DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 07/07/2026 without traverse of Group I, species I-1C, claims 1-2, 6-8 & 10-12 for further examination. Claims 3-5, 9 & 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 & 05/20/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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-AlA 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: “cooling part” in claims 1-2; “a discharge unit” in claim 1; “a recycling unit that regenerates a liquid” in claim 3; “a concentration adjusting unit” in claims 4 and 7; “a substrate holding unit” in claim 5; “a recycling unit that regenerates a gas” in claim 6; “a cooling unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
5. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-2 & 6-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (JP 06-212381 A) hereinafter Ikeda (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Ikeda are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus for a snout (5) disposed between an outlet of a heat treatment furnace (9) and a molten metal plating tank (10) (abs; fig 1), comprising:
a main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1);
an introduction pipe part (13) and a return pipe part (14) each of which is configured to couple the snout (5) to the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) so that an interior space of the snout (5) communicates with the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1); and
cooling part (6) configured to cool a cooling target site (3), of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), located between a first connection portion (see fig 1, opening) with the introduction pipe part (13) and a second connection portion (see fig 1, opening) with the return pipe part (14) in a longitudinal direction of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1),
wherein the cooling target site (3) is located below the first connection portion (see fig 1, opening) of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) in a state where the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) is coupled to the snout (5) via the introduction pipe part (13) and the return pipe part (14) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1), and
wherein the metal fume reduction apparatus does not comprise a device for suctioning a gas from an inside of the snout (5) to a flow path formed by the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the introduction pipe part (13), and the return pipe part (14) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 2, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the cooling part (6) is configured to cool an outer surface of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) by a cooling fluid ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 6, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the introduction pipe part (13), the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), and the return pipe part (14) form a flow path for allowing a gas from the snout (5) to be distributed in this order, and wherein the metal fume reduction apparatus comprises a heater (11) configured to heat the gas in the flow path at a position downstream of the cooling target site (3) in the flow path ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 7, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the heater (11) is disposed in the return pipe part (14) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 8, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) includes a straight pipe portion (see fig 1, portion between 7-8) extending linearly, wherein the metal fume reduction apparatus comprises a first valve (8) disposed in, among both end portion (see fig 1, openings) of the straight pipe portion (see fig 1, portion between 7-8), a first end portion (see fig 1, side portion of opening) on a side of the first connection portion (see fig 1, opening) with the introduction pipe part (13) relative to the cooling target site (3), and wherein the first valve (8) includes an open/close valve with an opening of a size not less than an inner diameter of the straight pipe portion (see fig 1, portion between 7-8) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii et al. (US 6,093,452 A) hereinafter Ishii (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Ishii are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 10, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising a third valve (8) disposed in the introduction pipe part (13) and configured to switch a communication state between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the return pipe part (14) between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1), however Ikeda does not disclose a fourth valve disposed in the return pipe part (14) and configured to switch the communication state between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component).
Ishii discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising a fourth valve disposed in a pipe part and configured to switch the communication state between the interior space and the main pipe part (col 8, ln 10-20; col 11, ln 46-50; col 12, ln 9-36; fig 6 & 10). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a fourth valve disposed in the return pipe part (14) and configured to switch the communication state between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component)
in the apparatus of Ikeda, because Ishii teaches the use of a fourth valve disposed in a pipe part and configured to switch the communication state between the interior space and the main pipe part to regulate the necessary pressure by adjusting the opening of the valve and such that the gas pressure is increased to be greater than that of the outside of the facility (col 8, ln 10-20; col 11, ln 46-50; col 12, ln 9-36).
As regards to claim 11, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising a third valve (8) disposed in the introduction pipe part (13) and configured to switch a communication state between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the return pipe part (14) between the interior space of the snout (5) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1), however Ikeda does not disclose an inert gas supply part configured to supply an inert gas to a position, of the introduction pipe part (13), between the third valve (8) and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component) or a position, of the return pipe part (14), between the fourth valve and the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component).
Ishii discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising an inert gas supply part (128) configured to supply an inert gas to a position (see fig 6), of the introduction pipe part (126), between the third valve (130) and the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component) (col 9, ln 43-51; col 11, ln 56-col 12, ln 8; col 12, ln 30-63; fig 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an inert gas supply part (128) configured to supply an inert gas to a position (see fig 6), of the introduction pipe part (126), between the third valve (130) and the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component)
in the apparatus of Ikeda, because Ishii teaches the use of an inert gas supply part (128) configured to supply an inert gas to a position (see fig 6), of the introduction pipe part (126), between the third valve (130) and the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component) to remove the ashes, and taking them out (col 9, ln 43-51; col 11, ln 56-col 12, ln 8; col 12, ln 30-63).
As regards to claim 12, Ikeda discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the introduction pipe part (13), the return pipe part (14) ([0005]-[0008]; fig 1), however Ikeda does not disclose wherein at least one of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the introduction pipe part (13), or the return pipe part (14) includes a buffer portion for absorbing misalignment due to thermal deformation of the main pipe part (see fig 1, overall main pipe component), the introduction pipe part (13), or the return pipe part (14).
Ishii discloses a metal fume reduction apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising a buffer portion (123) for absorbing misalignment due to thermal deformation (formed with a heat resistant glass fiber paper) of the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component) (col 9, ln 43-col 12, ln 29; fig 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a buffer portion (123) for absorbing misalignment due to thermal deformation (formed with a heat resistant glass fiber paper) of the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component) in the apparatus of Ikeda, because Ishii teaches the use of a buffer portion (123) for absorbing misalignment due to thermal deformation (formed with a heat resistant glass fiber paper) of the main pipe part (see fig 6, overall main pipe component) to prevent the vapor of the evaporated molten metal from dispersing over the buffer portion (123) to prevent oxides or adhered substances (ashes) from occurring (col 9, ln 43-col 10, ln 14).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
