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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 3 is cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1-4 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 212134181 U, cited in IDS filed 08/04/2023, original document and machine translation supplied herein), in view of Sato et al. (US 20100119145 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025), Hackett (US 3686949 A, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025), Song et al. (US 20120293798 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025), and Popelar et al. (US 20030086473 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of inspecting the composition of (i.e., an impurity) in molten metal [0004]. Wang teaches using an inspection cup 1 comprising a cup body ([0008, 0024], Fig. 1-2), where the cup is hollow inside (i.e., having a molten metal accommodation portion) [0032], whereas the inside of the cup has a set size, the cup is configured to accommodate a predetermined amount of the molten metal. Wang teaches wherein the cup has an inverted cone structure (i.e., a cross-sectional area of the molten metal accommodation portion decreases from an upper end toward a lower end) (Fig. 1-2, [0012]). Wang teaches when sampling to push the end cover 5 toward the side of the sampling cup 1 through the push-pull rod 7 to ensure that the end cover 5 is in close contact with the top of the sampling cup 1 (i.e., preparing the cup body having the molten accommodation portion) [0035]. Wang teaches injecting an amount of the molten aluminum into the molten metal accommodation portion of the cup body [0036-0037]. As Wang teaches the sampling cup is filled with molten metal at a depth in the furnace, the entire hollow inside of the cup is filled with metal (i.e., the same volume of metal is added as the volume of the inside), thus the amount of molten aluminum is predetermined by the size of the hollow inside of the cup. Wang teaches solidifying (i.e., coagulating) the molten aluminum [0037], and separating a specimen made by coagulating the molten aluminum, from the cup body [0037].
Wang teaches the method may be applied to alloys comprising base metals [0004], however Wang does not teach wherein the molten metal is molten aluminum or preheating the cup body to a preset temperature.
Sato teaches a casting mold for obtaining cast samples of molten aluminum alloy (analogous to a sample cup) (Title, abstract), where the sample is inspected using a camera to measure the number of inclusions (i.e., impurities) in the metal [0010], therefore Sato and Wang are analogous as both are directed to inspecting impurities in molten metal by using a sample cup. Sato teaches preheating the cup body to a preset temperature to evaporate and dry off solvent or moisture before receiving the melt [0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preheated the cup body to a preset temperature as taught by Sato in the method of Wang, as doing so would remove any moisture or solvent in the cup before sampling, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to prevent any unwanted interactions between any moisture or solvent present in the cup, and the molten metal loaded into the sample cup. Further, as Wang is silent with respect to which specific metals should be molten, in order to carry out the invention of Wang one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching metals suitable for use within the process of Wang, such as the aluminum alloys taught by Sato. As Wang and Sato both relate to inspecting impurities in molten metal using a sample cup, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have used aluminum as taught by Sato, as the molten base metal treated by Wang.
Wang does not teach cutting the specimen in a longitudinal direction or scanning with an inspection scanner.
Hackett teaches sampling devices and powder diffusion containers for use with molten metal (Title), where the sampling devices are immersed into liquid metal to be analyzed (Col. 5 lines 23-25). Hackett teaches analyzing the samples by cutting the specimen in cross sections (Col. 9 lines 12-14), which would comprise a longitudinal direction depending on the orientation of the cut. Hackett teaches scanning a cut surface of the specimen with spectrographic analysis (i.e., an inspection scanner) (Col. 9 lines 15-16) and detecting impurities (i.e., an impurity index of the specimen) (Col. 2 lines 55-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut the specimen sample and scanned it with a spectrograph as taught by Hackett in as doing so would measure an impurity content of the specimen (i.e., a composition of the metal), which is a goal of Wang (Wang: [0004]).
Wang in view of Hackett does not teach how the spectroscopy is performed.
Song teaches a sampler for taking samples from melts (Title), in particular for metal (Abstract), where the sampler is immersed in the melt [0022], thus Song and Wang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to samplers for molten metals where the sampler is immersed in the melt. Song teaches the sample is evaluated with a spectrometer by cutting into the sample and examining the sample with the spectrometer [0050], where the results from the spectrometer are forwarded to evaluation devices, computers, or the like (i.e., controllers) [0010, 0048].
Because Wang in view of Hackett is silent with respect to how the spectrographic data is used to determine an impurity content, in order to carry out the invention of Wang in view of Hackett one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a device suitable for determining an impurity content within the process of Wang in view of Hackett, such as that of a controller as taught by Song. As Wang in view of Hackett and Song both relate to spectrographic analysis of molten metal samples, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a controller to interpret the results of the spectrograph of Song.
Wang in view of Sato does not teach wherein preheating the cup body comprises injecting molten aluminum into the molten metal accommodation portion.
Popelar teaches a sampling device for thermal analysis (Title), where molten metal is injected into a container (i.e., a sample cup) and cooled and solidified, and analyzed (Abstract, [0011]), thus Popelar and Wang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to inspecting molten metal using a sample cup. Popelar teaches preheating the container (analogous to a cup body) comprises immersing the cup in the molten metal [0020], where as immersing in the molten metal would involve the molten metal entering a molten metal accommodation portion of the cup, and the molten flux comprises molten metals, Popelar teaches steps analogous to injecting molten aluminum into the molten metal accommodation portion. Popelar teaches the metal is already molten when used to preheat the sampling cup [0020], where as the sample cup is inserted into an existing molten metal, the temperature of the metal is intrinsically predetermined relative to the operation of preheating the sample cup. Popelar teaches the sampling cup is subsequently filled with molten metal after preheating [0034], therefore for the cup to be injected with a melt after preheating, as the preheating involves injecting with a melt, the molten material injected during preheating must intrinsically be removed for there to be space to sample metal in the cup, thus Popelar teaches emptying the molten metal accommodation portion.
Because Wang in view of Sato is silent with respect to how preheating is performed, in order to carry out the invention of Wang one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a method of preheating a sample cup suitable for use within the process of Wang, such as that of immersing the sample cup in the molten metal as taught by Popelar. As Wang and Popelar both relate to methods of sampling molten metal using samples cups, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the preheating method of Popelar. Further, as Wang in view of Sato teaches preheating to about 150° C (Sato: [0056]), one of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform preheating for a time to preheat the sample cup to that temperature (i.e., emptying the molten metal accommodation portion after a preset time).
Claim 1 discloses inspecting an impurity in molten metal for die casting. The metal being for die casting presents no further limitations for the method itself, and is therefore a statement of intended use, and as such is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
Claims 2 and 4 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/19/2025. Claims 2 and 4 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that in the present application the specimen is sampled using the cup body having downwardly decreasing cross-sectional area and cut in the longitudinal direction to decrease surface energy of the impurities, see pg. 3-4 of remarks) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Wang teaches the cast ingot is demoulded and taken out, and the whole sampling process is finished, and therefore fails to disclose the claimed method (see pg. 4 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Wang discloses after the cast ingot (i.e., the sample) is demoulded and taken out, and the whole sampling is finished, Wang does not consider “the whole of sampling is finished” to mean that no further analysis or inspection of the sample occurs. Wang instead teaches the metal smelting process includes sampling, inspection and analysis steps, where the composition of the molten metal is analyzed (Wang: [0004]), thus Wang’s disclosure of sampling being finished clearly refers to the step of obtaining the physical sample, and does not prohibit further analysis. Wang is then taken in view of Hackett and Song, which suggest cutting the specimen and scanning the cut surface to detect an impurity index as claimed, as doing so would measure an impurity content which is desired by Wang.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hackett has a different shape from the cup body of the present application, thus the resulting shape would be different (see pg. 4 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the cutting of the specimen in a longitudinal direction as suggested by Hackett is applied to the method of Wang, where Wang inspects impurity in molten metal by using a cup in the shape of an inverted cone (i.e., with a molten metal accommodation portion where a cross-sectional area decreases from an upper end toward a lower end as claimed), thus the resulting shape is the same as in the instant case. Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the resulting shape of the sample has a particular shape) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733