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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected group II (claims 6-11) have been withdrawn from prosecution by Applicant in the restriction response filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 2-4, it is suggested to replace “service as a launder, a runner, a transition cooler, a wall cooler, a roof cooler, a burner block, a tuyere, a casting mold, an electrode clamp, a tap cooler, or a stave cooler in a pyrometallurgical furnace” with -- service as a launder cooler, a runner cooler, a transition cooler, a wall cooler, a roof cooler, a burner block, a tuyere cooler, a casting mold cooler, an electrode clamp cooler, a tap cooler, or a stave cooler in a pyrometallurgical furnace--.
In claim 3, line 3, the phrase “and too too little copper cover” should be replaced with --and too little copper cover--, due to the typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitation "A high heat flux cooler that has been dimensionally formed and finished in a shape suitable for service as”. The claim is indefinite, in that it is unclear as to what the term “a suitable shape” encompasses, particularly since the recited systems in which the high heat flux cooler is to be employed come in difference configurations and shapes. The scope of the claim is therefore unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein any of the front copper cover remaining in a prediction for the end-of- campaign-life state accounts for any initial estimates of oxidation, wear and/or corrosion rates bearing on the hot face at a design average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m2” in lines 12-14. In particular, it is unclear as to what the phrase “wherein any of the front copper cover remaining" means, for the following reason: (i) the preceding lines in the claim require only a single “front copper cover” and not “a plurality of front copper covers”; (ii) the preceding lines in the claim do not define the “front copper cover” to comprise sections or a plurality of portions so as to support the existence of a remainder or a remaining section. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “wherein the copper cover relative to the hot face surface strikes a balance between too much copper cover that could not prevent surface melting, and too little copper cover that would allow a disruption of copper metal grains and result in cracking and coolant leaks when in-service”. It is noted that eventhough the specification in page 13, lines 14-17, appears to associate the front copper cover with a separation distance “d”, however, it does not provide any clear support and/or explanation as to how said cover relative to the hot face surface strikes a balance between too much copper cover that could not prevent surface melting, and too little copper cover that would allow a disruption of copper metal grains and the other features as claimed. Furthermore, the specification is silent regarding the meaning of claimed balance concept in relation to the performance of the claimed high heat flux cooler. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable. For examination purposes the claimed balance struck between the copper cover relative to the hot face surface is not accorded any patentable since the meaning of the concept is unascertainable.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pipe coil" in line 1; “the metal pipe coil” in line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim;
particular, since the base claim 1, from which claim 4 depends from recites “a CuNi pipe coil”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the first pipe coil" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MacRae (US Patent No. 6,280,681).
Regarding claim 1, MacRae teaches a high heat flux cooler (i.e., heating block (400, see figure 4A and 4B and column 9, lines 50-67) for use or service as a stave cooler in a pyrometallurgical furnace for the production of at least one of molten metal, metal alloy (see abstract, column 1, lines 5-35), and comprising: a CuNi pipe coil (i.e. CuNi, alloy pipes 406 and 407, see figure 4A and 4B and column 9, lines 50-67) disposed inside a high purity copper (i.e., pure copper or 100% -Wt. which meets the claimed 99%-Wt. copper, see column 9, lines 30-50, also see column 4, lines 49-67 and column 5, lines 20-25) casting (400, see figure 4A and 4B) of a high heat flux cooler and separated by a front copper cover (the cover is a feature known to be present in a typical furnace stave cooler as stated in Applicant’s own admission, see Application
specification, page 13, lines 14-17).
MacRae does not disclosed the particular claimed process and the analytical steps involved in forming the copper casting to include disposing the CuNi pipe coil in a position relative to an included hot face surface, and having the position previously fixed inside a copper casting mold that was verified for manufacturing from iterative computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and/or finite element analysis (FEA) analyses and modeling as suitable at a given end-of-campaign-life state; wherein any of the front copper cover remaining in a prediction for the end-of- campaign-life state accounts for any initial estimates of oxidation, wear and/or corrosion rates bearing on the hot face at a design average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m2. However, it noted that these above steps constitute the process by which the claimed high heat flux cooler as a product is
made. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP2113 which pertains to product-by-process
claims, the court held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Regarding claim 2, MacRae teaches that the high heat flux cooler (see column 5, lines 3-8) is operable to continuously remove heat from the furnace but fails particularly teach that cooler is capable of continuously operate safely during a furnace upset that continuously exposes it to a transient heat flux of at least four times the design average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m2 as claimed. However, because the respective pipe coil and the copper cooler casting block of MacRae comprises substantially the same material composition as the corresponding claimed pipe coil and the copper cooler casting block, it would necessarily flow and/or reasonably be expected , absent any evidence to the contrary, that the high heat flux cooler of MacRae would behave similarly or operate safely with substantially the same heat removal capacity during furnace upset where it can be exposed to a transient heat flux of at least four times the design average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m2.
Regarding claim 3, MacRae teaches that the high heat flux cooler (see column 5, lines 3-8) comprises a hot face (402, see figures 4A, 4B and 4D and column 9, lines 50-67) and a copper cover relative to the hot face surface (noted the cover is a feature known to be present in a typical furnace stave cooler as stated in Applicant’s own admission, see Application specification, page 13, lines 14-17). Hence claim 3 insofar as definite is met considering figures 4A, 4B and 4D of MacRae as combined.
Regarding claim 4, MacRae teaches that the high heat flux cooler (see column 5, lines 3-8) comprises at least a pipe coil (406 and 407, see figure 4A and 4B and column 9, lines 50-67) that is further configured such that an inlet end (112, see figure 1A; and 408 & 409, see figures 4A and 4B) and an outlet end (114, figure 1A; and 410 & 411, see figures 4A and 4B) are externally accessible for the circulation of a coolant (see column 7, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 5, MacRae in figure 4 for example shows at least two similar but
separate pipe coils (406, 407) embedded in the cooling block (400) and as such it would reasonably be expected that a total heat load on the cooler would be shared amongst these at least two pipe coils (406 and 407) to reduce the severity of any failure of any one pipe circuit to function to carry away heat in the same way as claimed. MacRae therefore meets substantially all aspects of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Solve et al. (US 6,470,958), Hornschemeyer (US 6,838,044) and Miller et al. (GB 2,344,639) are also cited in PTO-892.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759