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
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.
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, 3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,938,422 to Koves.
In Reference to Claim 1
Koves discloses a diffuser for diffusing a gas flow within a stack (Fig. 3, the Office considers that each stage is a blank as annotated by the examiner) of blanks of parts based on carbon/carbon composite impregnated with a sol-gel type solution, the sol- gel type solution including comprising a solvent and one or more compounds, the gas flow enabling the solvent to be evaporated by heat transfer, each blank having a central through hole (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the central holes passing through blanks of the stack of blanks forming a central well (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) of the stack of blanks, the diffuser including comprising a plurality of diffusion vanes (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) each including comprising a central end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) and a peripheral end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the diffusion vanes extending from a central cavity (as showed in Fig. 3) of the diffuser to the a periphery of the diffuser, each diffusion vane (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) having a central through opening (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the central through openings of the diffusion vanes forming the open central cavity of the diffuser, in order to form a gas inlet open upwardly when the diffuser is installed so as to be associated with the stack of blanks (16), the a section of the central cavity decreasing from the gas inlet, said diffusion vanes being adapted to extend at least partially into the central well when the diffuser is installed so as to be associated with the stack of blanks, the diffusion vanes being adapted to diffuse and homogenize homogenize over the entire height of the stack of blanks the gas flow flowing from the central well through the stack of blanks.
Koves does not teach the diffuser is for diffusing the sol-gel type solution.
The Office considers that diffusing the sol-gel type solution is a functional limitation of the recited structure. The Office considers “to provide negative pressure feedback on fluid entering the cavity" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Koves’s design has a stepped opening passaged in the middle section of the distributor, it would meet the functional limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 3
Koves discloses the diffuser is configured so that, when the diffuser is installed so as to be associated with the stack of blanks (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner), the peripheral end (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) of each diffusion vane faces an internal wall (As showed in Fig. 3) of a blank, so that the gas flow is directed towards the a periphery between the blanks.
In Reference to Claim 4
Koves discloses a deflector (Fig. 3, 22) adapted to extend at least partially above the stack of blanks (16) when the diffuser is installed so as to be associated with the stack of blanks, in order to guide the gas towards the central well (Fig. 3, annotated by the examiner) of the stack of blanks, for example towards the central cavity of the diffuser.
In Reference to Claim 6
Koves discloses the diffuser according to claim 1 -a base (Fig. 1, 14) configured so that the diffuser rests on the base when installed so as to be associated with the stack of blanks
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 9/22/26
Prosecution Insights