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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the Smelting bath, signal amplifier, signal generator, power generator, and data processor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities Claims do not employ conventional US practice transitional phrases. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites “characterized because it consists of” in line 4 which would read better as --consisting of--. Claims 2-7 recite “is CHARACTERIZED because” which would read better as –wherein--.
Claim 1 should be drawn to –A system--. Claims 2-7 should be drawn to –The system--.
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim may only refer to other claims in the alternative. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-5 and 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 the limitations "the percentage of copper" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed to either change to --a percentage of copper--. Claim 1 has additional recitations that have insufficient antecedent basis:
“the melting stage” in line 1, needs to be corrected to –a melting stage--,
“the increase of the treatment capacity” in line2, needs to be corrected to –an increase of a treatment capacity--,
“the reduction of slag” in line 3, needs to be corrected to –a reduction of slag--,
“the efficient use of the circulating element” in line 3, needs to be corrected to –an efficient use of a circulating element--,
“the refractory wall” in line 5, needs to be corrected to –a refractory wall--,
“the smelting bath” in line 8, needs to be corrected to –a smelting bath--,
“these electrodes” in line 8, needs to be corrected to –the electrodes—or –the at least four electrodes--,
“said power generator” in lines 9 and 10, needs to be corrected to –a power generator—or –the signal generator--,
“sending the current-increased signals” in line 10, needs to be corrected to --sending current-increased signals--,
“the power amplification” in line 12, needs to be corrected to –a power amplification—,
“the power signal” in line 12, needs to be corrected to – the replicated signal—or --a power signal--,
“the alignment” in line 13, needs to be corrected to –an alignment--,
“the center” in lines 13-14 needs to be corrected to –the middle--,
“the resistivity reading” in line 14, needs to be corrected to –a resistivity reading-,
“the signal has been sent” in line 14, needs to be corrected to –a signal—or other appropriate correction.
Also in claim 1, line 5, “inserted aligned” is not clear. On line 8, “i.e. inserted into the smelting bath”, renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Exemplary language makes applicant’s limitation unclear, as it is not clear if applicant intends the broader recitation, “the middle” or the more narrow limitation, “into the smelting bath.” On line 9, before “signal generator”, --a—should be inserted.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the molten material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed to either change to –a molten material--.
Claim 3 has additional recitations that have insufficient antecedent basis:
“the behavior in line 3,
“the responses” and “the signals measured” in line 4, needs to be corrected to –responses— and –signals measured—or another appropriate correction.
Claim 4 recites the limitations " these electrodes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed to either change to –the electrodes—or –the at least four electrodes--. Claim 4 also recites “the slag head” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the wall of the white metal head”, in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed to either change to –the refractory wall of a white metal head—or another appropriate correction.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the melting furnace”, in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed to either change to – the smelting furnace—or –a melting furnace--.
Claim 7 has additional recitations that have insufficient antecedent basis:
“the alignment” in line 3,
“the center” in line 3, needs to be corrected to –the middle--,
“the smelting bath” in line 5, and
“the resistivity reading” in line 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuhiro et. al. (JP2016199773A).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuhiro teaches a “System ( Paras [0002] and [0005], electric furnace, coating thickness actually measured at the time of opening inspection). The recitation “to measure the percentage of copper concentrate in the melting stage in-line and in real-time, which allows the increase of the treatment capacity of concentrates, the reduction of slag reprocessing and the efficient use of the circulating element, all of which translates into reduced operational costs,” is a capability of the system. Kazuhiro discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Further taught “CHARACTERIZED because it consists of at least four (1) electrodes inserted aligned through the refractory wall (2) of a smelting furnace so that one end of each of the electrodes (1) remains on the outside of the furnace ,” (Fig. 1 Number 3 and Para [0042], On each of these side wall portions 1a, 1b, and 1c, four copper blocks 3 were arranged in the vertical direction, and four rows were arranged in the circumferential direction. And in order to measure the heat flux of each copper block 3, and the heat flux of the side wall part in which the copper block 3 is not inserted, as shown in FIG. 2, a pair of thermometers 4 was inserted into each measurement site.). Therefore the copper blocks are the electrodes. “and the other end is inserted in the middle where the reaction occurs; i.e., inserted into the smelting bath,” (Para [0019], There are no particular limitations on the size and number of copper blocks 3 inserted into the side wall portions 1a, 1b and 1c, but from the top surface L1 of the slag layer S to the interface L2 of the slag layer S and the metal layer M as shown in FIG. Preferably, for example, a plurality of rectangular parallelepiped-shaped copper blocks 3 are inserted in a line in the vertical direction so as to cover at least the range of (in FIG. 2, four copper blocks 3 are inserted at equal intervals. The situation is illustrated). Furthermore, it is preferable to arrange a plurality of rows of copper blocks 3 arranged in a row in the above-described vertical direction in the circumferential direction as shown in FIG. 1 (in FIG. 1, four rows of copper blocks 3 are substantially in contact in the circumferential direction). Are shown in an example). In addition, the raw material bed layer G is formed in the upper part of the slag layer S, and a mode that the coating layer C is laminated | stacked thickly on the surface which touches the slag layer S among the furnace inner surface of the side wall 1 is shown. that is, the liquidus temperature of the slag is obtained.) Therefore the area in which the slag layer is in contact with the copper blocks teaches to the inserted into the smelting bath. The slag layer turns to liquid is what happens in the smelting bath therefore that area is also the smelting bath region. Further taught “with these electrodes (1) connected to a signal amplifier” ( Para [0003], Further, Patent Document 1 discloses a method of measuring a thickness of a refractory which can accurately grasp the remaining thickness of a refractory and a measuring apparatus used therefor. Specifically, the contact medium of the ultrasonic probe is brought into contact with the surface of the firebrick exposed from the opening of the side wall outer surface, and a pulser and a signal amplifier are connected to the ultrasonic probe, thereby The detected signal is amplified by a signal amplifier, and then sent to a signal processor provided with an averaging processing unit and a thickness measuring unit via a band pass filter and an A / D converter.) Therefore, the copper blocks are the electrodes that are also on the outside wall and are connected to the amplifier through the probe. . Further taught “which in turn is connected to signal generator,” (Para [0003], and a pulser); “in which said power generator sends a replicated signal from the signal generator,” (Para [0035], Various operating conditions may include adjusting the power supplied to the electrodes of the electric furnace, and adjusting the amount of water spray of the shower casing provided on the iron skin of the side wall portion where the copper block is not inserted.) The recitation “sending the current- increased signals for charges with resistances of less than 0.1 ohm, and with bandwidths of 3 MHz,” is capability of the power generator. Kazuhiro discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the power generator as claimed, such power generator are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. Further taught “in which the power amplification sends the power signal to the electrodes (1) at the ends of the alignment so that the electrodes (1) that remain in the center receive the resistivity reading once the signal has been sent” (Para [0035], Various operating conditions may include adjusting the power supplied to the electrodes of the electric furnace).
Regarding claim 3, Kazuhiro teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “characterized because the signal generator is a device that generated different signal patterns that allow the behavior of the molten material to be analyzed, depending on the responses of the signals measured, both in terms of amplitude, current, lag, frequency runs, quadrature, resonance, attenuation and/or voltage increase over time. “ is capability of the signal generator. Kazuhiro teaches behaviors which are tested within ((Para [0010] the thickness of the slag coating layer adhering to the furnace inner surface of each side wall is determined from each of the obtained heat fluxes and the melting point of the slag generated inside the electric furnace And adjusting the operating condition of the electric furnace by comparing the obtained thickness with the allowable range.) and a signal as taught above. Therefore Kazuhiro discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the signal generator as claimed, such signal generator are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding claim 4, Kazuhiro teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “characterized because it is also understood that these electrodes (1) are inserted aligned through the wall of the slag head (3) of a melting converter,” which is already taught within claim I in the electrode going into the area in which the slag layer is in contact with the copper blocks (smelting bath) is also a melting converter. A melting converter is a feature in which the melting of a metal happens which is what happens in the slag layer is in contact with the copper blocks (smelting bath).
Regarding claim 5, Kazuhiro teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “characterized because it is also understood that these electrodes (1) are inserted aligned through the wall of the white metal head (4) of a melting converter.” (Para [0014], An electric furnace for melting and smelting iron and steel or non-ferrous metals is constructed of a side wall comprising a metal outer wall.). Therefore the white metal head is the metal outer wall and the melting converter is the furnace. The electrode going through the wall is already taught within claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kazuhiro teaches all of claims as above in addition to “characterized because the electrodes that remain in the center of the alignment are connected to a data processor that interprets the resistivity reading measured by these electrodes as a percentage of copper present in the smelting bath in the melting furnace.” (Para [0003], The detected signal is amplified by a signal amplifier, and then sent to a signal processor provided with an averaging processing unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro et. al. (JP2016199773A) and in view of Kaltenbach (US 20140086272 A1).
Regarding claim 2 , Kazuhiro teaches all of claim 1 as above however does not explicitly teach “characterized because said electrodes are formed of steel refractory bars. Kazuhiro does teach a refractory material ( Para [0023], refractory material layer sandwiched from above and below by the two copper blocks 3).
Kaltenbach teaches a sensor system for monitoring and controlling the performance of the bottom electrode and the deflection of an electric arc in an electric steel making furnace includes an organized matrix of anode pins interspersed with refractory material. In addition to, “characterized because said electrodes are formed of steel refractory bars.” (Para [0005] A bottom electrode structure for a direct current (DC) electric arc furnace (EAF) has several thin electrode pins mounted in a refractory material with the lower ends of the electrode pins secured in a steel base plate and the refractory material supported by the plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kazuhiro to incorporate the teachings of Kaltenbach wherein the electrodes are formed of steel refractory bars. Doing so increases the temperatures in which the furnace can withstand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is (571)272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Jill Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. 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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/JILL A WARDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798