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 12/16/25. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17 are pending, wherein claims 13-15 and 17 remain withdrawn. Claims 6 and 16 were cancelled.
Note the proper form for making amendments to the claims in MPEP 714(II)(C)(C). A claim being canceled must be indicated as "canceled;" the text of the claim must not be presented. Providing an instruction to cancel is optional. Canceled and not entered claims must be listed by only the claim number and status identifier, without presenting the text of the claims.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzberger (WO 2011/098309 A1, previously cited) in view of Lang (US 2019/0201971, cited in PTO-892 mailed 5/01/23) and Shimokasa et al (JP 3408901 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Arzberger teaches an ingot mold for continuous casting of metals (paragraph [0014], molds for continuous casting) comprising an assembly of metal plates (paragraph [0015], individual wall elements or panels as part of an entire vessel wall), each of the metal plates having a wall (paragraph [0002], coolable wall), the wall having a surface adapted to be in contact with liquid metal located in the ingot mold (paragraph [0002], hot side facing the cavity), the ingot mold having a casting axis (paragraph [0014], the molds are for continuous casting, thus necessarily having a casting axis), each plate having a length and a width perpendicular to the casting axis (fig 1 shows a rectangular plate having a length and a width), and including:
at least one optical fiber (paragraph [0018], optical fibers covered with cladding tubes) including a plurality of Bragg filters (paragraph [0018], [0038], Fiber Bragg Grating) extending in the wall of at least one of said plates (paragraph [0017-0018], inserted into grooves in the wall of the mold, fig 1-3), at least one groove formed in the surface of the wall of at least one of said plates (fig 1-3, paragraph [0017], grooves milled on the hot side), the optical fiber extending in the groove (figs 1-3, paragraph [0018], optical fibers inserted into these grooves), and a tongue of substantially complementary shape to the groove closing the groove over its entire length (figs 1-3, filler piece, paragraph [0018], metal strips adapted to the width of the grooves, paragraph [0021], cross section adapted to the grooves, paragraph [0040], adapted sufficiently precisely to the shape of a groove), the groove and the tongue having a shape suitable for the passage of the optical fiber (figs 1-3, paragraph [0018], fibers are in the groove which is then filled with the filler pieces, thus the shape is suitable for passage of the fiber).
Arzberger is quiet to the metal plates being backed by cooling devices configured to allow cooling of the metal plates by the circulation of a cooling fluid and the groove is in a direction that is not parallel to the casting axis of the ingot mold.
Lang teaches a continuous casting mold (abstract), including cut-outs for optical waveguides (abstract), and teaches further elements of the continuous casting mold include cooling devices for cooling the side walls (paragraph [0059]). Lang additionally teaches that for the thermal monitoring of the continuous casting mold, optical waveguides are arranged in the side walls as shown in figure 3 (paragraph [0061]). The optical waveguides may alternatively run horizontally or vertically in the side walls (paragraph [0061]) and is shown running horizontally in figure 1. For reasons of easier assembly and greater operational reliability, it is advantageous to insert the optical waveguides horizontally into the side wall (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cooling devices backing the metal plates of the mold, as Arzberger teaches the metallurgical vessel includes a coolable wall with a hot side and a cold side (paragraph [0002]) and cooling water flowing through the wall plate on its back through channels (paragraph [0037]), and that Lang teaches that cooling devices on the back side of the walls are known (paragraph [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the grooves and the optical waveguides to be not parallel to the casting axis of the ingot mold, such as in a horizontal arrangement, as Lang teaches that both vertical and horizontal arrangements of the waveguides are known, and that the horizontal arrangement provides for easier assembly and greater operational reliability (paragraph [0061]).
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).
The combination teaches the tongue is welded to the ingot mold in such a manner as to close the groove (Arzberger, paragraph [0018], filler strips connected to copper plates through a variety of technologies, such as welding or soldering, figures 2-3, paragraph [0023, 0036], preferable example of friction stir welding), but is quiet to the tongue being electron beam welded to close and seal the groove.
Shimokasa et al teaches an optical fiber (22) fitted so as to embed at the operating surface side of the continuous casting mold (abstract). Shimokasa et al teaches an optical fiber buried in a groove 17b (figs 3 and 7), where the method is not particularly limited, but may be electron beam welded or electroplated (machine translation, p.8 lines 30-40). Figure 3 shows a protective layer 24 of copper closing the groove 17b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute electron beam welding as taught in Shimokasa et al for the welding process of Arzberger, as Arzberger teaches that the filler strips may be connected through a variety of technologies such as welding (Arzberger) and that Shimokasa et al teaches that electron beam welding is a known method for burying an optical fiber in a groove on the operating side of a continuous casting mold, and that Shimokasa et al similarly recognizes that the method is not particularly limited (machine translation, p.8 lines 30-40). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the tongue consists of a plurality of parts (Arzberger, fig 1, the hold down pieces 13, 14, 15 which fix the filling pieces 8 to 10 can be construed as part of the claimed tongue, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the tongue includes an attached part formed entirely before closing the groove (filling piece of Arzberger’309 is a piece formed before closing the groove (fig 2), furthermore, the filling piece may include hold down devices 13, 14, 15 for fixing the piece (Arzberger’309, paragraph [0036])).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the groove has a substantially uniform depth (Arzberger, figs 1-3, Lang, figure 2 shows the arrangement of the optical waveguide, figs 4-6 and 8-9 suggest the uniform depth, which is defined as depth t, paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the ingot mold is made of copper or copper alloy, the tongue being made of the same material (Arzberger’309, paragraph [0017-0019], filler same material as wall plate, paragraph [0036], wall plate made of copper).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the groove is situated on at least one central part of at least one of the plates (note combination, Arzberger, fig 1, and note Lang teaches various arrangements of the groove and optical fibers, see figure 2, shows the optical waveguide 9 with a length L that extends nearly the entire width B, thus encompassing the central part of the plate).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the groove extends the entire length of at least one of the plates (Arzberger, fig 1, also see Lang, figure 2, as discussed above, note that the groove corresponds to the arrangement of the optical waveguide, and that figure 2 shows the optical waveguide 9 with a Length that extends nearly the entire width B, see paragraph [0064], where the cut-out length L coincides with the width B of the side wall 1, thus being open to both sides).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the optical fiber is provided with a coating or with a tube (Arzberger, paragraph [0024], optical waveguides are installed in cladding tubes).
Regarding claim 10, Arzberger is quiet to the optical fiber has a diameter greater than 1.6 mm.
However, Lang teaches the optical fiber has a diameter greater than 1.6 mm (Lang, paragraph [0063], optical waveguides 9 may be surrounded by protective casing 9’, referred to as a cannula, waveguides with the protective casing have a diameter d2, which lies in the range over 1mm, for example, 1.2 mm to 2.0 mm, thereby overlapping the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches a plurality of optical fibers contained in a plurality of substantially parallel grooves (Arzberger, paragraph [0033], fig 1 shows a wall plate of a casting mold in which grooves are made for receiving optical waveguides, fig 1 shows the grooves substantially parallel, paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arzberger as modified by Lang and Shimokasa et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sucker (CA2296619 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the groove being located at least in the entire upper part of the mold (note arrangement in the combination, Lang, figs 1-2, shows the groove can be in the upper part of the mold), but is quiet to the upper part being a funnel portion.
Sucker teaches a plate for a metal mold for continuous casting and a funnel-shaped pouring region narrowing in casting direction to a side of a cast billet (abstract, fig 2). The funnel-shaped pouring region facilitates casting a billet as thin as possible (p.4), where the dimensions of the pouring region are essentially determined by cross-section of a cast billet, the dimensions of the nozzle, and its submergence in the melt (p.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the upper portion of the mold of the combination to include a funnel portion, as continuous casting molds with funnel portions are known, as taught in Sucker, for use in casting thin billets. 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, see p.5-10 of the Remarks, filed 12/16/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 and 16 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 1-12 and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-12 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to include the limitation that the welding of the tongue to the groove is by electron beam welding. Applicant argues that Arzberger teaches friction stir welding, and that although friction stir welding is likely to be satisfactory for joining the filler piece of Arzberger to the mold wall, is not ideally suited to do so, as electron beam welding offers certain benefits over friction stir welding, in particular, the capability of deep, narrow welds with very small heat affected zones and minimized thermal distortions (see applicant’s remarks, p.12). Applicant further argues that although Arzberger mentions generally that welding or soldering can be used to join the filler piece with the groove, Arzberger does not list by name any other suitable type of welding, only focusing on friction stir welding (applicant’s remarks, p.17).
The rejections above note that Arzberger is not limited to friction stir welding, recognizing that a variety of technologies, such as welding or soldering, can be used for connecting the metal strips to the copper plates (Arzberger, paragraph [0018]). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). MPEP 2123(I) and (II).
Shimokasa et al is cited for teaching that an optical fiber is embedded in a groove 17b (figs 3 and 7), where the method is not particularly limited, but may be electron beam welded (machine translation, p.8 lines 30-40). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute electron beam welding as taught in Shimokasa et al for the welding process of Arzberger, as Arzberger teaches that the filler strips may be connected through a variety of technologies such as welding (Arzberger) and that Shimokasa et al teaches that electron beam welding is a known method for burying an optical fiber in a groove on the operating side of a continuous casting mold, and that Shimokasa et al similarly recognizes that the method is not particularly limited (machine translation, p.8 lines 30-40). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the advantages of electron beam welding that applicant discusses in the remarks, are known in the art. Gravemann (US 4,702,299, cited below as pertinent prior art) teaches electron beam welding of inserts into the walls of a continuous casting mold by electron beam welding, where electron beam welding guarantees metallurgic bonding, has no distortion, and only a very small welding zone will lose, to some extent, its strength due to the welding (col 4 lines 3-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawa (EP2548675 A1) teaches a continuous casting mold formed from joining a plurality of stacked sheet metal elements, wherein the sections may be joined by friction stir welding and/or electron beam welding, brazing, electroplating and/or similar processes (paragraph [0010]). Gravemann (US 4,702,299) teaches electron beam welding of inserts into the walls of a continuous casting mold by electron beam welding, where electron beam welding guarantees metallurgic bonding, has no distortion, and only a very small welding zone will lose, to some extent, its strength due to the welding (col 4 lines 3-23).
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