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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant firstly argues (page 7-8):
Independent claim 1, as amended, recites that an outer support ring is disposed at a connection between an outer sidewall and a top surface of the roof body, and that lift brackets are disposed on the top surface and coupled to the outer support ring, wherein all of the lift brackets of the body are coupled to the outer support ring. In contrast, Arthur teaches that a support arm 220 that is pinned to a roof 110 at two locations. The first location (shown by aperture 292) is close to an edge of the roof 110, while the second location (shown by aperture 255) is at the roof engagement element 120, which is connected to the reinforcing box channel 139 which surrounds vertical central opening 132 in roof 110. The aperture 255 is part of the engagement means 250 formed at the distal end of the support arm 220. The aperture 255 is pinned to an aperture 120 formed through the roof engagement element 120. Thus, since the roof engagement element 120 is distant from an edge of the roof, and close to the vertical central opening 132 in roof 110, Arthur cannot teach that all of the lift brackets of the body are coupled to the outer support ring that is disposed at a connection between an outer sidewall and a top surface of the roof body, as recited by claim 1.
Both Gerhard and Styendra also teach engaging lift points on the roof that are proximate the center of the roof, and thus, cannot cure the deficiencies of Arthur with respect to claim 1.
However Examiner respectfully disagrees because Arthur in response to the current claim amendments is relied on for the connections of brackets to support ring, where newly cited reference Tu CN 211057176 U teaches enhancements to stability and structure by applying two lifting brackets to distal support ring, Arthur as primary reference still maintain lateral swinging resistance to sidewall of roof at 305 (see figure 4).
Applicant secondly argues (page 8-9):
The Examiner misinterprets Styendra by alleging the lift brackets being disposed in a first quarter of the outer diameter of the furnace roof. Specifically, there is no mention of roof brackets, and the connection of the roof to the lift appears in the figure to be closer to the center of the furnace. Applicant asserts that Examiner is conflating the outer support ring of the furnace roof with the cage. The outer support ring is part of the cage, but the cage extends across the entire roof. Thus, when Styendra states that the "cage acts as part of the lifting structure for the roof," Styendra is silent as to which part of the cage is actually coupled to the lifting gantry, and certainly does not explicitly teach that the outer support ring is coupled to the lifting gantry. Moreover, in the rear and front door elevations of Styendra, the outer support ring 8 is clearly shown as not being connected to the lifting gantry 13 (by lift brackets). Thus, Styendra does not teach lift brackets disposed at the edge of the roof, but rather illustrated in the rear and front door elevations that the lifting gantry 13 is connected to the central region of roof (presumably by lift brackets).
Lowe teaches a cover for a vessel that is rotated about a horizontal axis to remove the cover and allow access to the vessel. This rotational operation causes the far rim/edge of cover (relative the axis of rotation) to rotate upwards and through the center line of the vessel. This motion is wholly unsuitable for use with Arthur. Arthur requires that the roof be lifted vertically and then swung in a horizontal plan to clear the vessel. This is because the electrode, which is disposed through the center of the roof during use of the furnace, is lifted vertically to a position above the roof when the roof is opened. The roof of Arthur cannot be rotated open about a horizontal axis as done by Lowe because the roof would hit the electrode and be prevented from opening. Thus, one skilled in the art would not look to Lowe to modify Arthur in the manner alleged by the Examiner.
The Examiner further asserts that providing the contact of the roof bracket towards the outer perimeter is merely a change in proportion that predictably only effects the moment around said roof bracket (citing MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in size/proportion), and that a modification to Arthur would be merely a change in proportion
and it is known in the art to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof. Applicant disagrees.
Applicant asserts that having a lift bracket at an edge of a roof rather than near the center of the roof is not a change in size or proportion. Additionally, the Examiner has not provided evidence that it is known to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof when there are no brackets near the center of the roof. Applicant asserts that Lowe cannot evidence roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof when the principle of operation that utilizes the edge brackets cannot be used in the primary reference Arthur because the roof would hit the electrode and not fully open or be able to be rotated aside.
Thus, Applicant asserts that Lowe, Gerhard and Styendra cannot suggest a modification to Arthur that would yield a roof that has all of the lift brackets of the body are coupled to the outer support ring that is disposed at a connection between an outer sidewall and a top surface of the roof body, as recited by claim 1. Therefore, independent claim 1, and claims 4-6 depending therefrom, are patentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe, and Styendra. According, Applicant requests the rejection be withdrawn.
Similarly, independent claim 7, as amended, recites that lift brackets all disposed on the outer portion of the top surface outward of the plurality of access panels, the lift brackets connected to the outer support ring which is disposed at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface, the distal ends of the arms terminating proximate the outer sidewall of the roof body. As discussed above, Lowe, Gerhard and Styendra cannot suggest a modification to Arthur that would yield a roof that has lift brackets all disposed on the outer portion of the top surface outward of the plurality of access panels. Furthermore, Lowe, Gerhard and Styendra cannot suggest a modification to Arthur that would yield a gantry crane that has distal ends of the arms terminating proximate the outer sidewall of the roof body. Therefore, independent claim 7, and claims 8-10 and 15- 16 depending therefrom, are patentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe, and Styendra. According, Applicant requests the rejection be withdrawn.
However Examiner notes that Styendra is not longer recited mooting the argument thereto, the newly cited art of Tu teaches support brackets all at outer support ring below the roof and within the distal wall of roof as advantage in current rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Lowe as providing lateral swing control at lower outer wall (104, figure 2) and lifting at top side of outer wall (70, figure 2), while (70) is not exactly at/above or inward of outer wall, this is a minor structural differences that is present in Tu having bracket above inward of outer perimeter wall (see figure 1).
Applicant thirdly argues (page 9-10):
B. Claims 3 and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe and Satyendra, and in further view of Kimmer (DE 10 2012,001,907). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and incorporates each and every feature therein. Claims 13-14 depend from claim 7 and incorporate each and every feature therein. As discussed supra, Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe and Satyendra does not teach or suggest each and every feature of independent claims 1 and 7. Kimmer cannot cure this defect.
Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 3, 13 and 14, that depend from independent claims 1 and 7, are patentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe and Satyendra and in further view of Kimmer. According, Applicant requests the rejection be withdrawn.
C. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard and Kimmer. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Independent claim 17 recites attaching a gantry crane to lift points disposed at an outer perimeter of the roof; and lifting the roof with the crane solely by the two lift points disposed at the outer perimeter of the roof. Similarly as discussed above, Arthur and Gerhard combined cannot teach a roof that is attached to a crane solely by two lift points disposed at the outer perimeter of the roof. Kimmer cannot cure this defect.
Therefore, Applicant submits that independent claim 17, and claims 18-20 that depend therefrom, are patentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, and in further view of Kimmer. According, Applicant requests the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees similarly for the reasons as discussed above.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur (US 5,444,734) in view of Gerhard (GB 2283560A), Lowe (US 4,389,191) and Tu (CN 211057176 U).
Regarding claim 1, Arthur a roof (110) for a metallurgical furnace comprising:
a body comprising:
a top surface (upper roof surface 50) having a center (center of 50), the top surface having a center opening (132) disposed about the center and extending through the body (as shown in figure 4);
a bottom surface (38) opposite the top surface; and
an outer sidewall (perimeter wall surrounding top surface 50 and bottom surface 38) connecting the top surface to the bottom surface (as shown in figure 4),
wherein the outer sidewall has a lift side (side facing crane 114) and a hood side (side opposite lift side, exhausting of fumes known to art “Exhaust port 19 permits removal of fumes generated from the furnace interior during operation.” (column 2, lines 49-51));
an outer support ring (outer support ring generally 140, to include vertical area thereof and roof features there at, see figure 4 having reference number and figure 6 showing top down perspective) disposed at a connection
an interior portion defined by the outer sidewall, the bottom surface, and the top surface (open space between 50/38 as shown in figure 4, where sprayer nozzles 34 are directed);
an internal spray cooling system (29/30/31) disposed in the interior portion of the body (as shown figure 4);
lift brackets (255 interacting with pin 301) disposed on the top surface, the lift brackets configured to support a weight of the entire roof when the roof is suspended by a crane (see figure 4 providing vertical lift bracket 255 behind centerline 500 of roof, such that pivoting force to lower contact point 292 must be lateral towards crane 114),
wherein
Additionally Gerhard teaches (Fig-1-3-5-6) a single set of lift brackets (11) above the top of roof structure (3), wiggle room is provided to side support (12) “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
The advantage of providing movement space to support structures of a furnace roof, is to enable improved leveling of closure when debris exists between roof and furnace “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur and Gerhard before him or her, to modify the hinged type roof connections of Arthur to include the free movement roof connections of Gerhard because having a degree or more of free movement of the roof in relation to the crane system enables the roof to compensate for debris when closing.
Arthur is silent regarding all the lift brackets coupled to the outer support ring.
However providing the contact of the roof bracket at outer support ring is merely a change in proportion that predictably only effects the moment around said roof bracket (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in size/proportion). Lowe examples all brackets to include (104) at perimeter of roof (12, see figures 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Lowe before him or her, to modify the varied bracket location examples of Arthur to include the perimeter oriented roof bracket of Lowe, because the placement of the roof brackets along the finite area of the roof is merely a change in proportion and it is known in the art to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof.
Arthur as modified is silent regarding wherein all of the lift brackets are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface.
However Tu teaches wherein all of the lift brackets (see end of 5 in figure 1, where a flat portion of roof between domed roof portion and perimeter of roof is connected to lifting structure 1) are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface (as disclosed above regarding figure 1).
The advantage of wherein all of the lift brackets are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface, is to provide distal balanced lifting force to the structural outer ring “Through adopting above-mentioned technical scheme, the sprocket is established at jack-up spiral arm both ends and is carried out synchronous drive, can hoist from the both ends of bell to the pulling force of lifting at balanced bell both ends makes the bell by steady hoisting.” (page 3, lines 7-9) “the stove lid upper surface is equipped with the joint frame in fixed connection portion below, the joint frame upper surface is seted up the lower cross recess the same with last cross recess shape, and the mounting plate locks through the bolt and nut group that screw rod diameter and last cross recess width are the same with the joint frame.” (page 3, lines 25-28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as modified and Tu before him or her, to modify the bracket connections at roof of Arthur to the outer top surface support ring bracket connection of Tu. because the outer support ring of the furnace roof may provide enhanced distal balancing and structural support to furnace roof.
Regarding claim 4, Arthur as modified teaches the roof of claim 1, Arthur as already modified further teaches further comprising:
a first centerline extending through the center from the lift side to the hood side (center of roof through lift to hood side); and
a second centerline extending through the center and orthogonal to the first centerline (center of roof orthogonal to direction of lift to hood ),
wherein no lift points are disposed between the second centerline and the hood side (see figures 4-6 of Arthur or figure 4 of Gerhard or figure 1 of Tu).
Regarding claim 5, Arthur discloses the roof of claim 1, Arthur further discloses comprising: a safety railing disposed on the top surface along an outer perimeter of the top surface (The Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides under 1910.28(b)(5)(i) “The employer must ensure each employee on a runway or similar walkway is protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to a lower level by a guardrail system.”, because OSHA standards are well known in industrial applications, it would be common knowledge to add safety railings to any area of a furnace that is accessible to operators and is above 4 feet from the ground, see MPEP 2144.03 Reliance on Common Knowledge in the art or “well Known” prior art).
Regarding claim 6, Arthur discloses the roof of claim 1, Arthur further discloses further comprising:
a vent hood (structure around exhaust port 19) defining a vent side of the body (vent side), wherein the vent hood is disposed through the top surface and the bottom surface (nature of venting from fume source), the vent hood configured to fluidly couple an interior portion of a metallurgical furnace to an exhaust evacuation system (nature of venting from fume source).
Regarding claim 21, Arthur as modified teaches the roof of claim 1, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the top surface further comprises:
an outer portion disposed inward of the outer support ring, wherein the outer portion is substantially flat (Tu as already modifying lift brackets to outer ring provides a flat surface where the brackets mount distal to domed central portion, see figure 1).
Claims 7-10 12, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe, and Tu and in further view of Kang (KR 101958871 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Arthur discloses a metallurgical furnace comprising:
a tilt platform (“The furnace system is mounted on trunnions or other means (not shown) to permit the vessel 12 to be tilted” (column 2, lines 52-56));
a gantry crane (crane system 114) attached to the tilt platform (as necessitated by both tilt platform and crane being grounded relative to furnace), the gantry crane having arms (220) having distal ends (distal ends thereof);
a furnace body (body of 12) disposed on the tilt platform (as inherent to providing tilt to furnace),
the furnace body comprising:
a sidewall (sidewall of 12), the sidewall having a top (top of 12) disposed opposite a bottom (nature of top and bottom),
wherein the sidewall surrounds an interior portion of the furnace body (as shown in figures);
a roof (110) disposed on the top of the sidewall (nature of roof to furnace), the roof comprising:
a roof body comprising:
a top surface (upper roof surface 50
a center opening (132) disposed through the roof body (as shown in figure 4),
a bottom surface (38) opposite the top surface; and
an outer sidewall (perimeter wall surrounding top surface 50 and bottom surface 38) connecting the top surface to the bottom surface, the outer sidewall, the bottom surface and the top surface defining an interior portion (interior 110), the interior portion configured to be cooled with a spray cooling system (29/30/31), and
wherein the outer sidewall has a lift side (bracket side at lift brackets 250) and a hood side (side opposite lift brackets 250, where it is known for ventilation 19);
an outer support ring (outer support ring generally 140, to include vertical area thereof and roof features there at, see figure 4 having reference number and figure 6 showing top down perspective) disposed at a connection the outer sidewall and the top surface (connection to outer support ring as shown in figure 6 is outbound the ring);
and
lift brackets (255) lower contact point 292 must be lateral towards crane 114), wherein all the lift brackets are disposed in a first segment of the roof (see narrow offset of arms 220 in figure 8 in view of wide segments joints 113 of figure 6 in view that providing component(s) as integral (reduced/non-segmented) is obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 V .B Making Integral) disposed in
Additionally Gerhard teaches (Fig-1-3-5-6) a single set of lift brackets (11) above the top of roof structure (3), wiggle room is provided to side support (12) “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
The advantage of providing movement space to support structures of a furnace roof, is to enable improved leveling of closure when debris exists between roof and furnace “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur and Gerhard before him or her, to modify the hinged type roof connections of Arthur to include the free movement roof connections of Gerhard because having a degree or more of free movement of the roof in relation to the crane system enables the roof to compensate for debris when closing.
Arthur is silent regarding The distal end of the arms terminating proximate the outer sidewall of the roof body.
However providing the distal end of the contact arms at a sidewall of a kiln roof is merely a change in proportion that predictably only effects the moment around said roof bracket (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in size/proportion). Lowe examples a bracket (104) at perimeter of roof (12, see figures 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Lowe before him or her, to modify the varied bracket location examples of Arthur to include the perimeter oriented roof bracket of Lowe, because the placement of the roof brackets along the finite area of the roof is merely a change in proportion and it is known in the art to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof.
Arthur as modified is silent regarding wherein all of the lift brackets are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface.
However Tu teaches wherein all of the lift brackets (see end of 5 in figure 1, where a flat portion of roof between domed roof portion and perimeter of roof is connected to lifting structure 1) are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface (as disclosed above regarding figure 1).
The advantage of wherein all of the lift brackets are at a connection between the outer sidewall and the top surface, is to provide distal balanced lifting force to the structural outer ring “Through adopting above-mentioned technical scheme, the sprocket is established at jack-up spiral arm both ends and is carried out synchronous drive, can hoist from the both ends of bell to the pulling force of lifting at balanced bell both ends makes the bell by steady hoisting.” (page 3, lines 7-9) “the stove lid upper surface is equipped with the joint frame in fixed connection portion below, the joint frame upper surface is seted up the lower cross recess the same with last cross recess shape, and the mounting plate locks through the bolt and nut group that screw rod diameter and last cross recess width are the same with the joint frame.” (page 3, lines 25-28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as modified and Tu before him or her, to modify the bracket connections at roof of Arthur to the outer top surface support ring bracket connection of Tu, because the outer support ring of the furnace roof may provide enhanced distal balancing and structural support to furnace roof.
Arthur is silent regarding the top surface having a plurality of access panels inward of outer support ring .
However Kang teaches the top surface having a plurality of access panels (224, see figure 2) inward of outer support ring (230e/230f, see figure 2);
The advantage of the top surface having a plurality of access panels, is to allow access to an interior of the roof near cooling system 244 (See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. Making separable);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur and Kang before him or her, to modify the undisclosed accessibility of roof of Arthur to have access panels of Kang, because access panels of a kiln roof permit access to features there under to include cooling systems.
Regarding claim 8, Arthur discloses the metallurgical furnace of claim 7, Arthur further discloses wherein the roof has no more than two lift brackets (as disclosed above only two of the brackets provide lift due to the cantilever effect of the brackets being behind the centerline of the furnace roof, see figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 12, Arthur as modified teaches the metallurgical furnace of claim 7, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the distal ends of the arms do not extend beyond a first quarter of a diameter of the roof body (as primary reference Arthur provides arms that extend to bracket (see figure 1), as already modifying Tu provides brackets only to outer distal support ring)
Regarding claim 9, Arthur as modified teaches the metallurgical furnace of claim 8, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the roof further comprises:
a first centerline extending through the center opening from the lift side to the hood side (center of roof through lift to hood side); and
a second centerline extending through the center opening and orthogonal to the first centerline (center of roof orthogonal to direction of lift to hood ),
wherein no lift points are disposed between the second centerline and the hood side (see figures 4-6 of Arthur or figure 4 of Gerhard).
Regarding claim 10, Arthur as modified teaches the metallurgical furnace of claim 7, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the plurality of access panels are located radially inward of the distal end of the arms of the gantry crane (as already modifying Tu provides brackets for arms at outer support ring (see figure 1) and Kang provides access panels inward of outward support ring, (see figure 2)).
Regarding claim 15, Arthur discloses the metallurgical furnace of claim 9, Arthur further discloses wherein the roof further comprises:
a safety railing disposed on the top surface along an outer perimeter of the top surface (The Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides under 1910.28(b)(5)(i) “The employer must ensure each employee on a runway or similar walkway is protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to a lower level by a guardrail system.”, because OSHA standards are well known in industrial applications, it would be common knowledge to add safety railings to any area of a furnace that is accessible to operators and is above 4 feet from the ground, see MPEP 2144.03 Reliance on Common Knowledge in the art or “well Known” prior art).
Regarding claim 16, Arthur discloses the metallurgical furnace of claim 9, wherein each arm of the arms of the gantry crane is attached to a respective lift bracket of the lift brackets by a slotted pin (pin 301, slot 255, see figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 22, Arthur as modified teaches the roof of claim 1, Arthur as already modified is silent regarding wherein the top surface further comprises:
a plurality of access panels configured to allow access the interior portion of the body, the plurality of access panels disposed between the lift brackets and the center opening.
However Kang teaches wherein the top surface further comprises:
a plurality of access panels (224, see figure 2) configured to allow access the interior portion of the body (nature of access panels), the plurality of access panels disposed between the lift brackets and the center opening (inward of outer support 230e/230f and central opening 221, see figure 2).
The advantage of wherein the top surface further comprises:
a plurality of access panels configured to allow access the interior portion of the body, the plurality of access panels disposed between the lift brackets and the center opening, is to allow access to an interior of the roof near cooling system 244 (See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. Making separable);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur and Kang before him or her, to modify the undisclosed accessibility of roof of Arthur to have access panels of Kang, because access panels of a kiln roof permit access to features there under to include cooling systems.
Claims 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Lowe and Tu and in further view of Kimmer (DE 10 2012,001,907).
Regarding claim 3, Arthur as already modified teaches the roof of claim 1, Arthur as already modified teaches further comprising:
Bumpers (12 of Gerhard, 292 of modified structure of Arthur) disposed on the lift side of the outer sidewall, wherein the bumpers (where Arthur as already modified by Gerhard provides wiggle room to outer contact to crane, see column 5-6, lines 33-8) are in the first segment of the roof (as already provided, location in relation to roof segments are obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 V .B Making Integral).
Arthur as modified is silent regarding bumpers configured to be uncoupled from the crane.
However Kimmer teaches bumpers configured to be uncoupled from the crane (bump stop 82 may be present for a moment/rotational load bearing “For a two-level lower bearing ( 82 ) One surface can support the weight force and the other support surface the moment load. For lid lift columns ( 74 ; 88 ), which in the region of the receiving recess ( 81 ) have a divalent bearing, the weight of the cover ( 90 ) in the receiving recess ( 81 ) or in the area of the hook ( 83 ).” (page 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom).
The advantage of bumpers configured to be uncoupled from the crane, is to provide simplistic design and load distribution to gantry, emphasis added “Thus, on the one hand results in a compact design and on the other hand a favorable moment load of the off-center pivot column ( 21 ).” (page 5-6, starting at last paragraph of page 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Kimmer before him or her, to modifying to the pinned non-lifting apertures having wiggle room of Arthur, with the simplistic bump stop of Kimmer, because having a bump stop in association to a cantilever lift of furnace roof enables furnace roof lifting with reduced components distributing load to gantry simply by limiting degree of rotation.
Regarding claim 13, Arthur as modified teaches the metallurgical furnace of claim 9, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the roof further comprises:
bumpers (12 of Gerhard, 292 of modified structure of Arthur) disposed on the lift side of the outer sidewall (where Arthur as already modified by Gerhard provides wiggle room to outer contact to crane, see column 5-6, lines 33-8),
wherein the bumpers are in the first segment of the roof (as already provided, location in relation to roof segments are obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 V. B Making Integral) and are configured to contact
Arthur as modified is silent regarding the bumpers configured to contact without coupling to the gantry crane.
However Kimmer teaches the bumpers configured to contact without coupling to the gantry crane (bump stops 82 are uncoupled for a moment/rotational load support “For a two-level lower bearing ( 82 ) One surface can support the weight force and the other support surface the moment load. For lid lift columns ( 74 ; 88 ), which in the region of the receiving recess ( 81 ) have a divalent bearing, the weight of the cover ( 90 ) in the receiving recess ( 81 ) or in the area of the hook ( 83 ).” (page 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom).
The advantage of the bumpers configured to contact without coupling to the gantry crane, is to provide simplistic design and load distribution to gantry “Thus, on the one hand results in a compact design and on the other hand a favorable moment load of the off-center pivot column ( 21 ).” (page 5-6, starting at last paragraph of page 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Kimmer before him or her, to modifying to the pinned non-lifting apertures having wiggle room of Arthur, with the simplistic bump stop of Kimmer, because having a bump stop in association to a cantilever lift of furnace roof enables furnace roof lifting with reduced components distributing load to gantry simply by limiting degree of rotation.
Regarding claim 14, Arthur discloses the metallurgical furnace of claim 13, Arthur further discloses further comprising:
a vent hood (structure around exhaust port 19) defining a vent side of the roof,
wherein the vent hood is disposed through the top surface and a bottom surface (as in nature of vent in connecting fume source to exterior of furnace/roof) and configured to fluidly couple the interior portion of the metallurgical furnace to an exhaust evacuation system (where exhaust exits furnace/roof).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Gerhard, Kimmer and Lowe.
Regarding claim 17, Arthur discloses a method of moving a roof from a metallurgical furnace, comprising:
attaching a gantry crane to lift points (via pin 301 to slot 255) disposed at an
lifting the roof with the gantry crane solely by the two lift points disposed at the
Arthur is silent regarding the non-lifting aperture (292) being a bumper.
However Gerhard teaches (Fig-1-3-5-6) a single set of lift brackets (11) above the top of roof structure (3), wiggle room (creating a bumper system) is provided to side support (12) that directs force toward the crane “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
The advantage of providing movement space to support structures of a furnace roof, is to enable improved leveling of closure when debris exists between roof and furnace “The cover structure includes a supporting member 10 attached to the cover 3 with the provision of play 11, 12 to allow for restricted relative movement between the supporting member 10 and the cover 3. This enables the cover 3 to tilt on being placed on the furnace vessel 1 if foreign bodies such as, for example, slag or material of the furnace charge, should lodge on the cover seating 13 of the furnace vessel 1.” (column 5-6, lines 33-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur and Gerhard before him or her, to modify the hinged type roof connections of Arthur to include the free movement roof connections of Gerhard because having a degree or more of free movement of the roof in relation to the crane system enables the roof to compensate for debris when closing.
Additionally Kimmer teaches bumpers limited by single direction of moment/rotation (bump stops 82 are uncoupled for a moment/rotational load support “For a two-level lower bearing ( 82 ) One surface can support the weight force and the other support surface the moment load. For lid lift columns ( 74 ; 88 ), which in the region of the receiving recess ( 81 ) have a divalent bearing, the weight of the cover ( 90 ) in the receiving recess ( 81 ) or in the area of the hook ( 83 ).” (page 5, 3rd paragraph from bottom).
The advantage of bumpers limited by single direction of moment/rotation, is to provide simplistic design and load distribution to gantry “Thus, on the one hand results in a compact design and on the other hand a favorable moment load of the off-center pivot column ( 21 ).” (page 5-6, starting at last paragraph of page 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Kimmer before him or her, to modifying to the pinned non-lifting apertures having wiggle room of Arthur, with the simplistic bump stop of Kimmer, because having a bump stop in association to a cantilever lift of furnace roof enables furnace roof lifting with reduced components distributing load to gantry simply by limiting degree of rotation.
Arthur is silent regarding all lift features disposed at an outer perimeter of the roof.
However providing the lift features at an outer perimeter of the roof is merely a change in proportion that predictably only effects the moment around said roof bracket bumper system (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in size/proportion). Lowe examples all brackets to include (104) at perimeter of roof (12, see figures 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Lowe before him or her, to modify the varied bracket location examples of Arthur to include the perimeter oriented roof bracket of Lowe, because the placement of the roof brackets along the finite area of the roof is merely a change in proportion and it is known in the art to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof.
Regarding claim 18, Arthur as modified teaches the method of claim 17, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the roof only has two lift points (as already disclosed above the force of lifting is only applied to the lift bracket (255) being nearer the center of the roof, the bumper area (292) of Arthur as modified by Gerhard, experiences forced un-aligned to lifting axis because of the cantilever roof balance).
Regarding claim 19, Arthur as modified teaches the method of claim 18, Arthur as already modified is silent regarding wherein the two lift points are disposed in a segment of the roof in the first quarter of the roof from the gantry crane.
However providing the contact of the roof bracket towards the outer perimeter is merely a change in proportion that predictably only effects the moment around said roof bracket (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in size/proportion). Lowe examples a bracket (104) at perimeter of roof (12, see figures 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Arthur as already modified and Lowe before him or her, to modify the varied bracket location examples of Arthur to include the perimeter oriented roof bracket of Lowe, because the placement of the roof brackets along the finite area of the roof is merely a change in proportion and it is known in the art to provide roof brackets towards a perimeter of the roof.
Regarding claim 20, Arthur as modified teaches the method of claim 17, Arthur as already modified teaches wherein the two lift points are pinned to two arms (220) of the gantry crane (see figure 8).
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 Spencer H Kirkwood whose telephone number is (469)295-9113. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 am - 9:00 pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. 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.
/Spencer H. Kirkwood/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights