unit 10. Here, the second measuring unit is understood to refer to an electronic measuring unit.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 7-8 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 7 requires, in relevant part, a second measuring unit and a second control unit. Claim 7 depends directly from claim 1, which makes no mention of a measuring unit or control unit. As such, it is unclear if the use of “second” is intended to refer to the number of measuring/control units (e.g., at least two measuring units, at least two control units) or if it is intended to merely serve as a means to distinguish claimed features. For instance, claim 6 recites a first measuring unit and a first control unit. Does “second,” as it appears in claim 7, serve as a linguistic choice for distinguishing the structures from, for instance, those of claim 6?
Claim 8 requires, in relevant part, a second fan. Claim depends directly from claim 1, which makes no mention of a fan. As such, it is unclear if the use of “second” is intended to refer to the number of fans (e.g., at least two fans) or if it is intended to merely serve as a means to distinguish claimed features. For instance, claim 3 recites a first fan. Does “second,” as it appears in claim 8, serve as a linguistic choice for distinguishing the structures from, for instance, those of claim 3?
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US2011/0306212).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a firing furnace for firing an object to be fired (Abstract) (Fig. 2; furnace 40), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
666
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Sato
a coil (Fig. 2; induction coil 50), and
an induction heating element (induction target 48) being placed at an inner diameter side of the coil, in which inducted current flows due to magnetic field generated by the coil, and generates heat due to the induced current (para. 0039; “The induction coil 50 is supplied with an alternating current with a frequency range of, e.g., 10 kHz to 100 kHz and with a power of, e.g., 10 kW to 200 kW, from an alternating current source (not shown in the drawings). By supplying the alternating current to the induction coil 50, alternating magnetic fields are applied to the induction target 48. Thus, an induced current flows through the induction target 48 so that the induction target 48 can generate heat. As heat is generated by the induction target 48, the wafers 14 held in the boat 30 and the processing chamber 43 are heated to a temperature of, e.g., 1500.degree. C. to 1800.degree. C., by radiant energy emitted from the induction target 48.”),
wherein the induction heating element includes a hollow portion for locating the object to be fired (48 includes a hollow portion, which is defined by the internal volume of 48 that accommodates object 14 to be heated) and
the coil (50) being made of a conducting wire wound (in order to inductively heat 48, the coil 50 must be made of a conducting material) around an axis as a center (the center is shown by the annotated Figure 2, above).
PNG
media_image2.png
668
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Sato
Sato further teaches the furnace (40) further comprising:
an inner diameter side flow path member (Annotated “Inner” above, which is an inner diameter side wall portion defining flow path 45, relative to the center axis) and an outer diameter side flow path member (Annotated “Outer” above, which is an outer diameter side wall portion defining flow path 45, relative to the center axis) placed between the coil (50) and the induction heating element (48),
wherein the inner diameter side flow path member is arranged at an inner diameter side of the outer diameter side flow path member (as shown in Fig. 2 above, the inner flow path member is arranged at an inner diameter side, closer to the center axis, of the outer flow path member), and
the inner diameter side flow path member and the outer diameter side flow path member constitute a flow path (45) of gas (inert gas-para. 0087) parallel to the axis (Both the center axis and flow path 45 extend in the vertical direction and are substantially parallel to each other).
PNG
media_image3.png
399
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Sato
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a heat insulating body (heat insulating member 56) including a groove extending in an outer diameter direction from the flow path (45) [Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “groove” is defined as “a long narrow channel or depression.” See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groove, viewed on 06/05/2026. The above annotated groove is a long narrow channel or depression in that it is a relatively long and narrow region that is defined by the insulating member 56 and extends outwardly relative to the center axis].
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) 1, 4, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornoff et al. (US2017/0176103) in view of Sato (US2011/0306212).
Regarding claim 1, Fornoff teaches a firing furnace for firing an object to be fired (para. 0001; “sintering furnace for components made of sintered material, in particular for dental components and in particular for components made of ceramic”) comprising (Figures 1 and 2A; furnace 1):
PNG
media_image4.png
296
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2A of Fornoff
a coil (coil 12), and
an induction heating element (inductively heated radiator 6, shown in Figure 1, which is configured as crucible 11, shown in Fig. 2A; para. 0035) being placed at an inner diameter side of the coil (Fig. 2A, above), in which induced current flows due to magnetic field generated by the coil, and generates heat due to the induced current (para. 0035 details inductively heating the crucible in order to heat the object 15) [Note: “induced current flows due to magnetic field generated by the coil, and generates heat due to the induced current” is understood to refer to induction heating],
wherein the induction heating element includes a hollow portion for locating the object to be fired (para. 0035; “The useful region 10 is likewise in the inner space of the crucible 11, wherein the ratio of the usable volume VN of the usable region 10 to the gross volume VB of the receiving space 9 is 1:1.”) (Fig. 2A, crucible 11 includes a hollow portion, defined by the internal volume of 11 that accommodates object 15), and
the coil is made of a conducting wire wound around an axis as a center (As shown in Figure 2A, where the annotated line indicates a center. Para. 0035 details that coil 12 encircles crucible 11 and serves to inductively heat the crucible. While not explicitly stated, coil 12 is necessarily made of a conductive material in order to function as intended).
Fornoff teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the firing furnace further comprising: an inner diameter side flow path member and an outer diameter side flow path member placed between the coil and the induction heating element, wherein the inner diameter side flow path member is arranged at an inner diameter side of the outer diameter side flow path member, and the inner diameter side flow path member and the outer diameter side flow path member constitute a flow path of gas parallel to the axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Sato
Sato relates to the field of inductively heated furnaces (Abstract) (Fig. 2; furnace 40) and teaches the furnace comprising a coil (Fig. 2; induction coil 50), an induction heating element (induction target 48) being placed at an inner diameter side of the coil, in which inducted current flows due to magnetic field generated by the coil, and generates heat due to the induced current (para. 0039; “The induction coil 50 is supplied with an alternating current with a frequency range of, e.g., 10 kHz to 100 kHz and with a power of, e.g., 10 kW to 200 kW, from an alternating current source (not shown in the drawings). By supplying the alternating current to the induction coil 50, alternating magnetic fields are applied to the induction target 48. Thus, an induced current flows through the induction target 48 so that the induction target 48 can generate heat. As heat is generated by the induction target 48, the wafers 14 held in the boat 30 and the processing chamber 43 are heated to a temperature of, e.g., 1500.degree. C. to 1800.degree. C., by radiant energy emitted from the induction target 48.”), wherein the induction heating element includes a hollow portion for locating the object to be fired (48 includes a hollow portion, which is defined by the internal volume of 48 that accommodates object 14 to be heated) and the coil (50) being made of a conducting wire wound (in order to inductively heat 48, the coil 50 must be made of a conducting material) around an axis as a center (the center is shown by the annotated Figure 2, above).
PNG
media_image2.png
668
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Sato
Sato further teaches the furnace (40) further comprising:
an inner diameter side flow path member (Annotated “Inner” above, which is an inner diameter side wall portion defining flow path 45, relative to the center axis) and an outer diameter side flow path member (Annotated “Outer” above, which is an outer diameter side wall portion defining flow path 45, relative to the center axis) placed between the coil (50) and the induction heating element (48),
wherein the inner diameter side flow path member is arranged at an inner diameter side of the outer diameter side flow path member (as shown in Fig. 2 above, the inner flow path member is arranged at an inner diameter side, closer to the center axis, of the outer flow path member), and
the inner diameter side flow path member and the outer diameter side flow path member constitute a flow path (45) of gas (inert gas-para. 0087) parallel to the axis (Both the center axis and flow path 45 extend in the vertical direction and are substantially parallel to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff with Sato, by adding between the coil and induction heating element of Fornoff, with the inner and outer diameter side flow path members of Sato, in order to provide an inert gas between the heating element and coil which would aid in preventing degradation of the furnace components and preventing product materials from adhering to surfaces (Sato; para. 0087).
PNG
media_image5.png
456
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Farnoff
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a heat insulating body (Fig. 1; insulation body 4) including a groove extending in an outer diameter direction from the flow path [Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “groove” is defined as “a long narrow channel or depression.” See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groove, viewed on 06/05/2026. The above annotated groove is a long narrow channel or depression in that it is a relatively long and narrow region that is defined by the insulating body 4 and extends outwardly relative to the flow path. The flow path is between the coil and the induction heating element, which are surrounded by insulation body 4. As such, the groove extends outwardly away from the flow path, at least partially.].
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches wherein the induction heating element (Fornoff, 11) has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 2B) with the axis as a center axis (Annotated Fig. 2A shown in claim 1 above), and the heat insulating body (4) includes a lower hole (opening shown in Fig. 1, closed by base 7) connected to the hollow portion (Fig. 1), wherein the firing furnace further comprising a lifting and lowering unit moves up and down between a lower position where the lower hole is opened and an upper position where the lower hole is closed (Abstract; “The furnace chamber (2) has an outer wall (3) consisting of a plurality of walls having a wall portion (7) to be opened for introduction of a component to be sintered having an object volume (VO) into the receiving space (9).”) (para. 0032; “The furnace chamber 2 has a wall portion 7 to be opened for insertion of a component 15 to be sintered into the furnace chamber 2, which here is the lower wall portion, thus the bottom of the furnace chamber 2.”) [Fornoff teaches that the base 7 opens/closes to allow access into the furnace to place/remove the object 15. A lifting/lowering unit is necessarily disclosed. Additionally, Figure 1 shows base 7 mechanically connected to chamber 2 to allow for such movement], and includes a top surface (top surface 8 of base 7) to place an object (15) to be fired (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the induction heating element includes molybdenum disilicide (Fornoff; para. 0035 details crucible 11 being made of MoSi2, or molybdenum disilicide).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Fishman (US2004/0233965).
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the conducting wire consists of a litz wire which includes multiple bare wires which are insulated from each other and twisted together.
Fishmann relates to the art of induction furnaces (para. 0002; “induction heating and melting systems that use magnetic induction to heat a crucible in which metal or other materials can be heated and/or, melted and held in the molten state by heat transfer from the crucible.”) and teaches the conducting coil being a Litz wire which includes multiple bare wires which are insulated from each other and twisted together (para. 0024; “A preferred form of the cable is Litz wire or litzendraht, in which the individual isolated conductors are woven together in such a way that each conductor successively takes all possible positions in the cross section of the cable, so as to minimize skin effect and high-frequency resistance, and to distribute the electrical power evenly among the conductors.”) (see also Figure 4 and para. 0047; “ Instead of using a solid tubular conductor, one embodiment of the present invention uses a cable 17 wound of a large number of copper conductors isolated one from another, as shown in FIGS. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). One of the insulated copper conductors 14 is shown in FIG. 4(c) with the insulation 16 that isolates the copper conductor 15 from surrounding conductors. The cable 17 is of the sort known in the electronic industry as Litz wire or litzendraht. It assures equal current distribution through the copper cross section when the diameter of each individual copper wire strand is significantly smaller than the depth of current penetration .DELTA..sub.1 as given by equation (2). For the present application, a suitable but not limiting number of strands is approximately between 1,000 and 2,000. Other variations in the configuration of the Litz wire will perform satisfactory without deviating from the present invention.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sato with Fishman, by substituting the coil of Sato with the Litz wire of Fishmann, for in doing so would provide a coil that minimizes skin effect and high frequency resistance, while evenly distributing electrical power among the conductors (para. 0024 of Fishman).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornoff et al. (US2017/0176103) in view of Sato (US2011/0306212), and in further view of Fishman (US2004/0233965).
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the conducting wire consists of a litz wire which includes multiple bare wires which are insulated from each other and twisted together.
Fishmann relates to the art of induction furnaces (para. 0002; “induction heating and melting systems that use magnetic induction to heat a crucible in which metal or other materials can be heated and/or, melted and held in the molten state by heat transfer from the crucible.”) and teaches the conducting coil being a Litz wire which includes multiple bare wires which are insulated from each other and twisted together (para. 0024; “A preferred form of the cable is Litz wire or litzendraht, in which the individual isolated conductors are woven together in such a way that each conductor successively takes all possible positions in the cross section of the cable, so as to minimize skin effect and high-frequency resistance, and to distribute the electrical power evenly among the conductors.”) (see also Figure 4 and para. 0047; “ Instead of using a solid tubular conductor, one embodiment of the present invention uses a cable 17 wound of a large number of copper conductors isolated one from another, as shown in FIGS. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). One of the insulated copper conductors 14 is shown in FIG. 4(c) with the insulation 16 that isolates the copper conductor 15 from surrounding conductors. The cable 17 is of the sort known in the electronic industry as Litz wire or litzendraht. It assures equal current distribution through the copper cross section when the diameter of each individual copper wire strand is significantly smaller than the depth of current penetration .DELTA..sub.1 as given by equation (2). For the present application, a suitable but not limiting number of strands is approximately between 1,000 and 2,000. Other variations in the configuration of the Litz wire will perform satisfactory without deviating from the present invention.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato, with Fishman by substituting the coil of Fornoff, with Litz wire taught by Fishman, for in doing so would provide a coil that minimizes skin effect and high frequency resistance, while evenly distributing electrical power among the conductors (para. 0024 of Fishman).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a first fan that promotes gas flow in the flow path.
Fishmann relates to the art of induction furnaces (para. 0002; “induction heating and melting systems that use magnetic induction to heat a crucible in which metal or other materials can be heated and/or, melted and held in the molten state by heat transfer from the crucible.”) and teaches a first fan (Fig. 5A; fan 45) that promotes gas flow in the flow path (para. 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato, with Fishman by adding to the flow path of modified Fornoff, with the fan taught by Fishman, for in doing so would provide a conventional mechanical means for controlling the flow of a gas, which would allow for the gas to be directed in a more controlled manner into/through the flow path.
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a second fan that blows air to the coil.
Fishmann relates to the art of induction furnaces (para. 0002; “induction heating and melting systems that use magnetic induction to heat a crucible in which metal or other materials can be heated and/or, melted and held in the molten state by heat transfer from the crucible.”) and teaches a second fan (Fig. 5A; fan 45) that blows air to the coil (32) (para. 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato, with Fishman by adding to the coil of modified Fornoff, with the fan taught by Fishman, for in doing so would provide a conventional mechanical means for providing cooling airflow to the coil (para. 0057).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornoff et al. (US2017/0176103) in view of Sato (US2011/0306212), and in further view of Jussel (US20200038152) and Saido et al. (US 20110000425).
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 5, except for a ceiling part covering an opening at a top of the induction heating element, a first measuring unit that hangs from the ceiling part to the hollow portion and measures a temperature of the hollow portion, and a first control unit that controls a current flowing through the coil based on the temperature measured by the first measuring unit.
Jussel relates to a furnace (para. 0004) (Figs. 3-4; induction coil 42, heating element/susceptor 42,) for dental components (para. 0002) and teaches a ceiling part (cover 32) covering an opening (opening 26 in Fig. 1, shown but not labelled in Figs. 3-4) at a top of the induction heating element (42), a first measuring unit (temperature sensor 50) that hangs from the ceiling part (32) to the hollow portion (internal volume of 30) (para. 0109) and measures a temperature of the hollow portion (para. 0065; “ According to the invention, it is also advantageous for immediate and therefore fast acting control of furnace temperature to be possible. A temperature sensor may be provided either in the cover or, if required, directly adjacent to the receiving plate. In both cases, the temperature of the dental restoration parts can be measured continuously and accurately.”).
Jussel also implies a first control unit that controls a current flowing through the coil based on the temperature measured by the first measuring unit (para. 0065; “ According to the invention, it is also advantageous for immediate and therefore fast acting control of furnace temperature to be possible. A temperature sensor may be provided either in the cover or, if required, directly adjacent to the receiving plate. In both cases, the temperature of the dental restoration parts can be measured continuously and accurately.”). In this case, the immediate and fast acting control of furnace temperature, using the temperature sensor, implies that a control unit is present that controls the current to the induction coil based on the temperature sensor data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato, with Jussel by adding to the furnace of modified Fornoff, with the temperature sensor and control unit arrangement taught by Jussel, for in doing so would allow for accurate control over furnace temperature.
Saido relates to a processing furnace (Fig. 2; 40) for heating an object (para. 0003) where the furnace comprises an induction coil (50) and a heating element (heating target object 48) (para. 0037).
Saido teaches using a temperature sensor to measure the temperature within a chamber (para. 0040). Said further teaches a first control unit (Fig. 3, main control unit 150 and temperature control unit 52) that controls a current flowing through the coil (50) based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor (para. 0040; “the temperature sensor are electrically connected to a temperature control unit 52, and the temperature control unit 52 is configured to adjust power to the induction coil 50 based on temperature information detected by the temperature sensor so as to obtain predetermined temperature distribution in the reaction chamber 44 at a predetermined time”).
Saido, therefore, provides an explicit teaching that it was known in the art, at the time of filing, to use a control unit to control current flowing through the induction coil based on measured temperature from a temperature sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato and Jussel, with Saido by adding to the temperature control of modified Fornoff, with the control unit for controlling current to the induction coil based on measured temperature taught by Saido, for in doing so would provide an automatic means for regulating the temperature within the furnace.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornoff et al. (US2017/0176103) in view of Sato (US2011/0306212), and in further view of Kim et al. (US20190264370).
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a second measuring unit that measures a temperature of the coil, and a second control unit that performs forced cooling control when the temperature measured by the second measuring unit exceeds a first temperature, wherein the forced cooling control includes at least one of stopping a current flowing through the coil and blowing air to the coil.
Kim relates to an induction heater and a control method thereof (para. 0002) and teaches using an induction coil (induction heater 70) heat a heating element (22; para. 0061).
Kim teaches (Fig. 7) using a second measuring unit (temperature sensors 80a and 80b) that measures a temperature of the coil (para. 0075; temperature sensor 80a is heated by the induction heater 70 and the temperature detected by sensor 80a is higher than the air temperature Ta. [In this case, sensor 80a is described as being heated by the induction heater and the measured temperature reflects this heating. As such, the temperature detected by sensor 80a is indicative of the temperature of the induction heater]), and a second control unit (91) that performs forced cooling control when the temperature measured by the second measuring unit exceeds a first temperature, wherein the forced cooling control includes at least one of stopping a current flowing through the coil and blowing air to the coil (para. 0091; “controller 91 may obtain the temperature Td of the drum 22 based on the first detection value T1 and the second detection value T2, and may control the output of the induction heater 70 or the operation of the cooling fan 55 based on the obtained temperature Td (exactly, an estimated value of the actual temperature of the drum 22 (see FIG. 6)) of the drum 22.) (para. 0068 details that the cooling fan is for cooling coil 71 of the induction heater).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fornoff as modified by Sato, with Kim by adding to the induction coil of modified Fornoff, with the temperature sensor and control unit controlling cooling taught by Kim, for in doing so would provide an automatic means for regulating the temperature of the induction heater.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Fishman (US2004/0233965).
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the induction heating element includes molybdenum disilicide.
Fornoff relates to a firing furnace for firing an object to be fired (para. 0001; “sintering furnace for components made of sintered material, in particular for dental components and in particular for components made of ceramic”) comprising (Figures 1 and 2A; furnace 1) and teaches the induction heating element includes molybdenum disilicide (Fornoff; para. 0035 details crucible 11 being made of MoSi2, or molybdenum disilicide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sato with Fornoff by substituting the material of the induction heating element of Sato with the molybdenum disilicide taught by Fornoff, would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights