DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/23/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita (JP2016033240, machine translation).
Claim 1: Fujita teaches a furnace for vacuum carburization (¶¶ 0001, 0033), comprising: a heating chamber (2) in which vacuum carburizing is performed (¶ 0033) on a workpiece (W) to be charged from outside the furnace (Fig. 2; ¶ 0016); and a charging port (3) for the workpiece at the bottom of the heating chamber (Figs. 2 and 6).
Claim 2: Fujita further teaches that the furnace includes an elevator (6) below the heating chamber that charges the workpiece into the chamber through the port (Figs. 2, 6; ¶ 0018).
Claim 3: Fujita teaches that the furnace includes a support table (10) that supports the workpiece (W); and a lift body (7) before the table that covers the charging port (Fig. 6; ¶ 0021), wherein the elevator raises the lid body (Figs. 2 and 6) and the lid body has a shape that comes into close contact with a bottom portion of the heating chamber (Fig. 6; ¶ 0021).
Claim 7: Fujita teaches that the heating chamber includes a gas supply port (¶ 0033). While Fujita does not expressly teach an oxidizing gas, claim 7 is an apparatus claim which is defined by the apparatus itself and not the intended use of the apparatus. In this case, the gas supply port of Fujita is capable of supplying an oxidizing gas to the chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in light of Gurnee et al. (US 2002/0144683).
Claim 4: Fujita does not discuss any mechanism which verifies that the lid is closed. Gurnee teaches a furnace and explains that a controller is included which monitors the open/closed status of the opening to the furnace in order to ensure that the door is correctly opened or closed in order to avoid hazardous conditions (¶ 0082). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included a controller which was configured to detect an open/closed lid and correct the undesired status in order to have avoided hazardous conditions when operating the furnace.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in light of Onishi (JP2001158955, machine translation).
Claim 5: Fujita teaches controlling the introduction of gases in the heating chamber, but fails to expressly teach use of a controller to do so. Onishi teaches a furnace for vacuum carbonization (¶ 0001) and explains that the furnace employs a controller configured to purge the furnace with an inert gas and raise the pressure to atmospheric before opening the charging port in order to ensure a pressure equilibrium (¶¶ 0039-0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have employed such a controller in Fujita in order to have ensured a pressure equilibrium during loading/unloading.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in light of Narita (JP2005179714).
Claim 6: Fujita teaches controlling the atmosphere inside the vacuum chamber (¶ 0033), but fails to expressly teach the use of a controller to do so. Narita teaches a vacuum heating chamber and explains that, during operation, a controller is used to maintain the temperature, pressure and atmosphere of the chamber (¶¶ 0020, 0032). Claim 6 is an apparatus claim which is defined by the apparatus itself and not the intended use of the apparatus. In this case, the controller used in Narita is capable of setting the chamber to the claimed settings. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized a controller to control the temperature, pressure and atmosphere of the chamber in Fujita with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in light of Kawata et al. (US 2002/0134467).
Claim 8: Fujita fails to teach a cooling chamber adjacent the heating chamber. Kawata teaches a heating chamber for carburization (Abst.) and explains that a cooling chamber is provided adjacent the heating chamber in order to cool the workpiece (¶ 0102, Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included a cooling chamber adjacent the heating chamber in Fujita in order to have cooled the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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 Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights