DETAILED ACTION
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 listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, the last line, change “the posture adjusting chamber” to -- the suction chamber --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
“a conveying device configured to convey saggars in a conveying direction” (Claim 1)
“a posture adjusting device configured to adjust postures of the saggars in the posture adjusting chamber” (Claim 2)
“an unstacking device configured to unstack the stacked saggars” (Claim 3)
“a saggar moving device configured to move each of the saggars in the left-right direction relative to the suction nozzle when the suction nozzle collects the object in each of the saggars” (Claim 7)
“a lifting device configured to lift the saggar in the suction chamber” (Claim 8)
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.
“a conveying device configured to convey saggars in a conveying direction” (from Claim 1), given at least [0042], is being interpreted as a device comprising rollers, and equivalents thereof
“a posture adjusting device configured to adjust postures of the saggars in the posture adjusting chamber” (from Claim 2), given at least [0056], is being interpreted as a device comprising a plurality of posture adjusting bodies and actuators, and equivalents thereof
“an unstacking device configured to unstack the stacked saggars” (from Claim 3), given at least [0059], is being interpreted as a device comprising a lifting device body, a lifting actuator, a clamping device body, and a clamping actuator, and equivalents thereof
“a saggar moving device configured to move each of the saggars in the left-right direction relative to the suction nozzle when the suction nozzle collects the object in each of the saggars” (from Claim 7), given at least [0071], is being interpreted as a device comprising a first moving device body, a second moving device body, a first moving actuator, and a second moving actuator, and equivalents thereof
“a lifting device configured to lift the saggar in the suction chamber” (from Claim 8), given at least [0074], is being interpreted as a device comprising a lifting device body and a lifting actuator, 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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noiri et al. (JP 2011236463 A) (hereinafter “Noiri”) (see attached original document and translation for reference) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2022116546 A1) (hereinafter “Wang”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Noiri teaches of a suction collection system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a conveying device (the “sagger moving means for moving the sagger below a fixedly positioned powder suction nozzle” that comprises the rollers shown in Fig. 3 which covey saggars (3) through the system) configured to convey saggars (3) in a conveying direction (the right-to-left direction with respect to Fig. 3) (see at least [0007], [0018] and Fig. 3);
a heat treatment chamber (6) including an entrance (the right-hand entrance of element (6) with respect to Fig. 3) and an exit (the left-hand exit of element (6) with respect to Fig. 3) and inside which the saggars are conveyed from the entrance toward the exit (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0007], [0018] and Fig. 3);
a suction chamber (suction chamber comprising element (1) that is denoted as (A) in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3 below) disposed downstream of the exit (as is shown in Fig. 3) and through which the saggars conveyed out of the exit move (see at least [0007], [0018] and Examiner Annotated Fig. 3);
a suction nozzle (1) disposed in the suction chamber (as is shown in Fig. 3) and configured to suction and collect an object (“powder”) in each of the saggars (see at least [0018]-[0020] and Fig. 3);
an end chamber (B) disposed downstream of the suction chamber (as is shown in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) and through which the saggars conveyed out of the suction chamber move (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0018]-[0020] and Fig. 3); and
a second partition (C) disposed between the suction chamber and the end chamber (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0018]-[0020] and Fig. 3).
Noiri fails to explicitly teach that the end chamber disposed downstream of the suction chamber is a gas replacement chamber. Furthermore, Noiri fails to explicitly teach of a first partition disposed between the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber and configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber communicate and a non-communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber do not communicate. Furthermore, Noiri fails to explicitly teach that the second partition is configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the suction chamber and a gas replacement chamber communicate and a non-communicating state in which the suction chamber and the gas replacement chamber do not communicate.
Wang discloses a relatable kiln system (Fig. 1) for the processing of material in saggars (2) (see at least [0046], [0057] and Fig. 1). Wang teaches of a heat treatment chamber (4) in addition to a downstream end chamber (25) that is in the form of a gas replacement chamber (“gas replacement chamber” - (25)). Wang teaches that configuring the end chamber to be in the form of a gas replacement chamber is advantageous because, inter alia, it provides means to “avoid introducing external gases into the tunnel kiln during the material transport process” (see at least [0090] and Fig. 1). Furthermore, Wang teaches of placing moveable partitions (5, 7, 9, 10) between each chamber of the system (as is shown in Fig. 1) which include a first partition (7) disposed between the heat treatment chamber and adjacent chamber (24) (see at least [0103] and Fig. 1) and configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the adjacent chamber communicate (state in which element (7) is open) and a non-communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the adjacent chamber do not communicate (state in which element (7) is closed) (see at least [0103], [0122] and Fig. 1). Wang also teaches of at least a second partition (9) that is disposed between adjacent chambers (chambers (4) and (22)) that is configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the adjacent chambers communicate (state in which element (9) is open) and a non-communicating state in which the adjacent chambers do not communicate (state in which element (9) is closed) (see at least [0103], [0126] and Fig. 1). Wang teaches that placing moveable partitions between each chamber of the system such that at least first and second moveable partitions are present, inter alia, enables each chamber to be “selectively opened and closed as needed” (see at least [0010], [0067] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Noiri by configuring the existing end chamber (B) taught by Noiri to be in the form of a gas replacement chamber as is taught by Wang. Doing so would have provided means for avoiding the introduction of external gases into the system. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to have implemented a movable partition between each of the existing chambers as is also taught by Wang. Doing so would have provided means for selectively opening and closing each chamber as needed. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in a first partition being disposed between the existing heat treatment chamber and the existing suction chamber (since a movable partition would be disposed between each and every chamber as is taught by Wang) and configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber communicate (an “opened” state that can be achieved “as needed” as is taught by Wang - see [0067]) and a non-communicating state in which the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber do not communicate (a “closed” state that can be achieved “as needed” as is taught by Wang - see [0067]). Furthermore, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the existing second partition (C) taught by Wang being configured to perform switching between a communicating state in which the existing suction chamber (A) and the adjacent chamber (B), which would be a gas replacement chamber in the combined system as is taught by Wang (as is presented above), communicate (an “opened” state that can be achieved “as needed” as is taught by Wang - see [0067]) and a non-communicating state in which the suction chamber and the adjacent gas replacement chamber do not communicate (a “closed” state that can be achieved “as needed” as is taught by Wang - see [0067]). Therefore, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Noiri also teaches that the suction nozzle (1) is configured not to move in a left-right direction perpendicular to the conveying direction (see at least [0019] and Fig. 3 - “the powder suction nozzle 1 is fixed in place”), and that the suction collection system further comprises a saggar moving device (“saggar moving means 5”) configured to move each of the saggars (3) in the left-right direction relative to the suction nozzle (as is shown in Fig. 4) when the suction nozzle collects the object in each of the saggars (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0019]-[0020] and Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 8, Noiri also teaches of a lifting device (“movement mechanism” of element (5)) configured to lift the saggar in the suction chamber (see at least [0020] and Figs. 3-4 - “the sagger 3 moves in stages vertically”), wherein the saggar moving device is configured to move the saggar in the left-right direction relative to the suction nozzle in a state where the saggar is lifted by the lifting device (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0019]-[0020] and Figs. 3-4).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noiri and Wang further in view of Kuehn (US 5,443,383).
Regarding Claim 9, Noiri and Wang teach the suction collection system according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of a first actuator disposed outside of the suction chamber and configured to operate the first partition.
Kuehn discloses a relatable furnace system (Fig. 1A) that comprises a plurality of chambers (8, 9, 10) (see at least Col. 4 lines 23-31 and Fig. 1A) in addition to a plurality partitions (partitions comprising elements (11, 12, 15 and 16)) that divide each of the chambers (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least Col. 4 lines 32-36). Kuehn teaches that each of the plurality of partitions comprises an external actuator (external actuators comprising elements (25), (21), (22) and (26)) (see at least Col. 4 lines 44-46 and Fig. 1A) and that such actuators enable mechanical movement of each partition to create an “unrestricted passage” at the location of each partition between the chambers from a location outside of the chambers (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least Col. 5 lines 60-66 and Fig. 1A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined system by configuring each existing partition to include an external actuator as is taught by Kuehn. Doing so would have enabled mechanical movement of each partition to create an unrestricted passage at the location of each partition between the chambers from a location outside of the chambers. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in a first actuator being disposed outside of the suction chamber and configured to operate the first partition as claimed since each partition in the combined system would have its own external actuator as is taught by Kuehn. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Noiri and Wang teach the suction collection system according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of a second actuator disposed outside of the gas replacement chamber and configured to operate the second partition.
Kuehn discloses a relatable furnace system (Fig. 1A) that comprises a plurality of chambers (8, 9, 10) (see at least Col. 4 lines 23-31 and Fig. 1A) in addition to a plurality partitions (partitions comprising elements (11, 12, 15 and 16)) that divide each of the chambers (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least Col. 4 lines 32-36). Kuehn teaches that each of the plurality of partitions comprises an external actuator (external actuators comprising elements (25), (21), (22) and (26)) (see at least Col. 4 lines 44-46 and Fig. 1A) and that such actuators enable mechanical movement of each partition to create an “unrestricted passage” at the location of each partition between the chambers from a location outside of the chambers (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least Col. 5 lines 60-66 and Fig. 1A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined system by configuring each existing partition to include an external actuator as is taught by Kuehn. Doing so would have enabled mechanical movement of each partition to create an unrestricted passage at the location of each partition between the chambers from a location outside of the chambers. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in a second actuator being disposed outside of the gas replacement chamber and configured to operate the second partition as claimed since each partition in the combined system would have its own external actuator as is taught by Kuehn. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Dependent Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 1), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 2: Claim 2 specifies that the system further comprises “a posture adjusting chamber disposed between the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber and through which the saggars conveyed out of the exit move; and a posture adjusting device configured to adjust postures of the saggars in the posture adjusting chamber, wherein the first partition is disposed between the posture adjusting chamber and the suction chamber”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of Noiri and Wang. As is evident from Fig. 3 of Noiri, no “posture adjusting chamber” is present that is “disposed between the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber” and no “posture adjusting device” is disclosed that is “configured to adjust postures of the saggars in the posture adjusting chamber”. Thus, Noiri fails to anticipate Claim 2. Similarly, Wang only teaches of a single chamber (25) disposed after the heat treatment chamber (4) as is shown in Fig. 1 and accordingly does not teach of “a posture adjusting chamber disposed between the heat treatment chamber and the suction chamber” in combination with the other limitations as claimed. Therefore, no known prior art anticipates Claim 2. Furthermore, no motivation would have existed to have further modified the combined system of Noiri and Wang (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the totality of Claim 2 since no known prior art demonstrates such an arrangement and because doing so would have required unnecessarily expanding and overly complicating the working arrangement already taught by Noiri and Wang. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 2 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 2 is objected to due to its dependency on rejected Claim 1 (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time. Note that Claims 3-6 depend on Claim 2 and are consequently also considered to have allowable subject matter for including Claim 2 but that Claims 3-6 are also objected to for their dependency on rejected Claim 1 (as is presented above).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Crafton et al. (WO 2017180193 A1)
Shiotani (US 4,842,476)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/11/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights