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 .
Status of Application
In view of the appeal brief filed on 11/12/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for extracting scale particles” in claim 45 and “a steam production unit” in claim 48.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Where “a device for extracting scale particles” has been interpreted as a metal grid per paragraph 0024 of the specification of the instant application. Where “a steam production unit” has been interpreted as a flash drum or other suitable steam production equipment where it is noted that a heat exchanger can produce steam in paragraph 0021 of the specification of the instant application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 62 recited the method of claim 43, however claim 43 refers to a device for heat transfer and not a method, appropriate correction is required.
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 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 25-26, 28-30, 36, 38-39, 41, 43-52, 59-60, 62-64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstad (WO-8102585-A, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS).
Regarding Claim 25, Rydstad teaches a method of heat transfer comprising: providing a flat metal product (a billet 7 of Rydstad) putting the flat metal product (a billet 7 of Rydstad), in contact with a fluidized bed of solid particles (where particles 3 form a fluidized bed per page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 9), the solid particles having a direction of circulation (Rydstad does not explicitly teach a specific direction of circulation, Rydstad does teach fluidizing gas being introduced via the bottom of the chamber at 4 and being removed via an outlet on the chamber roof 5 per page 5, lines 7-14. Thus, because the inlet and outlet of gas is unmoving and constant, the solid particles 3 the gas fluidizes must therefore achieve a common direction of circulation wherein particles from the bottom of the chamber are pushed to the top of the chamber via the fluidizing gas. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant. See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.), and injecting a gas so the solid particles are in a bubbling regime (per the description of the fluidized bed in page 2, lines 19-34 and where air bubbles can be present per the abstract and air bubbles are described in the fluidized beds per at least page 4, line 10-18 ), the solid particles capturing heat released by the metal product and transferring the captured heat to a transfer medium (page 8, lines 5-19, where heat from the particles 3 is transferred to an energy absorbing medium in the pipes 16), thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles; wherein the flat metal product is a steel product and enters the fluidized bed at a temperature of at least 550°C (page 1, lines 1-21 where the billets steel and are cooled from about 1000°C to room temperature).
However Rydstad is silent as the metal product being a flat metal product including a top and a bottom broad face, two small faces, and two edges and putting the product on one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles, where gas is injected thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles as Rydstad only generally discloses billets, bars or the like and does not disclose any specific shapes.
Gao teaches fluidized bed quenching of a flat metal, specifically steel, product in a bubbling regime as seen in figure 10-11 (where figure 10 explicitly shows that bubbles may be present around the products). Specifically Gao teaches a fluidized bed with a flat metal product, (that may be steel per page 243 in the paragraph titled Fluidized-Bed Quenching Processes”) having broad faces, with two small faces and two edges with the broad face defining a length and width, and a small face defining a thickness of the product (per page 242, Figure 11 which shows a vertically oriented flat metal plate). Further, Gao illustrates within Figure 11 a direction of circulation of the solid particles, at upward arrows in figure 11(b) of the reference. Gao teaches putting the product on one of two edges, (in the vertical orientation of figure 11(b)) and performing quenching so that the broad face is parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (where per figure 11 the orientation of figure 11(b) is the correct configuration of the to prevent the shade phenomenon). Gao teaches the direction of circulation being vertical (as seen in figure 11(b)), and the broad face of the flat product is parallel to the vertical direction thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (as seen in figure 11(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quenching method of a steel metal product of generic shapes of Gao to accommodate a flat metal product with broad faces oriented parallel to the direction of circulation of particles in the fluidized bed as taught by Gao. Where having a flat metal product oriented in the vertical direction of figure 11(b) of Gao would be the correct orientation for a piece so shaped to prevent the shade effect as taught by Gao (page 242 in the paragraph under “Geometry of Parts and Their Configuration” and the caption for figure 11).
Regarding claim 26, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses the transfer medium is water (per page 6, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 28, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 26 above and Rydstad further discloses the water is used to produce steam (per page 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 29, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 28 above and Rydstad further discloses the method is performed within a plant having a steam network and the produced steam is injected in said steam network (where water and or steam is used as the energy absorbing medium per page 1, line 2-8 and where steam is sent to a recovery structure for the steam which would form a stem network such as using steam for electricity production or hot water heating or the like per page 1, line 22-25).
Regarding claim 30, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Gao further discloses the flat metal product is a slab or a plate ( as seen in figure 11(b) of Gao).
Regarding claim 36, Rydstad as modified disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses an injection flow rate of the gas is controlled so as to monitor a cooling rate of the flat metal product ( per page 8, line 27 through page 9, line 5, where controlling the gas flow rate would be a control factor on the cooling rate).
Regarding claim 38, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses the gas is air (while Rydstad teaches using air a conventional cooling gas in page 2, line 6 and air bubbles are described in the fluidized beds per at least page 4, line 10-18).
Regarding claim 39, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses flat metal product is a slab (billet 7 per page 1, line 1-8) and the slab is placed on a support (conveyer means 8) within the fluidized bed so that the one of the two edges is parallel to a floor (placing the flat metal plate of Gao in the vertical configuration disclosed therein in figure 11(b), in place of the billet 7 of Rydstad would have one of the edges parallel to a floor as the flat metal plate would have an edge facing the lower portion 1 of the unit of Rydstad).
Regarding claim 41, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses the transfer medium contains nanoparticles (as nanoparticles are broadly defined the nanoparticles can be any particles on a nanometer scale such as the water molecule of the heat medium in the pipes 16).
Regarding Claim 43, Rydstad discloses a device for heat transfer comprising: a chamber (a chamber formed for the enclosed main bed with a body at portions 1 and 2) including a fluidized bed of solid particles (where particles 3 form a fluidized bed per page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 9), the solid particles capturing the heat released by a flat metal product (a billet 7 of Rydstad), the flat metal product placed on a bottom of the chamber ( on conveyer means 8 at the lower portion 1)
and having a temperature above 550°C (while specific method of using limitations, such as operating temperature, do not further limit the structure of the apparatus claims of this invention the examiner notes that Rydstad discloses a temperature in the claimed range per page 1, lines 1-21, where the billets steel and are cooled from about 1000°C to room temperature);
a gas injector to inject gas within the chamber (at gas inlets or distributors 13);
a heat exchanger (at pipes 16) having a circulating transfer medium , the heat exchanger being in contact with the fluidized bed so that the solid particles transfer the captured heat to the transfer medium (page 8, lines 5-19, where heat from the particles 3 is transferred to an energy absorbing medium in the pipes 16); and
a support configured to support (conveyer means 8) the flat metal product (billet 7) placed on a bottom of the chamber so that the broad faces of the flat metal product is parallel to a circulation direction of the solid particles (Rydstad does teach fluidizing gas being introduced via the bottom of the chamber at 4 and being removed via an outlet on the chamber roof 5 per page 5, lines 7-14 which would be parallel to an extension direction of the billets 7 as seen in Figure 1; page 5, lines 15-29); wherein the flat metal product is a steel product (page 1, lines 1-21 where the billets steel).
However Rydstad is silent as to the metal product being a flat metal product including a top and a bottom broad face, two small faces, and two edges where the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles as Rydstad only generally discloses billets, bars or the like and does not disclose any specific shapes.
Gao teaches fluidized bed quenching of a flat metal, specifically steel, product. Specifically Gao teaches a fluidized bed with a flat metal product, (that may be steel per page 243 in the paragraph titled Fluidized-Bed Quenching Processes”) having broad faces, with two small faces and two edges with the broad face defining a length and width, and a small face defining a thickness of the product (per page 242, Figure 11 which shows a vertically oriented flat metal plate). Further, Gao illustrates within Figure 11 a direction of circulation of the solid particles, at upward arrows in figure 11(b) of the reference. Gao teaches performing quenching so that the broad face is parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (where per figure 11 the orientation of figure 11(b) is the correct configuration of the to prevent the shade phenomenon). Gao teaches the direction of circulation being vertical (as seen in figure 11(b)), and the broad face of the flat product is parallel to the vertical direction thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (as seen in figure 11(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal product of Rydstad which is a steel metal product of generic shapes placed on a bottom support of a chamber as noted above, to be a flat metal product with broad faces oriented parallel to the direction of circulation of particles in the fluidized bed as taught by Gao to have the billets 7 of Rydstad be replaced with the flat vertical plates of Gao in the correct orientation of Gao figure 11(b) would have the flat metal plates of Gao have one of their edges be placed on the conveyer means 8 as that provides support in the disclosure of Rydstad. Where having a flat metal product oriented in the vertical direction of figure 11(b) of Gao would allow for an enhanced quenching profile and a reduction in workpiece distortion when cooling a flat metal plate as taught by Gao (page 242 in the paragraph under “Geometry of Parts and Their Configuration” and the caption for figure 11).
Additionally claim 43 fails to provide additional structural limitations beyond those listed above. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art based on the parts/structure of the apparatus not based on functional language citing intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case having the solid particles circulating along a circulation direction and where the broad faces of the flat metal product are parallel to the circulation direction of the solid particles are functional limitations. Since these limitations references how the device is operated in that they are citing a direction of circulation of the particles which can vary depending on how the particles are circulating at any given time, rather than tying the placement of the sheets in relation another structural element. Rydstad reads on the above structural limitations and Gao discloses the circulation direction is configured to be parallel to the broad faces or other similar language that would add structural limitations to the functional language currently recited in claim 43.
Regarding claim 44, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 43 above and Rydstad further discloses the transfer medium circulating within the heat exchanger is water (per page 6, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 45 and 46, Rydstad discloses the claim limitations of claim 43 above and Rydstad further discloses a device for extracting scale particles, wherein the device for extracting scale particles is a movable grid ( at grating 19). However Rydstad does not explicitly discloses the material of construction is metal. In the Office Action dated 3/16/2023, the Examiner took Official Notice that The use of metal as a construction material in heat exchange systems is notoriously well known in the heat exchanger. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 47, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 43 above and Rydstad further discloses the heat exchanger (at pipes 16) includes a first pipe to bring the transfer medium to the heat exchanger (inlet 17), a second pipe to recover the transfer medium at the exit of the chamber (at outlet 18), and a third pipe (the body of pipe 16 in between inlet 17 and outlet 18 as seen in figure 2) , connected to the at least first pipe and to the second pipe, the third pipe being in contact with the fluidized bed of solid particles (as seen in figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 48, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 47 above and Rydstad further discloses the at least one second pipe (outlet 18) is connected to a steam production unit (where steam is sent to a recovery structure for the steam which would form a stem network such as using steam for electricity production or hot water heating or the like per page 1, line 22-25).
Regarding claim 49, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 43 above and Rydstad further discloses the temperature is from 550°C to 800°C (where Rydstad discloses the billets are cooled from about 1000°C to room temperature per page 1, lines 1-21, which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 50, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses the temperature is from 550°C to 800°C (where Rydstad discloses the billets are cooled from about 1000°C to room temperature per page 1, lines 1-21, which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 51, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses at least 90% of the heat released by the flat metal product is captured (as captured is not further defined and can be broadly interpreted this could be any form of the transfer such as transfer of heat to the fluidized bed while within the fluidized bed and as the workpiece 7 is contained within the fluidized bed for heat transfer, the bulk of the heat transfer while the workpiece is within the fluidized bed would go to the fluidized bed) .
Regarding claim 52, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the top and the bottom broad face follow the same thermal path during the cooling (as this is a broad limitation and the thermal path is not further defined as long as a thermal path can be defined as similar or the same the thermal path would meet the limitations of the claims. In this case the broad faces of Gao figure 11(b) would cool in a similar manner as they are exposed to the same fluidized bed moving over the plate).
Regarding claim 59, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the top and the bottom broad faces are cooled homogeneously (In this case the broad faces of Gao figure 11(b) would cool in a similar manner as they are exposed to the same fluidized bed moving over the plate).
Regarding claim 60, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses the putting is by immersion into the fluidized bed (where particles 3 form a fluidized bed per page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 9).
Regarding claim 62, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 43 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the top and the bottom broad faces are cooled homogeneously (In this case the broad faces of Gao figure 11(b) would cool in a similar manner as they are exposed to the same fluidized bed moving over the plate).
Regarding claim 63, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad further discloses conveying the flat metal product on a rolling conveyor (billet 7 is in conveyer means 8).
Regarding claim 64, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the one of the two edges is parallel to a floor (placing the flat metal plate of Gao in the vertical configuration disclosed therein in figure 11(b), in place of the billet 7 of Rydstad would have one of the edges parallel to a floor as the flat metal plate would have an edge facing the lower portion 1 of the unit of Rydstad).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstad (WO-8102585-A, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) and Oishi (U.S. Patent 6,471,798).
Regarding claim 27, Rydstad as modified disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the transfer medium is molten salts.
Oishi teaches a method and apparatus for the heat treatment of steel (per the abstract), where molten salts have a large coefficient of heat transfer and thus enable rapid cooling of quenching steel thus resulting in high strength steel (column 1, lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer medium of Rydstad with molten salt as taught by Oishi in order to achieve higher heat transfer rates resulting in higher strength steels as recognized by Oishi (per column 1, lines 19-27).
Claim(s) 32-35, 37, 42, 53-58, 65-76 and 78-90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstad (WO-8102585-A, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS).
Regarding claim 32, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the solid particles have a heat capacity comprised between 500 and 2000 J/kg/K, as Rydstad is silent as to the material of the fluidized bed particles.
Gao teaches a fluidized bed of solid particles being made of both aluminum oxide, and SiC ( per page 240, column 3, paragraph 4 through page 241, column 1, paragraph 1). Aluminum oxide has a heat capacity of 880 J/kg/K; and a density of 3890 kg/m3. SiC has a heat capacity of 670 J/kg/K; and a density of 3217 kg/m3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rydstad with the materials for a fluidized bed disclosed by Gao, doing so would provide materials desirable for use in a fluidized bed for quenching of steel, since fluidized particles that comprise alumina or SiC are commonly used materials in this process as recognized by Gao (per page 240, column 3, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 33, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose a density of the solid particles in the fluidized bed is comprised between 1400 and 4000 kg/m3, as Rydstad is silent as to the material of the fluidized bed particles.
Gao teaches a fluidized bed of solid particles being made of both aluminum oxide, and SiC ( per page 240, column 3, paragraph 4 through page 241, column 1, paragraph 1). Aluminum oxide has a density of 3890 kg/m3. SiC has a density of 3217 kg/m3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rydstad with the materials for a fluidized bed disclosed by Gao, doing so would provide materials desirable for use in a fluidized bed for quenching of steel, since fluidized particles that comprise alumina or SiC are commonly used materials in this process as recognized by Gao (per page 240, column 3, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 34, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the solid particles are made of alumina, SiC or steel slag, as Rydstad is silent as to the material of the fluidized bed particles.
Gao teaches a fluidized bed of solid particles being made of both aluminum oxide, and SiC ( per page 240, column 3, paragraph 4 through page 241, column 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rydstad with the materials for a fluidized bed disclosed by Gao, doing so would provide materials desirable for use in a fluidized bed for quenching of steel, since fluidized particles that comprise alumina or SiC are commonly used materials in this process as recognized by Gao (per page 240, column 3, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 35, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the solid particles have an average size comprised between 30 and 300µm, as Rydstad is silent as to the material of the fluidized bed particles and their sizes.
Gao teaches a fluidized bed of solid particles having an average size of between 100 µm to 150 µm (page 240, column 3, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rydstad with specific sizes of the fluidized bed disclosed by Gao, doing so would provide an optimum particles size for use in a fluidized bed for achieving a desired cooling rate as recognized by Gao (per page 240, column 3, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 37, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the gas is injected at a velocity between 5 and 30cm/s, as Rydstad is silent as to the gas velocity.
Gao teaches typical a fluidized bed with gas injection velocities being between 5 cm/s and 8 cm/s (page 241, column 3, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rydstad with specific gas velocities disclosed for the fluidized bed by Gao, doing so would allow for typical gas flow velocities with in a fluidized bed for quenching of steel, as recognized by Gao ( per page 241, column 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 42, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled from 800 to 400°C in less than 60 minutes.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 400°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from 800°C to 400°C in as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 53-55, Rydstad discloses the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled is for 1000 seconds or more, from 800 to 400°C, and wherein the cooling is for less than 60 minutes.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 400°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from 800°C to 400°C in as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 56, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 55 above and Rydstad further the cooling is without deformation of the flat metal product (as deformation is a broad limitation as long as there is no deformation of some kind the limitation would be met and Rydstad does not discloses any deformation and Gao discloses that a plate in a vertical configuration quenched in in a fluidized bed is the correct configuration per figure 11(b) and fluidized bed quenching has the advantage over vaporizable liquid quench media which can causes distortion page 243, at the second bullet point from the top, of Gao).
Regarding claim 57 and 58, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 58 above and Rydstad further discloses at least 95% of the heat released by the flat metal product is captured (as captured is not further defined and can be broadly interpreted this could be any form of the transfer such as transfer of heat to the fluidized bed while within the fluidized bed and as the workpiece 7 is contained within the fluidized bed for heat transfer, the bulk of the heat transfer while the workpiece is within the fluidized bed would go to the fluidized bed) .
Regarding Claim 65, Rydstad teaches a method of heat transfer comprising: providing a flat metal product (a billet 7 of Rydstad); putting the flat metal product (a billet 7 of Rydstad) on one of its edges on a bottom of a chamber containing solid particles (where particles 3 form a fluidized bed per page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 9), the solid particles having a direction of circulation (Rydstad does not explicitly teach a specific direction of circulation, Rydstad does teach fluidizing gas being introduced via the bottom of the chamber at 4 and being removed via an outlet on the chamber roof 5 per page 5, lines 7-14. Thus, because the inlet and outlet of gas is unmoving and constant, the solid particles 3 the gas fluidizes must therefore achieve a common direction of circulation wherein particles from the bottom of the chamber are pushed to the top of the chamber via the fluidizing gas. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant. See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.), and injecting a gas so the solid particles are in a bubbling regime (per the description of the fluidized bed in page 2, lines 19-34 and where air bubbles can be present per the abstract and air bubbles are described in the fluidized beds per at least page 4, line 10-18), the solid particles capturing heat released by the metal product and transferring the captured heat to a transfer medium (page 8, lines 5-19, where heat from the particles 3 is transferred to an energy absorbing medium in the pipes 16), thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges on the bottom of the chamber containing solid particles; wherein the flat metal product is a steel product and enters the chamber at a temperature of at least 550°C (page 1, lines 1-21 where the billets steel and are cooled from about 1000°C to room temperature).
However Rydstad is silent as the metal product being a flat metal product including a top and a bottom broad face, two small faces, and two edges and putting the product on one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles, where gas is injected thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles as Rydstad only generally discloses billets, bars or the like and does not disclose any specific shapes.
Gao teaches fluidized bed quenching of a flat metal, specifically steel, product in a bubbling regime as seen in figure 10-11 (where figure 10 explicitly shows that bubbles may be present around the products). Specifically Gao teaches a fluidized bed with a flat metal product, (that may be steel per page 243 in the paragraph titled Fluidized-Bed Quenching Processes”) having broad faces, with two small faces and two edges with the broad face defining a length and width, and a small face defining a thickness of the product (per page 242, Figure 11 which shows a vertically oriented flat metal plate). Further, Gao illustrates within Figure 11 a direction of circulation of the solid particles, at upward arrows in figure 11(b) of the reference. Gao teaches putting the product on one of two edges, (in the vertical orientation of figure 11(b)) and performing quenching so that the broad face is parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (where per figure 11 the orientation of figure 11(b) is the correct configuration of the to prevent the shade phenomenon). Gao teaches the direction of circulation being vertical (as seen in figure 11(b)), and the broad face of the flat product is parallel to the vertical direction thereby cooling the flat metal product while the product is on the one of the two edges so that the broad faces are parallel to the direction of circulation of the solid particles (as seen in figure 11(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quenching method of a steel metal product of generic shapes of Rydstad to accommodate a flat metal product with broad faces oriented parallel to the direction of circulation of particles in the fluidized bed as taught by Gao. Where having a flat metal product oriented in the vertical direction of figure 11(b) of Gao would be the correct orientation for a piece so shaped to prevent the shade effect as taught by Gao (page 242 in the paragraph under “Geometry of Parts and Their Configuration” and the caption for figure 11).
Additionally Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled is for 1000 seconds or more. Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 400°C in 1000 seconds or more as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2) and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product in a set amount of time in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 66-67, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled is for 1000 seconds or more, from 800 to 400°C, and wherein the cooling is for less than 60 minutes.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 400°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from 800°C to 400°C in as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 68, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 67 above and Rydstad further discloses the cooling is without deformation of the flat metal product (as deformation is a broad limitation as long as there is no deformation of some kind the limitation would be met and Rydstad does not discloses any deformation and Gao discloses that a plate in a vertical configuration quenched in in a fluidized bed is the correct configuration per figure 11(b) and fluidized bed quenching has the advantage over vaporizable liquid quench media which can causes distortion page 243, at the second bullet point from the top, of Gao).
Regarding claim 69 and 70, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 68 above and Rydstad further discloses at least 95% of the heat released by the flat metal product is captured (as captured is not further defined and can be broadly interpreted this could be any form of the transfer such as transfer of heat to the fluidized bed while within the fluidized bed and as the workpiece 7 is contained within the fluidized bed for heat transfer, the bulk of the heat transfer while the workpiece is within the fluidized bed would go to the fluidized bed) .
Regarding claim 71, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 68 below and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the top and the bottom broad faces are cooled homogeneously (In this case the broad faces of Gao figure 11(b) would cool in a similar manner as they are exposed to the same fluidized bed moving over the plate).
Regarding claim 72, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 65 above and Rydstad further discloses the chamber is configured to receive more than one flat metal product (multiple billets 7 are disclosed in the chamber of figure 1).
Regarding claim 73, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 65 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the one of the two edges is parallel to a floor (placing the flat metal plate of Gao in the vertical configuration disclosed therein in figure 11(b), in place of the billet 7 of Rydstad would have one of the edges parallel to a floor as the flat metal plate would have an edge facing the lower portion 1 of the unit of Rydstad).
Regarding claim 74, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 65 above and Gao further discloses the chamber is without a conveyor (as no conveyor is disclosed in Gao figure 11(b) fluidized cooling can take place without a conveyor).
Regarding claim 75, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 65 above and Rydstad further discloses the bottom of the chamber is in a horizontal direction (as seen in figure 1 of Rydstad).
Regarding claim 76, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 65 above and Rydstad in view of Gao further discloses the direction of circulation is vertical ( in at least Gao, which teaches the direction of circulation being vertical as seen in figure 11(b)).
Regarding claims 78 and 79, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 67 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled for greater than 2000 or 3000 seconds.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 350°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claims 80-83, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 64 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled from 900 to 350°C for less than 60 minutes but for greater than 2000 or 3000 seconds.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 350°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from 900°C to 350°C in as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claims 84-87, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled from 900 to 350°C for less than 60 minutes but for greater than 2000 or 3000 seconds.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 350°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from 900°C to 350°C in as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 88, Rydstad as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 87 above and Rydstad further discloses the cooling is without deformation of the flat metal product (as deformation is a broad limitation as long as there is no deformation of some kind the limitation would be met and Rydstad does not discloses any deformation and Gao discloses that a plate in a vertical configuration quenched in in a fluidized bed is the correct configuration per figure 11(b) and fluidized bed quenching has the advantage over vaporizable liquid quench media which can causes distortion page 243, at the second bullet point from the top, of Gao).
Regarding claims 89 and 90, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 42 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product is cooled for greater than 2000 or 3000 seconds.
Gao teaches that when quenching metal products, ideally it should be performed as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries (per page 244, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool a metal product that has first been austenitized (e.g., commonly above 800° for most steels, e.g., see examples on page 244 given by Gao of which include a 4340 medium-carbon steel being austenitized at 920°C; and a H13 Steel of which is commonly austenitized above 1000°C) to 350°C in less than 60 minutes as Gao teaches that the critical stage of cooling is the first 10 seconds (page 244, column 1, paragraph 2), and cooling in a quenching process for different times in times in page 244, column 1, paragraph 2 through column 2 paragraph 1. Therefore, the time to cool is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that cooling the metal product as quickly as possible to avoid the precipitation of proeutectoid carbides at the grain boundaries. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cool the metal product from as quickly as possible in order to of avoid property degrading proeutectoid carbides formed at grain boundaries, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstad (WO-8102585-A, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) and Graf (CA-2316669-A, cited by applicant in the 12/15/2022 IDS).
Regarding claim 40, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the metal product includes scale particles on a surface of the metal product being removed by the solid particles and the removed scale particles being regularly extracted from the fluidized bed
Graf teaches a method for producing fine wire (page 1, paragraph 1) where metal products subjected to fluidized bed quenching can have scale particles removed from the metal products surface, and the scale particles being removed by the solid particles and regularly extracted from a fluidized bed ( per page 4, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rydstad with the concepts of Graf in order to remove scale and regularly removing it from the fluidized bed, as recognized by Graf ( per page 4, paragraph 3).
Claim 61 and 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstad (WO-8102585-A, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244, cited by applicant in the 12/14/2020 IDS) and Takahashi et al. (US 4,059,253 cited by the examiner in the 7/30/2024 office action).
Regarding claim 61, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 25 above however Rydstad does not explicitly disclose the putting is by a crane.
Takahashi discloses (figure 2) putting an flat metal product into a cooling body (cooling device 3) by a crane (crane 5, per col. 3, line 25-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rydstad to include putting the metal product in contact with the cooling device of Rydstad by means of crane as disclosed by Takahashi. Doing so would provide a known means of moving a meatal slab into a cooling body as disclosed by Takahashi, where the crane would help to provide the slab along an upright edge which is an improved cooling position as recognized by Takahashi (per Col. 1, line 56-59).
Regarding claim 77, Rydstad disclose the claim limitations of claim 43 above however Rydstad discloses a conveyor (8) configured to convey inside the chamber, however Rydstad does not disclose that the conveyer is configured to convey inside the chamber the flat metal product placed on the one of the two edges and with the broad faces of the flat metal product parallel to the circulation direction.
Takahashi discloses (figure 2) putting an flat metal product into a cooling body (cooling device 3) by a conveyer (conveyer 2 with crane 5) is configured to convey inside the chamber (3) the flat metal product placed on the one of the two edges and with the broad faces of the flat metal product (as seen in figure 2 and per col. 3, line 25-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rydstad to include the conveyer and orienting device disclosed by Takahashi. Doing so would provide a known means of moving a meatal slab into a cooling body as disclosed by Takahashi, where the crane and conveyer would help to provide the slab along an upright edge which is an improved cooling position as recognized by Takahashi (per Col. 1, line 56-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the appeal brief, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25, 43 and 65 under 35 U.S.C 103 based on the prior art of Rydstad in view of Keist have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically regarding the fact that Keist only disclosed aluminum where the claims were directed to steel. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rydstad (WO-8102585-A) in view of Gao (“Fluidized-bed Quenching”, Gao, Weimin, Kong, Lingxue, Hodgson, Peter, ASM Handbook Steel Heat Treating, ASM International, (2013), vol. 4A, pages 238-244) where Gao explicitly discloses a steel object in the orientation claimed in a fluidized bed that may have bubbles as noted in the rejection above. Since the arguments regarding of Rydstad in view of Keist were previously made this action is made non final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763