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 .
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 06/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-17 remain pending. Claim 8 has been withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-17 have been amended. Claim 3 is canceled. No new matter has been added.
Note: As Claim 8 has been withdrawn Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-17 remain pending only.
Applicant' s arguments, see Pages 9, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 under [U.S.C. 35 102(a)1 over Pan, and dependent Claims 4 ( Pan/Hirata), 6 (Pan/Sueharu), 9 (Pan/Tietz) 10-11 (Pan/Hirata), 12-14 (Pan/Sueharu/Tietz) 15-17 (Pan/Tietz) under U.S.C. 35 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amendment bringing the previous subject matter of Claim 3 into Claim 1, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tietz which was previously applied in the rejection of Claim 3.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Amended Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
The Amendment “the connecting part has holes through a thickness direction of the ring tray
and an area ratio of the holes occupying an area of the connecting parts including the holes is
20% or higher and 90% or lower” is not anticipated by Pan and Tietz, Hirata, or Sueharu do not
teach or suggest this claim feature.
The instant Specification discloses the advantage of the new limitation in Amended Claim 1
[0049]
In response to the Applicant’s argument of Claim 1 the Examiner replies that,
Agrees with Applicant that Pan does not anticipate the new limitation of Amended Claim 1. Yet,
Claim 1 becomes obvious by Pan over Tietz. Tietz discloses a similar ring structure to Pan (except
for a supporting part further inward than the frame) in a similar location, where the analogous
connecting part of Tietz can be considered the extension of element 88 that encompasses the
holes (elements 69) in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5. Tietz is relied upon to teach the holes (element 69) in
the analogous connecting part only. The holes of Tietz (Fig. 3 element 69) indicate some level of
area of the holes. One would optimize the area ratio of the holes with motivation to modify Pan
with Tietz such that holes in the graded thermal mass across the connecting portion when
supporting a substrate, does not change the thermal load profile at the inner edge (Col 2 lines 9-
12).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
While the above is noted, The Examiner will include the below from the CNTF as pertinent to the Office Action.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 7, 15, 16, 17 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20140113458A1 by Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,848,889 by Tietz et. al. (herein “Tietz”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Pan teaches a ring tray for honeycomb substrate firing, serving to support a honeycomb substrate having a plurality of cell flow channels partitioned by cell walls, so that direction of the cell flow channels is vertical during firing of the substrate, wherein,
The ring tray includes a ring-shaped frame,
a supporting part further inward than the frame,
a connecting part that connects the frame with the supporting part,
the supporting part is ring-shaped,
the ring tray is configured so that when the honeycomb substrate is mounted on the ring tray; Annotated figures below illustrate the ring tray is configured such that the substrate (element 212) is mounted on the ring tray.
the supporting part does not contact the outer perimeter of the lower end face of the honeycomb substrate; Annotated figures below illustrate the supporting part does not contact the outer perimeter of the lower end face of the substrate (element 212).
but contacts part of the inner region of the lower end face of the honeycomb substrate allowing it to support the lower end of the honeycomb substrate; Annotated figures below illustrate contacts part of the inner region of the lower end face of the substrate (element 212) allowing it to support the lower end of the substrate (element 212)
the frame and the connecting part do not contact the lower end face of the honeycomb substrate; Annotated figures below illustrate the frame and the connecting part do not contact the lower end face of the substrate (element 212).
Limitations a)-h) above are cited in [0011], [0024],[0027]. The limitations of the instant claim may not be cited verbatim in the reference but Annotated Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B represents the interpretation of the reference to the limitations.
See Annotated Fig. 2A and 2B below, with the above lettered items coinciding with the same letter in Annotated figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
775
922
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Pan teaches a ring fixture minimizes thermal coupling between the substrate and support ring to
not generate excessive thermal gradients in the substrate during thermal processing [0008], Pan fails to
disclose,
the connecting part has holes through a thickness direction of the ring tray and an area ratio of the holes occupying an area of the connecting parts including the holes is 20% or higher and 90% or lower.
In a similar endeavor of an annular ring fixture (38) for fixturing a substrate (12) for thermal processing,
Tietz teaches a ring fixture that contains a graded thermal mass array of holes (element 69) for thermal
management, located in element 66 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to add array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of having a graded thermal mass across the connecting portion
when supporting a substrate to not change the thermal load profile at the inner edge, as noted by Tietz
(Col 2 lines 9-12). ). Further, reducing mass in articles undergoing thermal treatment is a common
industrial practice for thermal management. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2 - Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Pan teaches wherein,
the connecting part is located below a surface defined by the contact part between the
supporting part and the lower end face of the honeycomb substrate; See Annotated Fig. 2A,
element
PNG
media_image5.png
39
40
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding Claim 7 – Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Pan teaches wherein,
method for producing an exhaust gas purification catalyst device, the method comprising firing
a honeycomb substrate while the lower end of the honeycomb substrate is mounted on the
supporting part of the ring tray according to claim 1. The instant claim is a claim of intended use
and does not carry patentable weight. See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 9 – Pan an Tietz in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 2.
Pan fails to disclose,
the connecting part has holes through the thickness direction of the ring tray;
Tietz teaches a ring fixture that contains a graded thermal mass array of holes (element 69) for thermal
management, located in element 66 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to add array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of having a graded thermal mass across the connecting portion
when supporting a substrate to not change the thermal load profile at the inner edge, as noted by Tietz
(Col 2 lines 9-12). ). Further, reducing mass in articles undergoing thermal treatment is a common
industrial practice for thermal management. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 15 - Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 7 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 7.
Pan fails to disclose,
the connecting part has holes running through the thickness direction of the ring tray. While the
instant claim depends on claim 7, which is not given patentable weight due to intended use,
Tietz teaches a ring fixture that contains a graded thermal mass array of holes (element 69) for thermal
management, located in element 66 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to add array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of having a graded thermal mass across the connecting portion
when supporting a substrate to not change the thermal load profile at the inner edge, as noted by Tietz
(Col 2 lines 9-12). ). Further, reducing mass in articles undergoing thermal treatment is a common
industrial practice for thermal management. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in further view of Tietz and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 4 and 11 – Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Note: Claim 11 is a duplicate of Claim 4, See Claim Objections.
While Pan teaches a gap area between the substrate and the inner wall of the outer ring (elements 212,
207 in Annotated Fig. 2A) Pan does not disclose,
in a cross section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has a
relief part depressed toward an outer side of the ring tray in a radial direction;
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in further view of Tietz and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,265,346 by Sueharu et. al. (herein “Sueharu”).
Regarding Claim 6 – Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Pan teaches a ring fixture for a substrate where the ring fixture and substrate experience a
thermal process, Pan fails to disclose,
a support plate with an opening and one or more ring plates fitted into the opening;
In a similar endeavor of thermally processing a substrate (a honeycomb substrate in this instance)
Sueharu teaches a perforated plates for carrying the substrate that are set into a carrier (Col 1, lines
9-13), where the perforated plates only contact the inner portion of the substrate (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use the carrier plates of Sueharu for the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of processing the carrier plate and ring fixture on conveyor in a
thermal processing operation, as noted by Sueharu (Fig. 1 , Col 1 lines 23-26), and for the common
industrial purpose of production efficiency.
Further, Sueharu fails to teach the attached ring tray being the ring tray according to claim1 fitting in the
carrier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the hole in the ring carrier of Sueharu to
accommodate the ring tray of claim 1, as one would be motivated to do so for the common industrial
purpose of matching shapes of mating components. Further, it has been held that a mere change in
shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in
the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 12 - Pan , Tietz, and Sueharu in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
Pan fails to disclose,
the connecting part has holes through the thickness direction of the ring tray;
Tietz teaches a ring fixture that contains a graded thermal mass array of holes (element 69) for thermal
management, located in element 66 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to add array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of having a graded thermal mass across the connecting portion
when supporting a substrate to not change the thermal load profile at the inner edge, as noted by Tietz
(Col 2 lines 9-12). ). Further, reducing mass in articles undergoing thermal treatment is a common
industrial practice for thermal management. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in further view of Tietz and further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 2.
While Pan teaches a gap area between the substrate and the inner wall of the outer ring (elements 212,
207 in Annotated Fig. 2A) Pan does not disclose,
in a cross section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has a
relief part depressed toward an outer side of the ring tray in a radial direction;
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in further view of Tietz, in further view of Sueharu, and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 13 - Pan , Tietz and Sueharu in the rejection of claim 12 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 12.
While Pan teaches a gap area between the substrate and the inner wall of the outer ring (elements 212,
207 in Annotated Fig. 2A) Pan does not disclose,
in a cross-section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has
a relief part depressed toward an outer side of the ring tray in a radial direction.
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in further view of Tietz and in further view of Sueharu and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 14 - Pan, Tietz, and Sueharu in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
wherein,
in a cross-section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has
a relief part depressed toward the outer side of the ring tray in the radial direction.
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan and in in further view of Tietz and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 16 - Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 15 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 15.
While Pan teaches a gap area between the substrate and the inner wall of the outer ring (elements 212,
207 Annotated Fig. 2A), and while the instant claim depends on claim 15 which depends on claim7,
which is not given patentable weight due to intended use, Pan does not disclose,
in a cross-section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has
a relief part depressed toward the outer side of the ring tray in the radial direction;
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan and in in further view of Tietz and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 17 - Pan and Tietz in the rejection of claim 7 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 7, and while the instant claim depends on claim 7, which is not given patentable weight due to
intended use,
wherein,
in a cross-section of the ring tray cut in the thickness direction, at least the connecting part has
a relief part depressed toward the outer side of the ring tray in the radial direction.
In an analogous endeavor of thermal processing a substrate, Hirata teaches a ring fixture to support a
substrate that contains an outer ring 202, a connecting part 217, and a second projecting portion 211
(Fig. 12, [0071]-[0073],[0083] ) where the second projecting portion 211 supports the substrate towards
the inner portion of the substrate a distance away from the substrate edge radially. Further, Hirata
teaches a relief area between the distal end 214 and the edge/side wall of the substrate 212, where the
relief area is defined as angle Z between lines V and L2 ( FIG. 12). Relief line 213 is then distant from
sharp corner constructed by the lower chamfer edge and vertical edge 215. The relief area is depressed
toward the outer side of the fixture in the radial direction. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the relief
area of Hirata to the ring fixture of Pan, as one would be motivated for the dual purpose of constraining
the substrate during movement, as noted by Hirata ([0075]) as well as the common industrial practice of
adding relief areas to designs of fixtures to prevent chipping of edges of the articles placed in the
fixtures. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights