DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0078] the cooling space (44) is described as being in the front portion of the furnace body (12) ahead of the heat treatment space (42) which appears to oppose the teachings in [0082] & [0084].
On page 12, line 3, change “m2” to –m2—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 36 & 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebner (EP 0108047). Ebner discloses a heat treatment furnace (1) configured to heat-treat a plurality of objects (7), the heat treatment furnace comprising: a furnace body (Figure 1) comprising an entrance and an exit (inherent); a lower plate member (5) disposed in the furnace body; an upper plate member (6) disposed above the lower plate member, wherein the upper plate member is configured to allow the plurality of objects (7) stacked in an up-down direction to be placed thereon; an intermediate member (9) interposed between the lower plate member and the upper plate member in the up-down direction (Figure 2) and attached to the lower plate member (inside recess 8); and a pusher (hydraulic pusher, SEE page 1, lines 6-22) configured to push the upper plate member forward from the entrance toward the exit, wherein the upper plate member moves forward above the lower plate member (the upper plate member is displaceable and carries the object on the stationary lower plate member 5 as per page 4, line 29 – page 5, line 9) such that a sliding resistance between the upper plate member and the intermediate member is smaller than a sliding resistance between the upper plate member and the lower plate member (inherent, the sliding resistance between the upper plate (6) and the intermediate member (9) is inherently smaller than the sliding resistance between the upper plate and the lower plate, otherwise there would be greater resistance in transporting the object through the furnace). In re claim 3, Ebner further discloses that the lower plate member comprises: a first facing surface facing the upper plate member; and a recess (8) recessed from the first facing surface (SEE Figure 2), and the intermediate member (9) comprises: a received portion received in the recess; and a protruding portion (Figure 2) protruding beyond the first facing surface toward the upper plate member. In re claim 6, Ebner discloses that the length of the received portion (of the intermediate member) in a front-rear direction is less than a length of the recess in the front-rear direction (as shown in Figure 2). In re claim 7, Ebner implicitly discloses (in Figure 2) that a length obtained by subtracting the length of the received portion in the front-rear direction from the length of the recess in the front-rear direction is equal to or less than 2% of the length of the recess in the front-rear direction. In re claim 12, Ebner discloses that the intermediate member (9) comprises a plurality of intermediate members (SEE Figures 2 & 5) interposed between the lower plate member and the upper plate member in the up-down direction, and the plurality of intermediate members is aligned along a front-rear direction (specifically in Figure 5).
Claim(s) 18, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlumberger et al (4,412,816). Schlumberger et al discloses a heat treatment furnace (50) configured to heat-treat a plurality of objects (7), the heat treatment furnace comprising: a furnace body (Figure 1) comprising an entrance and an exit (inherent); a lower plate member (8) disposed in the furnace body; an upper plate member (6) disposed above the lower plate member, wherein the upper plate member is configured to allow the plurality of objects (7) stacked in an up-down direction to be placed thereon (SEE Figure 1); an intermediate member (12) interposed between the lower plate member and the upper plate member in the up-down direction and attached to the upper plate member (via a recessed surface illustrated in Figure 2, but unnumbered); and a pusher configured to push the upper plate member forward from the entrance toward the exit (hydraulic pusher as per column 1, lines 22-28), wherein the upper plate member moves forward above the lower plate member (column 3, lines 3-9) such that a sliding resistance between the lower plate member and the intermediate member is smaller than a sliding resistance between the lower plate member and the upper plate member a sliding resistance between the upper plate member and the intermediate member is smaller than a sliding resistance between the upper plate member and the lower plate member (this is being regarded by the examiner as being an inherent teaching as the sliding resistance between the lower plate member (8) and the intermediate member (12) is inherently smaller than the sliding resistance between the lower plate and the upper plate, otherwise there would be greater resistance in transporting the object through the furnace). In re claim 20, Schlumberger et al discloses that the upper plate member (6) comprises: a first facing surface (11) facing the lower plate member (element 5 of lower plate member 8); and a recess (in the face of surface 11) recessed from the first facing surface (11), and the intermediate member (12) comprises: a received portion received in the recess; and a protruding portion protruding beyond the first facing surface toward the lower plate member (column 3, lines 23-27). In re claim 23, Schlumberger et al discloses a length of the received portion in a front-rear direction is less than a length of the recess in the front-rear direction (see the length of the intermediate member compared to its thickness, in Figure 2). In re claim 24, Schlumberger et al implicitly discloses in Figure 2, that a length obtained by subtracting the length of the received portion in the front-rear direction from the length of the recess in the front-rear direction is equal to or less than 2% of the length of the recess in the front-rear direction. In re claim 26, Schlumberger implicitly discloses that the intermediate member is attached to the upper plate member via an adhesive (SEE column 3, lines 23-27). In re claim 30, Schlumberger et al discloses that the intermediate member (12) comprises a plurality of intermediate members interposed between the lower plate member and the upper plate member in the up-down direction, and the plurality of intermediate members is aligned along a front-rear direction (as per Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 8-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebner (EP 0108047). In re claim 2, as previously stated, Ebner discloses the sliding resistance between the upper plate (6) and the intermediate member (9) is inherently smaller than the sliding resistance between the upper plate and the lower plate, otherwise there would be greater resistance in transporting the object through the furnace and further discloses that the intermediate member consists of a sintered material in a special alloy, but does not specify any detail of the material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material with a coefficient of dynamic friction of 0.5 or less and arrived at the applicants claimed invention, 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.
In re claims 4-5, Ebner discloses an intermediate member having a protruding portion beyond the recess of the lower plate member, but does not specifically recite that the protruding portion has a chamfer at a corner of a rear end of the protruding portion for the purpose of preventing the lower plate member from getting caught on the front end of the protruding portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the structural design of the protruding portion for the specific purpose set forth by the specification since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
In re claim 8, Ebner discloses the protruding portion of the intermediate member (9) which is a second facing surface facing the upper plate member and consists of a sintered material in a special alloy but does not provide any detail with regards to surface roughness. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected or modified a material such that an arithmetic average roughness of the second facing surface is equal to or less than 10 micrometers, 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.
In re claims 9-11, Ebner discloses an intermediate member (9) which is made of a sintered material in a special alloy but does not provide any detail with regards to porosity of the material nor the bending strength (in re claim 11) of the intermediate member. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material having a porosity of the intermediate member is equal to or less than 1% as well as having a bending strength that falls in the range of 150-400 MPa, 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.
In re claims 13-17, Ebner discloses an intermediate member (9) which is made of a sintered material in a special alloy but does not necessarily disclose ceramics including a transition metal or a poor metal (as per claim 13), ceramics of non-oxide ceramics including the transition metal (as per claim 14), non-oxide ceramics of TiB2, TiCN, or MoSi2 (as per claim 15), ceramics comprising oxide ceramics including the transition metal or the poor metal (as per claim 16), nor that the oxide ceramics is Cr2O3, Al2O3, or Al6O13Si2 (as per claim 17), however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a ceramic of any one of the types claimed in claims 13-17 and arrived at the applicants invention, 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.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 22, 25, 27-29 and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlumberger (4,412,816). In re claim 19, Schlumberger discloses the sliding resistance between the lower plate and the intermediate member is inherently smaller than the sliding resistance between the lower plate and the upper plate, and further discloses in column 3, lines 27-35, that, in order to achieve an essentially wear-free feed or advance of the sliding shoes 6 upon the rails or rail means 5, it has been found to yield the best results if there is used a material for forming the sliding elements having a coefficient of friction….that is sufficient for co-operation with the heat-resistant steel or the like from which the rails 5 are formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material with a coefficient of dynamic friction of 0.5 or less and arrived at the applicants claimed invention, 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. In re claims 21-22, Schlumberger discloses an intermediate member having a protruding portion beyond the recess of the upper plate member, but does not specifically recite that the protruding portion has a chamfer at a corner of a front end of the protruding portion for the purpose of preventing the upper plate member from getting caught on an end of the protruding portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the structural design of the protruding portion for the specific purpose set forth by the specification since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
In re claim 25, Schlumberger discloses that the intermediate member (12) which is a second facing surface facing the lower plate member and consists of a material of a special alloy which contains colloidal graphite as a self-lubricant, for instance a commercially available bearing metal but does not provide any detail with regards to surface roughness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected or modified a material such that an arithmetic average roughness of the second facing surface is equal to or less than 10 micrometers, 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.
In re claims 27 -29, Schlumberger discloses an intermediate member (12) which is made of a material of a special alloy which contains colloidal graphite but does not provide any detail with regards to porosity of the material nor the bending strength (in re claim 11) of the intermediate member. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material having a porosity of the intermediate member is equal to or less than 1% as well as having a bending strength that falls in the range of 150-400 MPa, 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.
In re claims 31-35, Schlumberger discloses an intermediate member (12) which is made of a special alloy which contains colloidal graphite but does not necessarily disclose ceramics including a transition metal or a poor metal (as per claim 31), ceramics of non-oxide ceramics including the transition metal (as per claim 32), non-oxide ceramics of TiB2, TiCN, or MoSi2 (as per claim 33), ceramics comprising oxide ceramics including the transition metal or the poor metal (as per claim 34), nor that the oxide ceramics is Cr2O3, Al2O3, or Al6O13Si2 (as per claim 35), however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a ceramic of any one of the types claimed in claims 31-35 and arrived at the applicants invention, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights