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 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 states that the alumina granules comprise aluminum hydroxide or alumina. Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer, but definitions need to be explicit in the disclosure. No such explicit redefinition is applied, as such it is unclear how “alumina granules” can comprise aluminum hydroxide as alumina is a defined chemical name for Al203.
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, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013020071 to Mathis.
Regarding claim 1
A microwave heating apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
A housing (19):
A drum unit () disposed rotatably (via bearings 50/51) on the housing (Fig. 1, see notches on housing on which bearings are fit) and into which heating target substance (30) and gas (at least air) are introduced (Fig. 1); and at least one heating unit (microwave – see waveguides 24) heating the drum unit by applying microwaves to the drum unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2
wherein the heating unit comprises: a magnetron (640) generating microwaves (¶ [0068]); and a waveguide (24) connected to the drum unit and applying microwaves generated by the magnetron into the drum unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7
further comprising: a body unit (13) supporting the housing (Fig. 1)
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis.
Regarding claim 3
Mathis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above and further teaches: wherein the drum unit comprises: a tube (see tube attached to 32) having a reaction space into which the heating target substance and the gas are introduced (Fig. 1, open space), and heated by the microwaves (through wave guides 24); an insulating material (102) surrounding an external side surface of the tube (Fig. 1); and a shaft (attached to gear 72) disposed on one side of the tube (Fig. 1).
Mathis fails to teach wherein the shaft is disposed on both sides of the drum to rotate on the housing. Instead Mathis is attached through a gear.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known that drums can be rotated by shafts directly instead of being rotated through a gear.
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the shaft and gear of Mathis with the well-known setup of a direct shaft attachment, and this would have been nothing more than a simple substitution of known ways to attach shafts to rotating drum yielding only the predictable result of a shaft for rotating the drum.
Regarding claim 6
Mathis as modified further teaches a rotation driving unit (70) power-connected to the shaft (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis in view of JP 2011219309 to Sugibashi.
Regarding claims 8 and 10
Mathis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach that the microwave is fed with a mixing of alumina granules and carbon powder and preprocessing with a gas containing nitrogen manufacturing an aluminum nitride.
Sugibashi teaches making aluminum nitride from alumina granules and carbon powder with a gas containing nitrogen manufacturing to produce an aluminum nitride in a microwave process (abstract).
As such it would have been obvious to use the microwave process of Mathis to make aluminum nitride from alumina granules and carbon powder with a gas containing nitrogen manufacturing to produce an aluminum nitride in a microwave process, as microwave processes are known to be capable of producing aluminum nitride by the process of Sugibashi and this would be nothing more than a combination of a known method for producing aluminum nitride with a known microwave process to provide a predictable result.
Regarding claim 9
The modified device of Mathis further teaches a weight ratio of carbon to alumina powder of 5:1 (example one in English translation teaches 50g alumina powder and 10g carbon dispersion).
Regarding claim 11
The modified Mathis further teaches a flow rate of nitrogen gas at 5 Liters/minute for 40 minutes (See Example 1).
Regarding claim 12
The modified Mathis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above and further teaches heating the mixture to 1400 degrees Celsius for 2 hours and holding at the temperature (Fig. 2) in addition to a heating rate of 40 degrees per minute (Fig. 2) and cooling the mixture (example 1).
The modified Mathis does not specifically teach holding for 2 to 24 hours or a heating rate of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius or a cooled holding for 1 to 6 hours.
However, these are known result effective variables that would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify. For example, it is well understood from basic physics that the heating rate will control the time to get to temperature and with respect to the heating and cooling times this will result in completeness of chemical reaction. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is only the optimization of known result effective variables, a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Regarding claim 13
The modified Mathis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach specific rotational speed for the drum. It is noted that from basic physical principles the rotation speed of the drum would be understood to be a result effective variable controlling the agitation of the particles in the nitrogen atmosphere. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Mathis to arrive at the claimed invention rotation speed in order to control the agitation of the particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights