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 Claim 1. 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 06/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2022 and 08/22/2022 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 01/02/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Lumppio US 20090078723 A1 are maintained under additional grounds as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in Line 1 “A thermal launder for transporting white metal” and recites “for copper smelting” in Line 3. Due to the statement of two distinct intended uses, it is unclear whether the claim is to a launder that must be suitable for transporting copper specifically or any white metal with various melting points.
It is further unclear how copper smelting relates to the transport of white metal. The claimed invention is drawn to a thermal launder for transporting white metal and if temperature requirements are presented in the Arguments, the temperature requirements must have sufficient support.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependency on rejected Claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “composed of” with respect to the transport layer. 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 1-2 and 4-5 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). 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 from a melting furnace to a transfer pot for copper smelting, this limitation is set forth as an alternative intended use of claimed thermal launder. Nonetheless, 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 is capable of withstanding temperatures within the cited range, even without an additional transport layer.
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 transporting only zinc and aluminum. In fact, 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 keeping it in a molten state and conserving its viscosity throughout the route). 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 (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).
Lumppio ‘723 does not expressly teach 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Lumppio ‘723 teaches the limitations set forth above. Lumppio ‘723 further teaches an insulating castable mortar refractory material layer at [0012-0013]. The refractory material layer provides structural mechanic support to facilitate 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 as a thermal insulator.
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 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues again cited reference Lumppio ‘723 teaches a thermal launder only capable of withstanding molten aluminum and zinc. However, Lumppio ‘723 teaches tuning the construction of the launder to the melting point of a selected molten metal and provides an example of casting molten copper. 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.
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. 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. 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:
US 6973955 B2 teaches a heated silicon carbide through body for molten metals.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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