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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-23 are pending, wherein claims 17-23 remain withdrawn.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “where the distal surface and the proximal surface of the passage are disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the vent channel” is indefinite as it is not clear how “the proximal surface of the passage” is “adjacent” to the proximal end of the vent channel. Note that applicant’s specification and dependent claims describes that the proximal surface of the passage is where the output port of the gas supply channel is disposed (paragraph [0012-0013]) and where the porous element is disposed (paragraph [0013]). See figs 2B and 2C showing the porous element being at the bottom of the opening 140. The distal surface, which was previously claimed as being adjacent to the vent channel, is the surface at the top of the opening 140, which is adjacent to the bottom end (proximal end) of the vent channel. It is unclear how the bottom surface of the opening (“proximal surface”) is “adjacent” to the proximal end of the vent channel as it is at the “distal surface”/top surface of the opening.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korostelev (RU 2644095 C2, previously cited) in view of JP S61-232047 A (previously cited) and Takashima (US 3,971,655, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Korostelev teaches a purifying device for removing impurities from liquid metal present in a vessel (abstract), comprising:
a baffle (partition 1) including a first surface and a second surface disposed opposite the first surface (figs 1 and 3, surface of partition 1 on the right of the figure is the first surface, surface of partition 1 on the left of the figure is the second surface), the baffle having a first region (fig 2, region of partition above window 7) operative to block a flow of liquid metal between the first surface and the second surface (fig 1-3);
a passage (window 7) formed in a second region of the baffle (fig 2, region of partition where passage is located) for liquid metal flow between the first surface and the second surface (figs 1-3), the passage defining a continuous channel (fig 1-3) having an inlet (fig 1 and 3, note the inlet of window 7 on the surface on the right) formed in the first surface, an outlet (fig 1 and 3, note the outlet of window 7 on the surface on the left) formed in the second surface, and an outer wall fluidically connecting the inlet to the outlet (fig 2, note the side walls of the window 7), the passage having a proximal surface (fig 1-3, bottom surface of window 7) and a distal surface (fig 1-3, upper surface of window 7).
Korostelev is quiet to a vent channel formed within an interior of the baffle between the first surface and the second surface in the first region, the vent channel having a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the vent channel configured to receive a stream of gas at the proximal end and vent at least some of the stream of gas at the distal end; at least one first vent hole, arranged on one of the first surface or the second surface, the at least one first vent hole extending laterally into the vent channel between the proximal end of the vent channel and the distal end of the vent channel; and where the distal surface and the proximal surface of the passage are disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the vent channel and the proximal end of the vent channel is in fluid communication with the passage.
JP S61-232047 A teaches a submerged weir composed of a pair of fireproof walls having a large number of molten metal passage holes therebetween and which forms a space between them, in contact with the bottom surface of a tundish, and blowing inert gas into the molten metal passing through the space in the submerged weir (machine translation, see lines 1-6 of p.3, figs 1-2). The inert gas blown into the space 4 remains in the space 4 for a while and comes into efficient contact with the molten metal in the space 4, and then floats upward from the front and rear fireproof walls 3a,3b (see lines 19-42 of p.3, fig 1-2, note arrows showing the molten metal flow and venting). The arrangement extends the contact time between the molten steel and gas compared to the conventional method, thereby greatly increasing a cooling effect of the inert gas, as well as causing non-metallic inclusions mixed in the molten steel to be easily floated and separated, thereby additionally promoting the removal of non-metallic inclusions (see lines 27-42 of p.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Korostelev so as to include an inner space (corresponding to a vent channel) between the first and second surfaces as taught in JP S61-232047, in a first region above the window of Korostelev, as JP S61-232047 teaches the arrangement can increase the contact time of the molten metal with the inert gas, enabling both temperature control as well as easily floating and separating of non-metallic inclusions. Note that this inner space, corresponding to a vent channel, would meet the limitation of the proximal end of the vent channel being adjacent to the distal surface of the passage, as well as the proximal surface of the passage in the same way that the passage/window is inbetween (note 112(b) rejection above).
The combination of Korostelev as modified by JP S61-232047 A teaches a vent channel within an interior of the baffle (note space 4 of JP S61-232047 A) as well as plural vent holes (JP S61-232047A, passages P, fig 1, see arrows), but is quiet as to the vent channel vents at least some of the gas at the distal end, and that the vent hole extends laterally into the vent channel.
Takashima teaches a method for refining molten steel in a ladle by blowing gas thereinto (col 1 lines 5-10), recognizing that gas blowing has been conventionally practiced in that its capital cost is low and gives good working efficiency (col 1 lines 10-18). Takashima teaches that in the prior art, when the amount of blown gas is increased, the surface of the molten steel is exposed to air, thus being subjected to air oxidation, and thus it is necessary to restrict the gas blowing within a range which does not expose the molten steel surface to the air (col 1 lines 30-40). Takashima teaches a receptacle or cover which covers a portion of the molten steel surface in a ladle where gas bubbles out to keep the atmosphere in the receptacle in a non-oxidizing condition (col 1 lines 35-55). Figure 1 shows a ladle where inert gas is blown into molten steel through the porous plug 3, forming gas bubbles 5 which float up and come out from bath surface 6 (fig 1, col 3 lines 1-15), and that receptacle 7 is immersed so as to separate the portion of the bath surface where the gas bubble up from the other portions of the molten steel surface (col 3 lines 1-15). This separation receptacle 7 is usually formed in a cylindrical shape, and its upper portion is provided with a hole 9, and its lower opening is immersed in the molten bath (fig 1, col 3 lines 10-35). The wall of the receptacle 7 may have various shapes (col 3 lines 35-50), including a straight cross-section and having inlets 13 around the wall (fig 2a-2c, col 3 lines 40-50, construed as laterally into a vent channel). In actual practice, inert gas is blown into the molten steel through the porous plug, the gas forms bubbles in the molten steel and float up, filling the space within receptacle 7, and finally get out through the hole 9, so that even if the surface of molten steel is exposed by severe stirring caused by floating gas bubbles, the molten steel is not subjected to reoxidation, thus making it possible to blow a large amount of gas in order to enhance removal of non-metallic inclusions (col 3 lines 48-65).
As the combination of Korostelev and JP S61-232047 A teach blowing gas upwardly within the baffle (JP S61-232047A, fig 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the upper region (first region) of the partition is formed as a receptacle having an interior (construed as vent channel) and having holes around the wall (construed as vent hole extending laterally into the vent channel) where the bubbling gas can float up into the receptacle portion and exit through a hole at the top of the receptacle, as Takashima teaches that this would separate the portion of the bath surface where gas bubbles up from the other portions of the molten steel surface so as to prevent reoxidation even when a large amount of gas is blown to enhance removal of non-metallic inclusions.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the baffle further comprises a gas supply channel (fig 2, paragraph [0026], inert gas supplied by tube 13) including an input port for receiving a gas (Korostelev, fig 2, see inlet of channel 13 of the partition 1), an output port for outputting the gas (Korostelev, fig 2, see outlet of channel 13 of the partition 1), and conduit connecting the input port to the output port (Korostelev, fig 2, channel 13 within partition 1), wherein the output port is disposed at the proximal surface of the passage (Korostelev, fig 2, outlet of channel 13 is at the bottom of the window).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches further comprising a porous element disposed at the proximal surface of the passage (Korostelev, fig 2, paragraph [0013], multi-channel insert installed at the bottom of the partition window).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the porous element is fluidically coupled to the output port of the gas channel (Korostelev, fig 2, paragraph [0013], inert gas fed through the insert into the horizontal flow of metal passing through the partition window).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the porous element spans an entire width of the passage (Korostelev, fig 2, see multi-channel insert spanning width of window 7).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches further comprising at least one second vent hole arranged opposite the at least one first vent hole on the other of the first surface or the second surface (see combination, JP S61-232047 A, fig 1-2, lines 231-235, note the plurality of holes P on both walls 3a,3b arranged opposite each other can function as vent holes, see arrows, see Takashima, fig 1, holes 13 on both side).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the distal end of the vent channel opens to the ambient environment above a free surface of the liquid metal (see combination, Takashima, fig 1, exits through hole 9 which is above the liquid level).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the at least one first vent hole comprises a plurality of first vent holes, and the at least one second vent hole comprises a plurality of second vent holes, wherein the plurality of first vent holes are arranged along a first plane and the plurality of second vent holes are arranged along a second plane (see combination, where JP S61-232047 A teaches, in fig 1-2, plural holes arranged along a first plane 3a and second plane 3b).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the passage for liquid metal flow spans an entire width of the proximal end of the vent channel (note combination where the passage and the vent channel are shown in the same space, thus covering the entire width, see JP S61-232047 A figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches a tundish (Korostelev, fig 1, tundish 3), comprising:
a floor (Korostelev, fig 1-3, see floor of tundish);
a wall attached to the floor (Korostelev, fig 1-3, see walls of tundish), wherein the wall and the floor define a container (Korostelev, fig 1-3, walls and floor define container of the tundish 3);
the purifying device according to claim 1 arranged with the container (note combination, Korostelev, fig 1, partition 1 arranged within the tundish).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the wall comprises a first side wall and a second sidewall arranged opposite the first sidewall (Korostelev, fig 2, note sidewalls), the first and second sidewalls attached to the floor (Korostelev, fig 2); and
a first end wall (Korostelev, fig 1, end wall shown in figure) and a second end wall arranged opposite the first end wall (Korostelev, fig 1, note that although a second end wall isn’t explicitly shown, implied from the tundish being a container for the molten metal, see fig 1 of JP S61-232047 A showing a tundish having a second end wall), the first end wall and second end wall attached to the floor and to respective ends of the first and second sidewalls to define a container (Korostelev, fig 1-3, tundish is a container).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches an inlet (Korostelev, fig 1, note pipe feeding molten metal from ladle 2 to tundish 3 at the receiving chamber 4) for receiving liquid metal into the tundish; and an outlet (Korostelev, fig 1, note outlet for dispensing molten metal from tundish 3 at the casting chamber 5 to the crystallizer 6) for dispensing liquid metal from the tundish, wherein the purifying device is disposed between the inlet and outlet (Korostelev, fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the tundish has a predetermined maximum level for liquid metal (functional limitation, note that the level shown in fig 1 of Korostelev can be construed as the maximum level, no structural difference), and the distal end of the vent channel extends above the predetermined maximum level for liquid metal (note combination, where Korostelev’s device extends above the level of the liquid metal in figure 1, note combination where the distal end of JP S61-232047A (fig 1) and Takashima (fig 1) both extend above the liquid level).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the purifying device spans an entire width of the container between a floor of the container and a maximum liquid metal level of the container (Korostelev, figs 1-3, showing the device (partition 1) spanning entire width from the floor to above the metal level).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korostelev as modified by JP S61-232047 A and Takashima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kudo (JP H06-7904 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Korostelev as modified by JP S61-232047 A and Takashima is quiet to a divider wall arranged within the vent channel, the divider wall splitting the vent channel into two separate channels.
Kudo teaches an inclusion removal method and apparatus for purifying molten steel in a tundish for continuous casting (paragraph [0001]). Kudo teaches a partition wall 7c (fig 2) that further divides the inner space so that a large amount of gas can be blown on the upstream side to stir and promote aggregate and coalescence of the inclusions, and on the downstream side, any inclusions that could not be removed on the upstream side can be quickly removed by capturing air bubbles (paragraph [0017], fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination so as to include a dividing wall splitting the vent channel into two separate channels, so that the amount of gas on the upstream side can be higher than the amount of gas on the downstream side, for promoting aggregation and coalescence of the inclusions upstream, and quickly removing on the downstream side (Kudo, paragraph [0017], fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the dividing wall spans between the proximal end and the distal end of the vent channel (see combination, Kudo teaches dividing wall 7c spanning between proximal end and distal end of vent channel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes, on p.6 of the Remarks, that claim 1 requires at least one first vent hole extends laterally into the vent channel and is located between the proximal end of the vent channel and the distal end of the vent channel. Applicant further notes that claim 1 also requires a vent channel formed within an interior of the baffle between the first surface and the second surface in the first region, the vent channel having a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, where the distal surface and the proximal surface of the passage are disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the vent channel and the proximal end of the vent channel is in fluid communication with the passage.
In particular, applicant argues on p.7 that neither Korostelev, Itaru, nor Takashima, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the claimed vent channel or the claimed at least one first vent hole. Applicant argues that Itaru’s submerged weir is formed by two separate fireproof walls with a space between them, which differs from a vent channel formed within an interior of the baffle between the first and second surface. The Examiner notes that the assembly shown in figure 1 of JP S61-232047, the partition including the fireproof walls and the spacing, meet the claimed baffle, and the spacing is formed within an interior of that baffle assembly, as it is between the fireproof walls. Note that the spacing of Itaru is to extend the time the blown gas is in contact with the molten metal passing through the partition while floating upwards, thus would be obvious in combination with Korostelev, to be positioned above the window to further extend the time the gas is in contact with the molten metal, and would need to be vented and release through additional holes (similarly to the plural passages of Itaru or the vent holes claimed by applicant). Note that although applicant argues that the additional holes of Itaru extend completely through a wall rather than laterally into a vent channel is not persuasive, as the inner space of Itaru is construed as the vent channel, and that the additional passages would intersect with that space, thus being laterally into the vent channel.
Regarding Takashima, applicant argues that Takashima does not disclose a baffle, a vent channel formed within an interior of the baffle, or vent holes extending laterally from a first or second surface into a vent channel. Applicant further argues the openings of Takashima are not disclosed as being located between proximal and distal ends of a vent channel, nor as being arranged on a first or second surface of a baffle.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Note that the rejection is based on a combination of references. With regards to Takashima, the rejection looks towards Takashima showing bubbling the gas through a receptacle portion so as to not disturb the surface of the steel outside of the receptacle portion, thus preventing reoxidation. Thus, the further suggesting modifying the combination of Korostelev and Itaru such that the vent channel (inner space) extends to the upper end of the baffle so as to vent the gas without disturbing the surface of the steel away from the baffle, thereby prevent reoxidation.
Note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-10 refer back to the arguments directed towards Korostelev, Itaru, and Takashima, as addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735