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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109732091 A – Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu is directed towards a pressure sintering furnace. Liu does teach each one of the plurality of heating units comprises a plurality of heating conductive strips ([0045] 13-Heating rod), a conductive block ([0045] 3-First conductive connecting block, 4-Second conductive connecting block),a connecting conductive strip ([0045] 18-electrode bar, 19-power supply hole), and an isolating column ([0053] a cross slider 16, and a parallel slider 17.), the plurality of heating conductive strips are connected end-to-end through the conductive block to form a closed frame, (Figure 1 shows the heating rods connected via a connection block and forms a close frame) and one end of the connecting conductive strip is connected to one of the conductive block, and another end of the connecting conductive strip is a free end (Figure 1 shows the electrode connection 19 having one end connected to the connection block and one end being free); one of the plurality of heating conductive strips is connected to the conductive block through the isolating column (Figure 1 shows the cross slider 16 and the parallel slider 17 attaching the two connection blocks that have the heating rods attached.); and pluralities of heating conductive strips of the plurality of heating units connected to the isolating column are electrically connected through a connecting heating block (Figure 1 and 10-Eighth conductive connecting block, 11-Ninth conductive connecting block, 12-Tenth conductive connecting block show the heating rods being connected electrically).
Liu does not expressly teach a plurality of heating units.
Although Lui does not teach a plurality of heating units, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a plurality of heating units since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach multiple heating conductive strips are provided between two adjacent conductive blocks; and the multiple heating conductive strips are provided in parallel to each other (See Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 2, Liu does teach the two adjacent conductive blocks are connected to each other by an insulating plate (Figure 1 and [0045] 15-Connecting assembly).
Regarding claim 4, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 3. Liu does teach another one of the plurality of heating conductive strips is connected to the conductive block via a conductive screw (Figure 1 and [0052] Some or all of the heating rods 13 are connected to second graphite screws 31 through the second threaded holes 30).
Liu does not expressly teach a longitudinal cross-section of the conductive block is in an L-shape.
Regarding the shape of a longitudinal cross-section of the conductive block is in an L-shape, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding claim 5, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 4. Liu teaches that the isolating column is provided on an outer surface of the conductive block (See Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 3. Liu does teach the isolating column is an insulating isolating column. ([0053] the insulating component includes a connecting assembly 15, a cross slider 16, and a parallel slider 17.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109732091 A – Liu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20200033774 A1 - Shinji.
Regarding claim 6, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 4. Liu does not expressly teach the plurality of heating conductive strips are graphite heating conductive strips; the conductive block is a graphite conductive block; the connecting conductive strip is a graphite connecting conductive strip; and
the connecting heating block is a graphite connecting heating block.
Shinji is directed towards a heating device. Shinji does teach using graphite for the heating device because of its thermal conductive properties. ([0041] A graphite sheet, which exhibits anisotropy in thermal conductivity, may be used as the thermally conductive member and may be made thicker. In this case, however, the amount of heat transport of the graphite sheet does not increase greatly since the thermal conductivity of the graphite sheet in the thickness direction is low. Graphite is a material that exhibits a very high heat equalization effect in the in-plane directions. In the thickness direction, however, graphite exhibits a low thermal conductivity and accordingly behaves like a heat insulating material. Moreover, in manufacturing, it is difficult to produce thick graphite sheets without compromising a high thermal conductivity in the in-plane directions. In general, as the thickness of a graphite sheet increases, the in-plane thermal conductivity of a produceable graphite sheet decreases. Accordingly, it is difficult to greatly suppress the temperature increase at the non-sheet-passing portion by increasing the thickness of the graphite sheet.).
The combination of the graphite being used with the structures of Liu allows the heating unit to have favorable properties such as but not limited to unique combination of thermal stability, electrical conductivity, and chemical inertness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to the plurality of heating conductive strips are graphite heating conductive strips; the conductive block is a graphite conductive block; the connecting conductive strip is a graphite connecting conductive strip; and the connecting heating block is a graphite connecting heating block, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. Please see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 W 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights