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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1 and 5. Claims 2-4 and 6 are cancelled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 08/05/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “composed of” with respect to the refractory transport layer in Line 16. The transitional phrase "composed of" has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case, see MPEP § 2111.03(IV). In paragraph [0012] of the Specification, Applicant notes that the transport layer is “comprised of a material that has a high thermal conductivity and high chemical and mechanical strength, such as, for example, silicon carbide.” As the claim language is not partially open and contains no Markush group reciting additional materials, it is clear from the Specification that Applicant disclosed a transport layer which is closed and therefore the language is interpreted in the same manner as “consisting of.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumppio US 20090078723 A1 in view of Vincent US 20100109210 A1 and NPL Tong et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
642
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
316
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lumppio ‘723 Fig. 1 Vincent ‘210 Fig. 4 Vincent ‘210 Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 1, Lumppio ‘723 teaches “a launder construction for the conveyance of molten metal” (Abstract), including and not limited to copper e.g. [0001-0002]. The launder allows the transfer of molten metal from a furnace to a casting machine (meeting the limitation for a transfer pot) [0002].
Regarding the limitation of transferring white metal, the term “white metal” is known in the art to encompass a wide variety of metals, including alloys of tin and antimony that may have a melting point as low as 246 °C (NPL Alloy Digest, White Metal). There is not a single temperature or temperature range necessary and appropriate for the capability of casting molten metal, nor does Applicant’s disclosure recite a range of temperatures.
Regarding the newly amended limitation of transporting white metal in a copper recovery process, from a melting furnace to a converter furnace, Lummpio ‘723 is not limited to a single molten metal and further teaches at [0014]: “In one embodiment of the invention, the temperature of the copper that flows in the launder is within a range of 1080 to 1300 °C. (Emphasis Added). This teaching makes it clear the launder of Lumppio ‘723 is capable of withstanding temperatures within the cited range.
Because the launder of Lumppio ‘723 features the capacity to withstand a molten temperature range of 1080 to 1300 °C, it is capable of withstanding molten metals with melting points at least at this temperature range and lower than this range. The teachings of Lumppio ‘723 are not limited to the transportation of a particular metal and the launder would be suitable for use in the transport of white metal in a copper recovery process. Lumppio ‘723 teaches tuning the construction of the launder to the melting point of a selected molten metal [0014].
Lumppio ‘723 teaches its heating system allows metal to “remai[n] melted and the launder sufficiently hot throughout the process (Abstract)” (meeting the limitation for conserving its viscosity and decreasing accretion during transportation). The structure of Lumppio ‘723 is comprised of a cover part (5) and launder construction (10) (meeting the limitation for a transport duct) , which form, when said cover is closed, the thermal launder itself, closed and encapsulatede (Fig. 1)[0030]. In the upper part of the cover part (5) are heating elements (31,32) [0030] installed and surrounded by upper insulation (11), which is covered by a steel jacket (1) (meeting the limitation for a structural housing). The launder construction of Lumppio ‘723 (meeting the limitation for a transport duct) is comprised of three elements arranged in series, which are defined by a refractory layer (22), followed by an insulation layer (21) and a steel jacket (2) (meeting the limitation for a structural layer).
Regarding the newly amended limitation that the refractory layer is composed of a refractory cement material that provides mechanical compressive strength and thermal insulation, Lumppio ‘723 further teaches a load-bearing thermal insulating castable mortar refractory material layer at [0012-0013]. The refractory material layer therefore provides mechanical compressive strength and facilitates the flow of molten metal as taught at [0012], and independently aids in heat insulation as taught at [0014], meeting the limitation for a refractory cement material.
Lumppio ‘723 does not expressly teach the inclusion of a transport layer.
However, Vincent ‘210 teaches a through liner for a molten metal through or launder, formed of silicon carbide, a material that has a high thermal conductivity, strength, and chemical resistance, meeting the limitation for high chemical and mechanical strength [0003, 0010]. Figures 1 and 4 of Vincent ‘210 expressly show the silicon carbide, U-shaped launder lining specifically designed to line the through-way of a thermal launder, providing motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Vincent ‘210.
Regarding the newly amended limitations drawn to silicon carbide and the layers of the transport duct, the silicon carbide layer of Vincent ‘210 is configured to resist abrasion caused by the molten metal flowing within it and is resistant to erosion [0015]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add a liner of silicon carbide (meeting the limitation for a transport layer) (Fig. 4, Vincent ‘210) to the launder construction of Lumppio ‘723 in order to provide increased thermal conductivity, and provide a suitable thermal launder material with resistance to erosion from corrosive molten metals based on the teachings of Vincent ‘210 at [0003, 0010].
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to reduce thermal stresses and to increase corrosion resistance to select a material such as silicon carbide as a through liner. The teachings of Vincent ‘210 are not limited to transporting only aluminum. Adding a liner of silicon carbide, meeting the limitation for a transport layer, would be expected to achieve the stated function of transporting molten white metal and the desired effect of resisting corrosion in the transfer of molten metal.
Applicant’s claims are drawn to a thermal launder, not to a process or method. Thermal launders are used for transporting molten material of various compositions and having various metal and alloy contents. The combination of prior art includes a launder construction that will meet the claimed construction, as it names the exact same materials as the instant application: a structural layer (2), insulation layer (21), refractory layer (22), and the silicon carbide transport layer of Vincent ‘210, therein the transport layer is the only layer in direct contact with the molten metal flowing within (Lumppio ‘723 Fig. 1, Vincent ‘210 Figs. 1 (20), 4).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the limitation requiring a carbon steel outer jacket, modified Lumppio ‘723 teaches the limitations set forth above and Lumppio ‘723 teaches at [0013] that its launder has a metal outer jacket, meeting the limitation for a structural layer, which is composed of steel.
Lumppio ‘723 does not expressly teach the steel used is carbon steel.
However, NPL Tong et al. teaches at (Abstract) fortifying a low carbon steel launder for transferring molten metal with an alloyed coating. Hence, it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that a launder for transporting molten metal could be fabricated from carbon steel specifically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use carbon steel for the steel outer shell of the launder of Lumppio ‘723 with the reasonable expectation of forming a useful launder, based on the teachings that such a material is suitable to construct launders for transferring molten aluminum, meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Summarizing the rejection:
Encapsulated molten metal transport launders were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Silicon carbide layers as part of multi-layered molten metal transport launders were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Carbon steel outer jackets for molten metal transport launders were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
As reflected in Claim 1, the concept of a closed and encapsulated thermal launder was known in the art to person of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention as shown by Lumppio ‘723. As reflected in Claim 1, the concept of a silicon carbide transport layer within a larger launder structure was known in the art to person of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention as shown by Vincent ‘210. As reflected in Claim 1, the concept of a carbon steel outer jacket for molten metal transport launders was known in the art to person of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention as shown by NPL Tong et al.
As shown by both Lumppio ‘723 and Vincent ‘210, multi-layered molten metal transport launders were known at the time of filing the invention. Persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been objectively motivated to combine these known elements for the known purpose of transporting a metal of a specific melting point, and maintaining such metal in a viscous state during transport in order to facilitate the transfer of metal from one furnace, casting apparatus, or metallurgical processing space to another. See e.g. Lumppio ‘723 [0002].
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Lumppio ‘723 teaches the limitations set forth above. Lumppio ‘723 further teaches a fibrous ceramic wool insulating layer at [0015-0016], meeting the limitation for an insulating layer composed of ceramic fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited reference to not teach or address “a specific copper-smelting environment presenting unique operational challenges associated with transportation of white metal between metallurgical units.” (Page 4). Applicant’s claims are drawn to a thermal launder, and not to a method of producing or heat-treating white metal.
Lumppio ‘723 teaches an encapsulated multilayered thermal launder comprising a structural layer (steel jacket), insulation layer, and refractory layer (Fig. 1). Being motivated by a desire to maintain the viscosity of molten metal within the launder and reduce build-up (decrease accretion), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to seek the art for the addition of a transport layer and install the silicon carbide layer of Vincent ‘210 in the encapsulated thermal launder of Lumppio ‘723.
Lumppio ‘723 teaches an encapsulated multilayered thermal launder suitable for transporting molten metal in a molten state from one processing region to another [0001-0010]. Even if white metal were limited to the melting point range described in Applicant’s arguments submitted 01/02/2026 of above 1100 °C, the cited primary reference Lumppio ‘723 clearly teaches a launder capable of withstanding the cited temperature range. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
As set forth above, “[w]hen the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Based on the teachings of Vincent ‘210 e.g. at [0002], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling the invention to add a silicon carbide through liner to the trough of Lumppio ‘723 in order to reduce thermal stresses. Lumppio ‘723 modified with the through liner of Vincent ‘210 and carbon steel shell taught in NPL Tong et al. yields a thermal launder reading on the launder instantly claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 203908327 U teaches a silicon carbide ceramic launder for transporting molten blister copper.
US 6973955 B2 teaches a heated silicon carbide through body for molten metals.
Goto, Moto, Eiki Oshima, and Mineo Hayashi. "Control aspects of the Mitsubishi continuous process." JOM 50.4 (1998): 60-64. teaches a long-standing practice of flowing blister copper from a converting furnace continuously to one of two anode furnaces by way of a launder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights