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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 6/24/25. Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are pending, wherein claims 11-12 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8-9, there is no support in the original description, neither in the specification nor in the drawings, for the new limitation that the angular offset of the nozzle is “by rotating the tundish.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H05-237619 A (cited in IDS filed 8/22/24) in view of Iwaki (JP H05-277691 A, previously cited) and Honda et al (US 2018/0050387, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, JP H05-237619A teaches a method for balancing a flow of liquid steel in a casting mold (paragraph [0001], suppressing drift of molten steel in a continuous casting mold) having a pouring axis (see figures, vertical axis, see main flow 6a), wherein the steel is introduced into the casting mold (2) from a tundish (1) through a protective nozzle (4) opening below the level of steel in the casting mold (figs 1-3 and 6), comprising the following steps:
a) acquisition of a set of characteristics of the flow (paragraph [0017], temperature monitor to detect uneven flow, i.e., drift) in the casting mold (2) wherein the flow characteristics are obtained by an analysis of the thermal characteristics of the steel in the casting mold (paragraph [0018], drift is detected by thermocouples embedded in the walls, when difference in temperature detected exceeds a predetermined threshold, it is determined that drift has occurred),
b) comparison of the flow characteristics acquired in the preceding step against a predetermined model (paragraph [0018], when difference in temperature detected exceeds a predetermined threshold value) and determination of adjustment actions to be taken in order to balance the flow (paragraph [0018-0019], determined that drift has occurred, movement control device 13 controls movement of walls towards or away from the nozzle), and
c) adjustment of the flow (figs 2-3, paragraph [0018-0019], movement control device 13 controls movement of walls towards or away from the nozzle, until the detected temperature difference becomes equal to or less than the threshold value);
wherein the casting mold comprises an assembly of a pair of opposite narrow metal plates and a pair of opposite wide metal plates (figs 1-3 and 6, see vertical axis as pouring axis, paragraph [0010], mold formed by a pair of long side walls and a pair of short side walls),
wherein the acquisition of the set of characteristics of the flow in the casting mold includes the measurement of the temperature of the wall of at least one of said plates of the casting mold (measuring temperature using the thermocouples and adjusting the flow), and
wherein the flow adjustment is performed by effecting a relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold (paragraph [0010], moving both short side walls in parallel or moving the tundish in a direction to eliminate this drift, paragraph [0020], short side walls are moved, or alternatively, moving the tundish so as to move the nozzle closer to a wall and farther away from the other wall, see figures 2-3 showing the movement is in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis).
JP H05-237619 A teaches a plurality of thermocouples extending in a short side wall in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold (thermocouples 9, figs 1 and 6), failing to teach an optical fiber comprising a plurality of Bragg filters and extending in a wall of at least one of said wide plates, the optical fiber extending in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold, and that the measurement of the temperature is of the wall of at least one of said wide plates of the casting mold by means of the optical fiber.
Iwaki teaches a method for preventing drift of molten steel from a submerged entry nozzle having a discharge hole facing the short side of a continuous casting mold (paragraph [0001]). Iwaki recognizes that drift may occur if the flow of steel becomes biased or fluctuates due to the casting speed or the aperture, or if inclusions adhere to the inner wall of the discharge hole of the nozzle, causing a biased flow (paragraph [0004-0005]). Iwaki teaches that the prior art detects drift by including a plurality of thermocouples embedded in the wall surfaces of the left and right short sides of the mold (paragraph [0005]). Iwaki teaches that they have found that the accuracy of estimating the molten steel level difference was higher when it was based on the temperature distribution in the width direction of the long side of the mold than when it was based on temperature information on the short side (paragraph [0006]), and thus embeds a plurality of thermocouples along the width direction of the long side of the mold (paragraph [0011], fig 5, thermocouples 10a-10g).
In view of the teachings of Iwaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify JP H05-237619 A such that the thermocouples are embedded along the width direction of the long side of the mold, as Iwaki teaches that measuring the temperature distribution in the width direction of the long side was more accurate in estimating the molten steel level difference and drift (paragraph [0005-0006], [0011], fig 5, thermocouples 10a-10g).
The combination suggests thermocouples arranged to measure the temperature distribution along the width of the wide plates of the casting mold, but fails to teach the use of an optical fiber comprising a plurality of Bragg filters and extending in a wall of at least one of said wide plates in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold instead of thermocouples. The combination is also quiet to the casting mold being backed by cooling devices which are configured to allow the metal plates to be cooled by circulation of a cooling fluid.
Honda et al teaches cooling of a continuous casting mold by water cooling the outer surfaces is known (fig 19, paragraph [0003]), including a large number of water-introducing grooves 2c, and a back plate (4) through which cooling water flows through (paragraph [0003]). Honda et al teaches conventionally, a thermocouple has been used as the temperature detection unit (paragraph [0004]), however, the proximity of the temperature detection unit to the water-introducing grooves used for cooling the copper plate may impede the temperature detection (paragraph [0007]). Honda et al thus teaches the use of Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors, a kind of an optical-fiber sensor, which are easier to be installed than thermocouples, and realize highly precise stable multi-point measurements (paragraph [0010]). Honda et al’s FBG sensors may be inserted from at least one of the upper, lower, and lateral sides of the main body of the mold (paragraph [0017]), with an example of the sensors being inserted through insertion hole 12h (fig 1) on a side of the wide plate (fig 1, paragraph [0051], shown to be in a direction not parallel with the casting axis), with corresponding measurement points P (fig 1). Honda et al’s temperature detection unit is capable of detecting a temperature with high accuracy, and capable of being easily attached to and detached from the copper plate (paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to include a cooling device backing the casting mold, as it is well known in the art and taught in Honda et al, to cool the continuous casting water with cooling water (Honda, paragraph [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the thermocouples of the combination with FBG sensors (Fiber Bragg Grating sensors, a kind of optical fiber sensor), as Honda et al teaches that their FBG sensors are capable of detecting a temperature with high accuracy and are easily attached and detached (paragraph [0023]), overcoming prior art issues with thermocouples being in proximity to the water cooling grooves (paragraph [0007]). Note that in the combination, as Iwaki shows the temperature measurement points for the thermocouples are along the wide side of the mold (fig 5, 10a-10g), the FBG sensor would be arranged similar to the arrangement shown in fig 1 of Honda, where the FBG sensor is inserted through insertion hole 12h having measurement points P along the wide side of the mold, thus being arranged not parallel to the pouring axis.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein steps a) to c) are repeated continuously while the liquid steel is flowing into the casting mold (JP H05-237619A, paragraph [0018], detected by thermocouples in the same manner as in the case of eddy current level meter, paragraph [0014], repeatedly controlled until the differences becomes equal to or less than a threshold value).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold is effected in a direction perpendicular to the pouring axis of the casting mold (see JP H05-237619A, figures 2-3, the relative movement is shown perpendicular (horizontal) to the pouring axis (vertical axis)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the nozzle is secured to the tundish and the relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold is achieved by moving the tundish with respect to the casting mold (JP H05-237619A, paragraph [0010], nozzle attached to bottom of tundish, moving the tundish in a direction to eliminate the drift).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H05-237619A as modified by Iwaki and Honda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamane et al (JP H02-268950 A, cited in IDS filed 8/22/24) and Nakano et al (JP 2001-087844 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches a relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold (see JP H05-237619A above) but is quiet to wherein the relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold is effected by angularly offsetting the nozzle about the pouring axis of the casting mold.
Yamane et al teaches controlling drift of molten steel in a continuous casting mold (machine translation, p.1, paragraph [0001], lines 1-3). Yamane et al teaches that an immersion nozzle is attached to a tundish and the tilt angle of the nozzle is controlled so as to suppress drift (machine translation, p.2, means for solving the problem), where the drift can be detected by the temperature difference. Figure 2 shows the tilt angle of the nozzle being angularly offset about the pouring axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to further include an angular offset of the nozzle as an additional means for adjusting the flow so as to reduce drift of the steel.
The combination teaches angularly offsetting the nozzle about the pouring axis of the casting mold, but is quiet to doing so by rotating the tundish.
However, Nakano et al teaches adjusting a position of an immersion nozzle for continuous casting (abstract), including a tilting mechanism (6) for tilting a tundish (3), and a horizontal shifting mechanism (7) for horizontally shifting the tundish (3). The tilting mechanism has two electric jacks (6a) which are individually driven up and down (machine translation, p.3 lines 28-38), and may be configured to tilt the tundish with one of the electric jacks as a fulcrum (machine translation, p.4, last paragraph). The inclination and the position can be adjusted at least at any time between before the start of casting and during the casting (See Summary, machine translation p.5, paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the nozzle is angularly offset by rotating the tundish, as an obvious alternative to the mechanism of Yamane et al, for performing the same predictable function of adjusting the inclination of the angle of the nozzle. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the relative movement between the nozzle and the casting mold is effected in a direction perpendicular to the pouring axis of the casting mold (JP H05-237619A, figs 2-3) by moving the tundish (JP H05-237619A, paragraph [0010], nozzle attached to bottom of tundish, moving the tundish in a direction to eliminate the drift), but is quiet to further effecting the relative movement by angularly offsetting the nozzle about the pouring axis of the casting mold by rotating the tundish.
Yamane et al teaches controlling drift of molten steel in a continuous casting mold (machine translation, p.1, paragraph [0001], lines 1-3). Yamane et al teaches that an immersion nozzle is attached to a tundish and the tilt angle of the nozzle is controlled so as to suppress drift (machine translation, p.2, means for solving the problem), where the drift can be detected by the temperature difference. Figure 2 shows the tilt angle of the nozzle being angularly offset about the pouring axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to further include an angular offset of the nozzle as an additional means for adjusting the flow so as to reduce drift of the steel.
The combination teaches angularly offsetting the nozzle about the pouring axis of the casting mold, but is quiet to doing so by rotating the tundish.
However, Nakano et al teaches adjusting a position of an immersion nozzle for continuous casting (abstract), including a tilting mechanism (6) for tilting a tundish (3), and a horizontal shifting mechanism (7) for horizontally shifting the tundish (3). The tilting mechanism has two electric jacks (6a) which are individually driven up and down (machine translation, p.3 lines 28-38), and may be configured to tilt the tundish with one of the electric jacks as a fulcrum (machine translation, p.4, last paragraph). The inclination and the position can be adjusted at least at any time between before the start of casting and during the casting (See Summary, machine translation p.5, paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the nozzle is angularly offset by rotating the tundish, as an obvious alternative to the mechanism of Yamane et al, for performing the same predictable function of adjusting the inclination of the angle of the nozzle. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to overcome the issues under 35 USC 112(B) set forth in the previous Office Action. The corresponding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in response to the amendments of the claims.
Applicant first argues, on p.8 of the Remarks filed 6/24/25, that JP’619 does not teach “a plurality of thermocouples extending in a short side wall in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold” and argues that JP’619 teaches the opposite, thermocouples extending parallel to the pouring axis. Applicant argues that Figures 1 and 6 of JP’619 show 8 thermocouples inserted in the casting direction in each end wall, and that JP’619 would lose much of its functionality if the thermocouples were oriented perpendicular to the pouring axis of the casting mold.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection is based on the combination of JP H05-237619 A, Iwaki, and Honda et al. In the combination as discussed in the rejection above, the claimed optical fiber would extend in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold, as the optical fiber is arranged horizontally as shown in Honda, fig 1, where the optical fiber is inserted through insertion hole 12h. As a side note, JP’619 does teach plurality of thermocouples extending in a direction not parallel to the pouring axis of the casting mold, as shown in fig 1. Note that each of the thermocouples extend from the outside of the mold walls towards the inside, similar to the prior art disclosed in Honda, fig. 19.
Applicant argues, beginning on p.9 of the remarks, that Iwaki does not move the end walls or the tundish to correct the drive, instead, it employs gas injection into the nozzle ports to correct drift. Applicant further argues that there is a cooling device backing the mold walls, which makes inserting thermocouples in the mold walls far more complex and difficult. Applicant thus argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art, starting from JP’619, would not find it obvious to change from measuring the temperature in the end walls to measuring the temperature in the wide walls. Applicant argues it would be difficult to arrange the thermocouples in the wide walls, and additionally argues that Iwaki’s gas injection at the nozzle ports change the flow dynamics in the mold.
The examiner disagrees. As noted above, the rejection is based on the combination of JP H05-237619 A, Iwaki, and Honda et al. As discussed above, Iwaki teaches that the prior art detects drift by including a plurality of thermocouples embedded in the wall surfaces of the left and right short sides of the mold (paragraph [0005], which is similar to JP H05-237619 A). Iwaki teaches that they have found that the accuracy of estimating the molten steel level difference was higher when it was based on the temperature distribution in the width direction of the long side of the mold than when it was based on temperature information on the short side (paragraph [0006]). Thus, the combination suggests measuring the temperature distribution in the width direction of the long side of the mold. Although applicant recognizes that it is more difficult to do so with the arrangement of thermocouples and a cooling device, Honda recognizes the same issues and uses a FBG sensor inserted through the side, while measuring the same points as Iwaki.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues, beginning on p.13 of the Remarks, that Honda discloses the optical fiber can be employed not only horizontally in the wide mold walls, but also vertically in the narrow end walls. Applicant argues that Honda makes no mention of drift, but does recognize the issues with thermocouple placement caused by the cooling mechanism. Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated by the teachings of Iwaki to insert multiple thermocouples in the wide walls of the mold due to the far greater complexity and expense with minimal benefit, and that if we remove Iwaki from the combination, Honda would not lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a BRG optical fiber in the wide wall to determine drift.
As noted above, the rejection is based on the combination of JP H05-237619 A, Iwaki, and Honda et al. As discussed above, Iwaki suggests measuring the temperature distribution across the width of the wide mold for greater accuracy, and that Honda shows a FBG sensor that is arranged to measure at said measuring points across the width of the wide mold to overcome any issues in the prior art regarding placement of the temperature measuring devices in relation to the cooling device.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
Regarding dependent claims 2, 7, and 10, applicant refers to the arguments with respect to the independent claim, which has been addressed above.
Regarding claims 8-9, applicant argues that Yamane adjusts the flow by moving the nozzle with respect to the tundish and the mold, and employ a sliding gate valve to regulate flow in the mold. Applicant argues that Yamane throttles the flow path when the nozzle is moved from side to side, and that during moving the nozzle angularly would similarly have a throttling effect. Applicant argues that the throttling flow would make correct the drift more complicated.
The examiner disagrees and notes that Yamane appears to show a separate hydraulic cylinder for the sliding gate (18) and the nozzle (12) (fig 1-2), thus being capable of tilting the nozzle without throttling the flow. Furthermore, Yamane et al does disclose controlling drift of molten steel in a continuous casting mold (machine translation, p.1, paragraph [0001], lines 1-3). Yamane et al teaches that an immersion nozzle is attached to a tundish and the tilt angle of the nozzle is controlled so as to suppress drift (machine translation, p.2, means for solving the problem), where the drift can be detected by the temperature difference. Figure 2 shows the tilt angle of the nozzle being angularly offset about the pouring axis. Although applicant argues that controlling drift may be more difficult, Yamane still performs the step of controlling drift by tilting of the nozzle.
Applicant has amended claims 8-9 to further require rotating the tundish. As noted above, there is no support for “rotating.” However, it is noted that rotation of a tundish is known in the art, as taught in Nakano, who teaches a tilting mechanism using two electric jacks operated individually so that one can function as a fulcrum to adjust an inclination angle of the nozzle.
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735