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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 19 and 20 have been newly added.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are pending and examined as follows:
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/RU2017/000417, filed on 6/15/2017.
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.
Claim(s) 1,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markunin et al (RU2265084) in view of Laurisch et al (US10201068) in view of Massahi et al (JP2017144459A).
With regards to claim 1, Markunin et al discloses a method for breaking an electrolyte crust by separation cutting in a reduction cell for production of aluminum (method for breaking electrolyte crust in aluminum producing electrolyzer, Title), the method comprising: breaking a crust material in the aluminum reduction cell (breaking the electrolyte crust, abstract, lines 3-5) and moved above the electrolyte crust in the aluminum reduction cell along a predetermined path above the electrolyte crust in the aluminum reduction cell (device for breaking is part of a trolley that follows a path over the side of the cell, Fig. 2), and breaking the electrolyte crust in the aluminum reduction cell by continuously removing a formed molten material (device for breaking the crust of an electrolyte breaks crust in the longitudinal side of the cell, Fig. 2).
Markunin et al does not discloses a method for breaking an electrolyte crust by a separation cutting, comprising thermally melting a crust material with a high-speed high-temperature concentrated flow of a thermal plasma jet heat energy, wherein a directed thermal plasma jet is generated and moved above the electrolyte crust along a predetermined path; and continuously removing a formed molten material from a zone of the thermal plasma jet impact to create a slit in the electrolyte crust with the thermal plasma jet, wherein the slit is enough to perform the separation cutting and the breaking of the electrolyte crust and wherein an angle of inclination of the directed thermal plasma jet relative to a surface of the electrolyte crust can vary within ± 5.
Laurisch et al teaches a method for breaking an electrolyte crust by a separation cutting (method of plasma cutting preparations for a workpiece, abstract, lines 1-5), comprising thermally melting a crust material with a high-speed high-temperature concentrated flow of a thermal plasma jet heat energy (plasma jet is provided along the cutting contours not earlier than during or after the last change in the direction of movement of the feed, col 2 lines 8-10), wherein a directed thermal plasma jet is generated and moved above the electrolyte crust along a predetermined path (feed movement is at least on the axis on which the position of the plasma jet falls on the surface of the workpiece preferably located upstream of the feed direction axis, col 1, lines 7-10); and continuously removing a formed molten material from a zone of the thermal plasma jet impact to create a slit in the electrolyte crust with the thermal plasma jet, wherein the slit is enough to perform the separation cutting and the breaking of the electrolyte crust (plasma cutting method will impact workpiece in cutting direction to separate, col 1, lines 12-14) and wherein an angle of inclination of the directed thermal plasma jet relative to a surface of the electrolyte crust can vary within ± 5 (in the inclination of the plasma jet with respect to the workpiece surface, an angle δ of at least 5° and should be observed in the feed movement direction of the plasma cutting torch, col 5, lines 18-20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Markunin et al and Laurisch et al before him or her, to modify the method step of thermally melting crust of Markunin et al to include the thermally melting crust of Laurisch et al because combination provides an efficient cutting method.
Markunin et al and Laurisch et al does not teach the method used for production of aluminum and the electrolyte crust comprises a non-conductive material, the electrolyte crust has a thickness of between 40 mm- 200 mm along the predetermined bath, a dynamic action of the directed thermal plasma jet removes melted or vaporous electrolyte crust material from a zone of the thermal plasma jet impact during the separation cutting.
Massashi et al teaches a plasma coordination cutting method and the electrolyte crust comprises a non-conductive material (nonconductive material is a ceramic or brick, paragraph 0007, lines 1-3) and the electrolyte crust has a thickness of between 40 mm- 200 mm (thickness of 50 mm to 98 mm, paragraph 0020, lines 9-12) along the predetermined bath (along water tank 21, Fig. 3), a dynamic action of the directed thermal plasma jet removes melted or vaporous electrolyte crust material from a zone of the thermal plasma jet impact during the separation cutting (plasma jet and plasma arc to the cutting workpiece, abstract, lines 5-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al before him or her, to modify the method step of Markunin et al and Laurisch et al with the method step of dynamic action of Massahi et al in order to provide a robust and accurate cutting method.
Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al does not teach a flow rate of a plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is from 3.0 nm3/h to 3.2 nm3/h. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that a flow rate of a plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is from 3.0 nm3/h h to 3.2 nm3/h solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al.
With regards to claim 19, Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al does not wherein the flow rate of the plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is 3.0 nm3/h. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al, since the applicant has not disclosed the flow rate of the plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is 3.0 nm3/h solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al.
With regards to claim 19, Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al does not wherein the flow rate of the plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is 3.2 nm3/h. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al, since the applicant has not disclosed the flow rate of the plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is 3.2 nm3/h solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the thermal jet of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (CN103934582).
With regards to claim 2, Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al does not teach wherein a size of the slit is defined by technological processing operations for the reduction cell, and wherein the slit has a width of less than 25 mm.
Wang et al teaches a plasma cutting method where the cutting a slit that is 25mm (paragraph 0022, lines 2-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al, Massahi et al and Wang et al before him or her, to modify the slit step of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al to include the slit step of Wang et al because the combination provides a cutting that is fast and does not require pre-heating.
With regards to claim 3, Wang et al teaches wherein a velocity of the thermal plasma jet above the electrolyte crust in the aluminum reduction cell (of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al) is from 0.5-2.5 m/min (cutting speed is .10 m/min — 2.0 m/min, paragraph 0013, lines 3-5).
With regards to claim 4, Wang et al teaches wherein a distance from a point of plasma jet discharge to a surface of the electrolyte crust in the aluminum reduction cell (of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al) is 15 mm or less (laser focus is located from surface of workpiece at a distance of 15mm, paragraph 0043, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 5, Wang et al teaches wherein a width of the thermal plasma jet at the point of plasma jet discharge is 3-10 mm (laser nozzle distance along the surface of workpiece is 5.0 mm, paragraph 00449, lines 3-4).
With regards to claim 6, Wang et al does not teach wherein a discharge velocity of the thermal plasma jet is 600-1500 mm/sec. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a discharge velocity of Wang et al, since the applicant has not disclosed that the discharge velocity of the invention solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the discharge velocity of Wang et al.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simakov et al (RU2016122695A).
With regards to claim 15, Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al does not teach one or more electrolyte crust parameters of the electrolyte crust are measured during the separation cutting; and a plasma parameter associated with the directed thermal plasma jet is adapted based on the measured one or more electrolyte crust parameters.
Simakov et al teaches one or more electrolyte crust parameters of the electrolyte crust are measured during the separation cutting (temperature of the electrolyte can be measured, paragraph 0046, lines 1-4); and a plasma parameter associated with the directed thermal plasma jet is adapted based on the measured one or more electrolyte crust parameters (once measurements are taken, the device metal body is immersed into the melt where it is held until the melt temperature is achieved, paragraph 0046, lines 10-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al, Massahi et al and Simakov et al before him or her, to modify the method of Markunin et al, Laurisch et al and Massahi et al to include the temperature monitoring of Simakov et al in order to provide an automated electrolyte processing method.
With regards to claim 16, Simakov et al teaches wherein the one or more electrolyte crust parameters comprises a temperature associated with the electrolyte crust at a cutting point (temperature of the electrolyte can be measured, paragraph 0046, lines 1-4).
With regards to claim 17, Simakov et al teaches wherein the plasma parameter comprises a separation cutting rate of the directed thermal plasma jet (gas flow rate adjustment box 17 adjust the gas needed for cutting, paragraph 0021, lines 3-5).
With regards to claim 18, Simakov et al teaches wherein the plasma parameter is associated with a enthalpy of the directed thermal plasma jet (gas flow rate adjustment box 17 adjust the gas needed for cutting which is directly associated with enthalpy of the directed thermal plasma jet, paragraph 0021, lines 3-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1.
Examiner’s response: Applicant has amended claim 1 to include “a flow rate of a plasma air for the directed thermal plasma jet is from 3.0 nm3/h to 3.2 nm3/h”. The only time the specification discussing that speed of the plasma jet is in examples (paragraph 0053, paragraph 0054). There is no specific purpose stated of why the speed would matter therefore it is considered design choice.
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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761