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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7319219 B2 to Onoda in view of JP 2023068694 A to Inamoto, cited in Applicant’s 11/18/25 IDS.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Onoda and Inamoto; additionally, Onoda is a family member of JP 2021162246 A, which was cited in Applicant’s 5/29/24 IDS.
Regarding claim 1. Onoda teaches a heat treatment furnace (fig. 1) comprising:
a furnace body comprising an entrance (inlet 13), an exit (outlet 14), and a heat treatment space (processing chamber 12) in which a plurality of objects is heat-treated (p. 5 para. 5, “The firing furnace main body 10 has therein a processing chamber 12 for heat-treating an object to be processed”);
a plurality of movable members (transport table or carriage 16) on which stacks of objects stacked in an up-down direction (fig. 1, U-D direction) are aligned at intervals in a left-right direction perpendicular to the up-down direction (fig. 1, L-R direction), the plurality of movable members being aligned in a front-rear direction (fig. 1, F-Rr direction);
a pusher (pusher 30) configured to push the plurality of movable members forward from the entrance of the furnace body to the exit of the furnace body (p. 5 para. 2, “Then, the pusher 30 pushes the carriage 16 toward the carriage paths 15L and 15R. As a result, the carriages 16 are respectively introduced into the carriage paths 15L and 15R.”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
487
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of gas supplying pipes (gas supply pipes 60, in particular the portion of 60 inside the chamber 12) each comprising a gas supplying opening through which furnace atmosphere gas is supplied into the heat treatment space (fig. 6, gas supply holes 61), the gas supplying pipes being aligned in the left-right direction (fig. 1, L-R direction),
PNG
media_image2.png
607
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the movable members is positioned between a corresponding pair of the gas supplying pipes adjacent in the left-right direction (fig. 4, where the gas supply pipes 60 are aligned with the heaters 50),
PNG
media_image3.png
847
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the gas supplying openings of the gas supplying pipes are arranged so as to supply the furnace atmosphere gas to the stacks of objects (p. 15 para. 5, “Further, the gas supply pipe 60 may have a plurality of gas supply holes 61 formed in the side peripheral surface. In this case, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, the gas supply holes 61 are preferably directed to the transfer space through which the articles are transferred by the transfer paths 15L and 15R.”),
the heat treatment furnace includes a plurality of gas exhausting openings through which the furnace atmosphere gas in the heat treatment space is exhausted to outside of the furnace body (exhaust ports 70, p. 10 para. 6).
But fails to teach as the furnace body is viewed in the front-rear direction, the gas exhausting openings are positioned directly above the intervals between the stacks of objects aligned in the left-right direction on the movable members.
Inamoto teaches as the furnace body is viewed in the front-rear direction (fig. 2, copied below), the gas exhausting openings are positioned directly above the intervals between the stacks of objects aligned in the left-right direction on the movable members (exhaust stack 16 is positioned in the middle of the furnace, between stacks of heating containers A).
PNG
media_image4.png
553
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Onoda to arrange the exhaust ports 70 along the middle of the furnace, as done in Inamoto. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably removing the exhaust gas of Onoda in a well-balanced manner, as suggested by Inamoto in p. 7 para. 7, “Further, the hole 32b is provided in the central portion of the ceiling portion 32 in the width direction. As a result, the reaction gas can be exhausted in a well-balanced manner in the width direction within the muffle 30.”
Regarding claim 2. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, wherein a width of the gas exhausting openings in the left-right direction (from fig. 1, the width of exhaust ports 70 appears to be approximately the same as the width of heaters 50, see fig. 4 copied below) is at least the same as a width of the intervals in the left-right direction between the stacks of objects aligned in the left-right direction and at most three times the width of the intervals (the intervals in the left right direction between the stacks of objects appear to read on this claim. In particular, the intervals between stacks of objects on the same carriage 16).
PNG
media_image5.png
855
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, wherein
the heat treatment space comprises a plurality of furnace internal spaces aligned in the front-rear direction and defined by a plurality of first partition walls positioned above the objects (fig. 1, the processing chamber 12 can be seen to be made up of two internal spaces in the F-Rr direction, separated by an upper partition wall), and
at least one gas exhausting opening is positioned in each of the plurality of furnace internal spaces (fig. 1, exhaust ports 70, showing 4 in each internal space. When modified by Inamoto, each internal space would have 2 exhaust ports 70 arranged in the middle).
Regarding claim 9. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 6, wherein in each of the furnace internal spaces (fig. 1, two furnace internal spaces in the F-Rr direction), a distance between the at least one gas exhausting opening (fig. 1, exhaust ports 70, modified to be arranged in the middle of furnace) and the gas supplying pipes (fig. 1, gas supply pipes 60) in the front-rear direction is more than a length of the movable members in the front-rear direction (annotated figure below, distance A is the distance between the exhaust gas opening and the gas supplying pipe and distance B is the length of the moveable member. Distance A is slightly greater than distance B).
PNG
media_image6.png
338
186
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 6, having some distance between the first partition walls and the stacks of the objects (fig. 1, stacks of the objects can be seen to pass underneath the first partition walls).
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the first partition walls and the stacks of the objects is equal to or more than 10 mm and equal to or less than 30 mm.
With regards to the limitation of “a distance between the first partition walls and the stacks of the objects is equal to or more than 10 mm and equal to or less than 30 mm”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific distance has predictable and expected results. For example, this distance could be optimized by decreasing to decrease the amount of gas transfer between chambers, and increasing to provide sufficient clearance for the containers, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a distance is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the distance is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the distance to within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 11. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising a heating heater (heaters 50 in heating space, see annotated figure below) and a heat-retention heater (heaters 50 in heat retention space, see annotated figure below) positioned in the heat treatment space (fig. 1, processing chamber 12),
wherein the heat treatment space comprises a plurality of furnace internal spaces aligned in the front-rear direction (see annotated figure below, heating space and heat retention space),
the plurality of furnace internal spaces comprises:
a heating space (as labeled in the annotated figure below) in which the heating heater is positioned and communicating with the entrance (heating space is in communication with inlet 13); and
a heat-retention space (as labeled in the annotated figure below) in which the heat-retention heater is positioned and communicating with the heating space (heat retention space is in communication with heating space), and
the gas exhausting openings are positioned in the heating space (heating space having exhaust ports 70).
PNG
media_image7.png
552
874
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, wherein the gas supplying pipes are constituted of ceramics (p. 15 para. 5, “The gas supply pipe 60 may be composed of a ceramic tube having an opening on its side peripheral surface”).
Claim Interpretation: The limitation “constituted of” in the claim is being interpreted as a closed ended transitional phrase similar to consisting of, see MPEP 2111.03 II and IV in addition to para. 40 of the Applicant’s PGPUB.
Regarding claim 13. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising supplying pipes connected to the gas supplying pipes (fig. 1, portion of gas supply pipes 60 outside of and extending through the processing chamber 12 wall) and configured to supply the furnace atmosphere gas to the gas supplying pipes (the gas is supplied from the portion of pipe 60 outside of the wall to the portion of pipe 60 inside the wall),
wherein the supplying pipes extend through a wall portion of the furnace body (as explained above, the supplying pipe could be considered as the portion of the delivery pipe 60 extending through the wall of chamber 12).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda in view of Inamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20230093510 A to Wang.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Wang.
Regarding claim 4. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein each of the objects comprises a cutout at an upper portion of the object and the cutout is configured to allow inside of the object to communicate with outside of the object (p. 3 para. 8, “When the containers T are stacked in multiple stages, a gap t1 is formed between the stacked containers T through the recessed upper edges of the side walls. Such a gap t1 communicates with the inside of the container T and is also called a ventilation window.” Seen best in fig. 4).
But fails to teach a regulating valve configured to permit the furnace atmosphere gas to be supplied from the gas supplying openings when the regulating valve is open and prohibit the furnace atmosphere gas from being supplied from the gas supplying openings when the regulating valve is closed; and
a controller configured to control opening and closing of the regulating valve,
the controller is configured to open the regulating valve when the gas supplying pipes overlap the cutouts in the left-right direction.
Wang teaches a regulating valve (fig. 2, gas supply valve 42) configured to permit the furnace atmosphere gas to be supplied from the gas supplying openings when the regulating valve is open and prohibit the furnace atmosphere gas from being supplied from the gas supplying openings when the regulating valve is closed (the valve 42 is understood to be able to open and close, p. 10 paras. 4-6); and
a controller configured to control opening and closing of the regulating valve (p. 11 para. 1, “Based on the demand for improving automation control, the controller is used to control the gas supply valve 42”),
the controller is configured to open the regulating valve when the gas supplying pipes overlap the cutouts in the left-right direction (during at least a portion of the processing, it is understood that the valve would be open and the cutouts would overlap the supply pipes, see for example fig. 2 of Wang, copied below).
PNG
media_image8.png
383
457
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Onoda to implement a suitable gas supply valve 42, as taught by Wang. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of improving automated control, as suggested by Wang in p. 11 para. 1, cited above, and further in p. 11 paras. 3-4.
Examiner Note: The claim does not positively recite opening the valve only when the pipes overlap the cutouts, i.e. intermittently opening and closing the valve as the cutouts move past the pipes. Therefore, a system in which the controller opens the valve as the cutouts are passed through the furnace reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 5. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein with regard to each pair of the gas supplying pipes adjacent in the left-right direction, the gas supplying opening of one of the gas supplying pipes faces the gas supplying opening of the other of the gas supplying pipes (the gas supply pipes 60 are understood to have substantially the same structure shown in fig. 6, therefore they would read on this limitation).
But fails to teach a plurality of regulating valves,
wherein the regulating valves are configured to switch a supplying amount of the furnace atmosphere gas to be supplied from the gas supplying openings between a first supplying amount and a second supplying amount different from the first supplying amount; and
a controller configured to control the plurality of regulating valves,
the controller is configured to switch the supplying amount to be supplied from the gas supplying opening of the other of the gas supplying pipes to the second supplying amount when switching the supplying amount to be supplied from the gas supplying opening of the one of the gas supplying pipes to the first supplying amount.
Wang teaches a gas supplying pipe (gas distributor 31) having a gas regulating valve (gas supply valve 42),
wherein the regulating valves are configured to switch a supplying amount of the furnace atmosphere gas to be supplied from the gas supplying openings between a first supplying amount and a second supplying amount different from the first supplying amount (p. 11 para. 4 describes controlling the valve 42 based on a measured partial pressure, “when the partial pressure of the process gas 18 is lower than a certain percentage of the set value, increase the opening of the gas supply valve 42 and increase the opening of the gas discharge control valve; When the partial pressure of the process gas 18 is higher than a certain percentage of the set value, the gas inflow control valve is closed to make it small, and the opening degree of the gas discharge control valve is reduced” Thus, the increased opening could be considered a first supplying amount and the decreased opening could be considered a second supplying amount); and
a controller configured to control the plurality of regulating valves (from p. 10 para. 4, “Optionally, the air flow control device is a gas supply valve 42 (which may be an automatically controlled valve that may have a manual adjustment handle)”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Onoda to implement a suitable gas supply valve 42 to automatically control each gas supply pipe 60, as taught by Wang. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of improving automated control, as suggested by Wang in p. 11 para. 1, cited above, and further in p. 11 paras. 3-4.
Furthermore, with this modification, the device of Onoda would teach a plurality of regulating valves (since Onoda teaches a plurality of gas supply pipes 60, see fig. 1, it would be modified to have a plurality of suitable gas supply valves 42 of Wang), and
the controller is configured to switch the supplying amount to be supplied from the gas supplying opening of the other of the gas supplying pipes to the second supplying amount when switching the supplying amount to be supplied from the gas supplying opening of the one of the gas supplying pipes to the first supplying amount (since a plurality of gas supply valves 42 of Wang are provided in modified Onoda, the controller would have been configured to adjust the valves individually. Therefore, some valves could have increased opening and some could have decreased opening, based on the sensed partial pressures throughout the processing chamber 12).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda in view of Inamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20240167766 A1 to Stefani.
Regarding claim 7. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 6, further comprising:
a plurality of guide rails (guides 40) extending in the front-rear direction and configured to guide the movable members forward (p. 8 para. 6, “The firing furnace main body 10 includes guides 40R, 40C and 40L for guiding the transportation of the carriage 16 on the respective transportation paths 15R and 15L.”),
wherein each of the movable members is positioned between a corresponding pair of the guide rails adjacent in the left-right direction (fig. 4).
But fails to teach a plurality of second partition walls extending from the guide rails to the first partition walls.
It is known in the art from Stefani to thermally separate furnace channels (fig. 1, insulating wall W).
PNG
media_image9.png
471
799
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Onoda by thermally insulating the transport paths 15 from each other, as done in Stefani. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing for individual temperature control of each transport path, this benefit is suggested by Stefani in para. 34 with reference to the insulating partitions of the sub modules. This would be done by configuring an insulating wall between the left and right transport paths 15 of Onoda.
Regarding claim 8. Modified Onoda teaches the heat treatment furnace according to claim 7, having some distance between each second partition wall and the stacks of the objects (one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided some clearance between these parts to the stacks of objects could pass through the process chamber 12)
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between each second partition wall and the stacks of the objects in the left-right direction is equal to or more than 10 mm and equal to or less than 30 mm.
With regards to the limitation of “a distance between each second partition wall and the stacks of the objects in the left-right direction is equal to or more than 10 mm and equal to or less than 30 mm”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific distance has predictable and expected results. For example, this distance could be optimized by decreasing to minimize the amount of process chamber volume in the transport path, and increasing to provide sufficient clearance for the containers, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a distance is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the distance is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the distance to within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. Onoda in view of Inamoto, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Onoda teaches the gas supplying pipes are aligned in the front-rear direction (fig. 1, gas supply pipes 60 aligned in F-Rr direction).
The prior art fails to teach, “a distance between each pair of the gas supplying pipes adjacent in the front-rear direction is an integral multiple of a length of each movable member in the front-rear direction.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, as seen in Onoda fig. 1, the spacing between gas supply pipes 60 in the F-Rr direction is slightly less than the length of the carriage 16. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Onoda, as claimed, based on the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights