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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to JP2021-209869, with a filing date of 12/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2024 and 09/30/2025 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.
Election/Restrictions
. Claim 8 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 02/17/2026. Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-17 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
Regarding Group I and Group II
Disagreement that Group I and Group II do not share a special technical feature and cites the Examiner list of limitations shared from Group I (Claim 1) and Group II (Claim 8) that are not special technical features in view of Watanabe.
Group I and Group II share a special technical feature in the limitation “the supporting ring is ring shaped” and the Office fails to address this feature.
All claims are sufficiently related and that a thorough search of any Group of claims would encompass a search for remaining claims; there is absent search burden for the Examiner.
This is not found persuasive because:
The purpose of a Unity of Invention Restriction is to cite limitations among Groups that are not special technical features by prior art, not cite limitations that are special technical features. The amendment to Claim 1, which is “the supporting part is ring-shaped” does not appear in Claim 8, and as such, is not a linking feature among Group I (Claim 1) and Group 2 (Claim 8). Therefore, the cited limitations between Group I (Claim 1) and Group II (Claim 8) are not special technical features in view of Watanabe remains valid.
Additionally the 102 rejection below in view of Pan further supports the assertion that the features of Claim 1 do not recite special technical features.
The instant application is a designated 371 PCT application and as such, search burden is not applicable for 371 PCT Lack of Unity Restrictions. Search burden applies for U.S. restriction practice only.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Fig.1 – Fig. 5 are labeled “Fig. X”, where the label should be “FIG. X”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Specifications
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities noted as read/Examiner suggestion:
[0032] – “diameter of the framenay be larger” / “diameter of the frame may be larger”.
[0073] – “a toric supporting part (120)”/ “ a supporting part 120”.
The Examiner kindly requests the Applicant to further review the disclosure for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 3-4, 9-19– cites “thickness direction”. The Examiner understands thickness direction to be a vertical direction in reference to Fig. 1 (C) .
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) 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 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
The claims below is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claims 3, 9, 12, 15: the connection part has holes running through / the connecting part has holes
Regarding Claim 6: the ring tray being a ring tray / the attached ring tray being
Regarding Claim 7: supporting part of a ring tray / supporting part of
Regarding Claims 12, 13, 14: the plate with an attached ring tray / the plate with
tray.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 does not further limit claim 10. Claim 11 is an exact recitation of claim 10.
Claim 14 does not further limit claim 13. Claim 14 is an exact recitation of claim 13.
Claim 17 does not further limit claim 16. Claim 17 is an exact recitation of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated USPGPUB 20140113458A1 by Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”).
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 the 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
Regarding Claim 2 - Pan in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pan teaches wherein,
the connecting part is located below the 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_image3.png
39
40
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding Claim 7 – Pan 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 a ring tray according to claim 1. The instant claim is a claim of intended use
and does not carry patentable weight. See Claim Interpretation.
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).
Claim 3 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 3 – Pan in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
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 running through the thickness direction of the ring tray;
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 66) for thermal
management, located in element 69 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Fig.5). 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 graded thermal mass array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture
of Pan, as one would be motivated to do so to reduce abrupt changes in thermal loading at the edge of
the substrate, which can cause defects, as noted by Tietz (col 2 lines 14-16). 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Pan in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
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 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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,265,346 by Sueharu et. al. (herein “Sueharu”).
Regarding Claim 6 – Pan 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 ring tray being a 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.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,848,889 by Tietz et. al. (herein “Tietz”)
Regarding Claim 9 – Pan in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Pan fails to disclose,
the connecting part has holes running through the thickness direction of the ring tray;
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 66) for thermal
management, located in element 69 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Fig.5). 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 graded thermal mass array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture
of Pan, as one would be motivated to do so to reduce abrupt changes in thermal loading at the edge of
the substrate, which can cause defects, as noted by Tietz (col 2 lines 14-16). 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 et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Pan 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 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).
Regarding Claim 11 - Pan and Hirata in the rejection of claim 10 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 10.
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; See Claim
Interpretation. The instant claim is rejected under 112(d).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of Sueharu et. al (herein “Sueharu”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,848,889 by Tietz et. al. (herein “Tietz”).
Regarding Claim 12 - Pan 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 running through the thickness direction of the ring tray;
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 66) for thermal
management, located in element 69 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Fig.5). 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 graded thermal mass array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture
of Pan, as one would be motivated to do so to reduce abrupt changes in thermal loading at the edge of
the substrate, which can cause defects, as noted by Tietz (col 2 lines 14-16). 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 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in further view of Sueharu et. al (herein “Sueharu”) and in further view of Tietz et. al. (herein “Tietz”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20090007841A1 by Hirata et. al. (herein “Hirata”).
Regarding Claim 13 - Pan, Sueharu and Tietz 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 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).
Regarding Claim 14 - Pan, Sueharu, Tietz, and Hirata in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 13.
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.
See Claim Interpretation. The instant claim is rejected under 112(d).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in in further view of U.S. Patent 5,848,889 by Tietz et. al. (herein “Tietz”).
Regarding Claim 15 - Pan 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,
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 66) for thermal
management, located in element 69 (similar to the connecting part) (Col 1 lines 50-65, See Fig 3 and
Fig.5). 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 graded thermal mass array of holes of Tietz to the ring fixture
of Pan, as one would be motivated to do so to reduce abrupt changes in thermal loading at the edge of
the substrate, which can cause defects, as noted by Tietz (col 2 lines 14-16). 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 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et. al. (herein “Pan”) and in in further view of U.S. Patent 5,848,889 by Tietz et. al. (herein “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 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 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).
Regarding Claim 17 - Pan, Tietz, and Hirata in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
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.
See Claim Interpretation. The instant claim is rejected under 112(d).
Conclusion
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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights