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
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant provisionally elects Group II, directed to claims 1-6, 9 and 10 without traverse in the reply filed on 5/6/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract is currently formatted as a single run-on sentence joined by semicolons and lacks a terminal period. Additionally, the abstract employs legal/claim style phraseology (“comprising”, “comprised in”) and includes vague, non-technical language (“or suchlike”), which should be avoided. Appropriate correction is required.
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/IT2021/050295 and of the Italian patent application IT102020000025735 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 9/28/2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 4/26/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶¶ [0045]-[0046] introduce the device numbering inconsistently. ¶ [0045] refers only to “cooling device 10b,” while ¶ [0046] subsequently refers to “cooling device 10a, 10b.” Since embodiment 10a is depicted in Fig. 1 and is described first in the Detailed Description, applicant is required to clarify and correct the numbering so that device 10a, 10b is consistently and properly introduced.
¶ [0070] refers to “panel 12c,” which lacks antecedent basis, as only panel 11c is introduced in this paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the informal phrase “any one whatsoever” in line 6. The examiner suggests the phrase “any one whatsoever” should be amended to recite “any one of said free spaces” for clarity.
Claim 1 recites “at least one said other panel” in line 7, which the examiner suggests should be amended to recite “said at least one other panel.”
Claim 1 recites “a jacket above it” in line 3, wherein the pronoun “it” is used to refer back to “at least one shell.” For clarity and consistency with the remainder of the claim, which otherwise uses “said [element]” to refer previously recited elements, the examiner suggests that “above it” should be amended to recite “above said shell.”
Claim 1 omits the indefinite article before “Cooling device” in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 9 omit the definite article before “Cooling device.” For proper antecedent basis, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “said free space” in lines 1-2, which is singular and lacks antecedent basis, as claim 1 recites “free spaces” in the plural only. The examiner suggests this limitation should be amended to recite “said free spaces,” or introduce “a free space” for singular antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the extension of said free space” in line 3. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis for the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “therefore” in line 3 to state a logical consequence rather than reciting a direct structural limitation. The examiner suggests “direction, therefore each tube” should be amended to recite “direction, and each tube.”
Claim 9 recites “one 5 other” in line 3, which appears to be a typographical artifact. The examiner suggests this limitation should be amended to recite “one other.”
Claim 10 omits the indefinite article before “Electric furnace” in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “at least one cooling device as in any claim herein before” – improper informal phrasing for a multiple dependent claim. Per MPEP 608.01(n), a multiple dependent claim must refer to other claims in the alternative using specific claim numbers (e.g., “as in any one of claims 1-6 and 9”), not the vague “any claim herein before.” Note also that claim 10 as written references withdrawn claims 7-8 indirectly if left unspecified. The proper alternative recitation should exclude withdrawn claims 7 and 8.
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 1-6 and 9 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 “at least one tube of said at least one panel is offset with respect to another tube of at least one said other panel” in lines 6-7. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 earlier recites “cooling panels” (plural, no “at least one panel” antecedent established), yet later refers to “said at least one panel” and “at least one said other panel,” lacking proper antecedent basis. As a result, it is unclear what structure is required to satisfy “said at least one panel” and “at least one said other panel,” and consequently unclear how many panels are required by the claim, and whether the offset relationship is required between two specific panels among those already introduced, or may involve additional panels. Due to dependencies, claims 2-6 and 9 are also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites “an electrical melting furnace, or suchlike” in lines 1-2. The term “suchlike” is an indefinite term that does not clearly identify what other devices, apparatuses, or structures are intended to be encompassed by this limitation. It is unclear what scope of devices “or suchlike” is intended to cover beyond an electric melting furnace, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Applicant is required to amend the claim to remove “or suchlike,” or to otherwise clearly define what additional devices are intended to be encompassed by this limitation. Due to dependencies, claims 2-6 and 9 are also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites “said free space is made between consecutive pairs of tubes of the external panel and of the internal panel” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether “tubes” in this limitation refers to the same tubes previously recited as “a plurality of tubes” in claim 1, or introduces an additional, distinct set of tubes not previously recited, which renders the scope of claim 3 indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “a 25 substantially” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what “25” refers to or modifies in this limitation, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. If “25” is a typographical error, the examiner suggests this limitation should be amended to recite “a substantially” to clarify the intended scope.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20070290419) hereinafter Goodman, in view of Pavlicevic et al. (US 5743729) hereinafter Pavlicevic.
Regarding claim 1, Goodman teaches, in Fig. 1, a cooling device (31, “panel”; ¶ [0050]: “The cooling panels consist of a set of forty-eight panels 31”) suitable to be used in an electric melting furnace, or suchlike (11, “vessel” or “metallurgical vessel”; ¶ [0049]: “Vessel shell 11 is internally lined with a set of 107 individual cooling panels through which cooling water can be circulated”; ¶ [0013]: “Electric arc furnaces, such as those used for the batch production of steel on the other hand, may employ cooling panels”), comprising
at the lower part at least one shell (12, “hearth”) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration where the hearth is disposed at the lower part of the vessel) to contain the metal bath (“molten bath”; ¶ [0048]: “the vessel contains a molten bath of iron and slag”; ¶ [0045]: “a hearth 12 which includes a base 13 and sides 14 formed of refractory bricks, a forehearth 15 for discharging molten metal continuously”) and
a jacket (17, “vessel shell”; 18, “main cylindrical barrel section”) above it (Fig. 1 shows the configuration; ¶ [0046]: “The base of the vessel is fixed to the bottom end of an outer vessel shell 17 … comprising a cylindrical main barrel section 18), in which there are positioned cooling panels (31) (Fig. 1 shows the arrangement where the cooling panels are positioned in the vessel shell and the main cylindrical barrel section, corresponding to the claimed limitation) each provided with a plurality of tubes (Fig. 6: 36, “coolant flow tube”; ¶ [0052]: “Each panel 31 is comprised of a coolant flow tube 36”) characterized in that
said tubes (36) are interspersed with free spaces, wherein at least one of said tubes is positioned at least in the proximity of, or overlapping with, any one whatsoever of said free spaces, in such a way that at least one tube of said at least one panel is offset with respect to another tube of at least one said other panel, (¶ [0052]: “Each panel 31 is comprised of a coolant flow tube 36 bent to form inner and outer panel sections 37, 38 of zigzag formation. The inner and outer panel sections 37, 38 are also vertically off-set such that the horizontal pipe segments of one panel section are located intermediate the horizontal pipe segments of the other panel section”),
Goodman does not explicitly teach
wherein each of said panels is fed by a cooling circuit of its own.
However, Pavlicevic teaches, in Fig. 1, a cooling device (10, “cooling device”), comprising panels (22, “inner layer”; 116, “outer layer”) of tubes (17, “cooling tube”),
wherein each of said panels (22, “inner layer”; 116, “outer layer”) is fed by a cooling circuit of its own (col. 3, lns. 60-64: “The outer cooling tubes are continuous for each panel or, according to a variant, subdivided into several autonomous circuits. The inner cooling tubes are continuous and normally constitute a single circuit”).
Goodman and Pavlicevic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooling device with panels for electric arc furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooling device of Goodman such that the inner panel section and outer panel section are each fed by an independent cooling circuit as taught by Pavlicevic, in order to reduce to a minimum the critical points along the hydraulic circuit defined by the cooling panels and therefore reduce the possibility of breakdowns and cracking of the cooling device. Pavlicevic, col. 2, lns. 34-37.
PNG
media_image1.png
639
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Goodman
PNG
media_image2.png
252
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Goodman
PNG
media_image3.png
276
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pavlicevic, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Goodman teaches, in Fig. 8, the cooling device (31) as in claim 1, characterized in that it comprises
at least one external panel (38, “outer panel section”) and at least one internal panel (37, “inner panel section”), but does not explicitly teach that said panels are separated by a hollow space.
However, Pavlicevic teaches, in Fig. 1, a cooling device (10, “cooling device”), comprising panels (22, “inner layer”; 116, “outer layer”) are separated by a hollow space (23, “interspace”; col. : “The two layers of cooled tubes 116 and 22, which constitute the vertical walls of the panel 16, define between them an interspace 23”).
Goodman and Pavlicevic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooling device with panels for electric arc furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooling device of Goodman such that the inner panel section and outer panel section are separated by a hollow space as taught by Pavlicevic, in order to allow slag to accumulate in said hollow space and form an insulating layer which protects the panel sections from consumption and wear. Pavlicevic, col. 6, lns. 39-41.
PNG
media_image4.png
217
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Goodman
Regarding claim 3, Goodman in view of Pavlicevic teaches the cooling device (Goodman: 31) as in claim 2, characterized in that
said free space is made between consecutive pairs of tubes (Goodman: 36, “coolant flow tube”) of the external panel (Goodman: 38, “outer panel section”) and of the internal panel (Goodman: 37, “inner panel section”) (Goodman, ¶ [0052]: “a coolant flow tube 36 bent to form inner and outer panel sections 37, 38 of zigzag formation”; the examiner interprets Goodman as teaching that the zigzag formation of coolant flow tube 36 inherently creates free space between consecutive horizontal pipe segments within both the outer panel section and the inner panel section, since a tube bent into a zigzag configuration necessarily leaves gaps between its own folded segments).
Regarding claim 4, Goodman in view of Pavlicevic teaches the cooling device (Goodman: 31) as in claim 2, characterized in that
the tubes (Goodman: 36) that form the external panel (Goodman: 38) and the internal panel (Goodman: 37) appear to have the same external diameter (Annotated Fig. 10 of Goodman shows the configuration), and
the extension of said free space (Goodman, annotated Fig. 10: free space) appears to be equal to at least said external diameter (Annotated Fig. 10 of Goodman shows the configuration).
However, Goodman does not explicitly teach that the tubes that form the external panel and the internal panel have the same external diameter, and the extension of said free space is equal to at least said external diameter.
However, Pavlicevic discloses that the distance between panel layers is dimensioned in relation to slag layer thickness and heat exchange requirement (Pavlicevic, col. 6, lns. 47-50: “The distance between the two layers 116, 22 is advantageously between about 50 mm and about 150 mm; with such a structure, the thickness of the layer of slag can reach as much as 200 mm”). This demonstrates that dimensional relationships between the components of a cooling panel, such as spacing and layer distance, are recognized in the art as parameters affecting the cooling capacity and heat exchange efficiency of a cooling panel, as well as the panel’s capacity to retain and anchor slag within the free space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select tubes of the same external diameter for both the external panel and internal panel of Goodman, and to size the extension of the free space to be equal to at least said external diameter, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges for these result-effective variables involves routine skill in the art, and since doing so would predictably yield a panel structure with an interspace dimensioned “so as to function as protection and a heat accumulator.” Pavlicevic, col. 4, ln. 3. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
PNG
media_image5.png
284
529
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Goodman, annotated
Regarding claim 5, Goodman in view of Pavlicevic teaches the cooling device (Goodman: 31) as in claim 2, characterized in that
the tubes (Goodman: 36) of the external panel (Goodman: 38) and of the internal panel (Goodman: 37) are aligned according to a substantially horizontal direction (Goodman, ¶ [0052]; Fig. 6 also shows the coolant flow tube 36 are formed into multiple horizontal pipe segments, extending laterally along the cylindrical barrel),
therefore each tube (Goodman: 36) of the external panel (Goodman: 38) is vertically offset from each tube (Goodman: 36) of the internal panel (Goodman: 37), and vice versa (Goodman, ¶ [0052]: “The inner and outer panel sections 37, 38 are also vertically off-set such that the horizontal pipe segments of one panel section are located intermediate the horizontal pipe segments of the other panel section”; since this offset relationship is inherently reciprocal, the examiner interprets Goodman as teaching that each tube of the external panel is offset from each tube of the internal panel, and vice versa).
Regarding claim 6, Goodman in view of Pavlicevic teaches the cooling device (Goodman: 31) as in claim 2, characterized in that
the external panel (Goodman: 38) and the internal panel (Goodman: 37) are reciprocally connected by means of connection elements (Goodman, Fig. 10: 44, “connector straps”) (Goodman, ¶ [0054]: “Each connector strap 44 is fastened at its ends to adjacent tube segments of the inner panel section and extends between its ends outwardly across a tube segment of the outer panel section in the manner shown most clearly in FIG. 10”).
Regarding claim 9, Goodman in view of Pavlicevic teaches, in Fig. 1 of Goodman, the cooling device (31) as in claim 1, characterized in that it comprises at least one other panel (32, “a set of sixteen panels”) located adjacent to, or integrated with, said panels (Goodman, Fig. 8: 37, 38) (Goodman, ¶ [0062]: “The panels 32 … are also formed and mounted to the shell in similar fashion to the panels 31”; Fig. 1 shows the adjacent arrangement between said panels 37 & 38, and the other panel 32).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlicevic et al. (US 5743729) hereinafter Pavlicevic, in view of Goodman et al. (US 20070290419) hereinafter Goodman.
Regarding claim 10, Pavlicevic teaches, in Fig. 1, an electric furnace (abstract: “arc electric furnace”), comprising a jacket (“upper shell”; col. 6, lns. 7-9: “a circular upper shell defined by a plurality of panels 16 comprising a plurality of adjacent tubes 17”) provided with at least one cooling device (10, “cooling device”).
Pavlicevic does not explicitly teach the cooling device as in any claim herein before.
However, Goodman teaches a cooling device (31, “panel”) comprising tubes (36, “coolant flow tube”) interspersed with free spaces, wherein at least one tube (36) of one panel (38, “outer panel section”) is offset with respect to another tube (36) of another panel (37, “inner panel section”), as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 (¶ [0052]: “The inner and outer panel sections 37, 38 are also vertically off-set such that the horizontal pipe segments of one panel section are located intermediate the horizontal pipe segments of the other panel section).
Goodman further teaches the cooling device as in claims 2-6 and 9 as discussed in detail above.
Pavlicevic and Goodman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooling device with panels for electric arc furnaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cooling device of Pavlicevic with the cooling device of Goodman as modified by Pavlicevic, as discussed above with respect to claims 1-6 and 9, in order to reduce to a minimum the critical points along the hydraulic circuit defined by the cooling panels and therefore reduce the possibility of breakdowns and cracking of the cooling device. Pavlicevic, col. 2, lns. 34-37.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Macrae (WO 2020023169), Goodman et al. (WO 2005103305), Weber et al. (WO 2005075688), Weber et al. (WO 0001854), Kuhlmann et al. (US 4598667).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights