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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were submitted on 7/01/26. Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are pending, wherein claims 13-15 remain withdrawn.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martilla (WO 00/17419 A1, cited in IDS filed 6/19/23) in view of Monnot (US 0,929,687 A, previously cited) and Bunn et al (US 6,192,969 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Martilla teaches a method for producing a cathode steel bar with a copper insert (abstract, rigid metal outer jacket and highly conductive core attached inside, p.4 lines 27-31, copper core, stainless steel jacket) for use in an electrolytic cell for electrolytic production of aluminium using Hall-Heroult process (intended use, abstract, suspension bar for a permanent cathode used in the electrolysis of metals), comprising:
ii) providing a steel portion (p.6 lines 5-25, outer jacket of steel tube) of the cathode steel bar equipped with a cavity (p.6 lines 5-25, acts as a mould inside which the copper core is cast directly) for the copper insert,
causing preheating of the cathode steel bar (p.6 lines 5-25, preheat the steel jacket),
providing molten copper, pouring the molten copper into the cavity of the steel portion (p.6 lines 5-25, casting by pouring molten core metal inside the steel tube),
cooling, and solidifying the molten copper (p.6 lines 5-25, implied from the casting step, where a metallurgical bond forms),
Martilla is quiet to a sleeve on the upper part through which the molten copper is poured.
Monnot teaches processes related to producing compound metal articles of ferrous metal and an unlike metal such as copper (p.1 lines 10-50), wherein in some cases the product may be a wire (p.4 lines 60-65). Monnot teaches a pouring funnel (6), at the upper part of the mold (figs 1 and 4), provided with a central space (7) for introduction of the molten metal (fig 1 and 4, p.2 lines 65-76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Martilla so as to include a sleeve at the upper part of steel tube, as the use of pouring funnels are well known as taught in Monnot, enabling molten metal to fill up into the funnel to provide additional fluid pressure to insure sound dense metal free from piping (Monnot, p.2 lines 105-128).
The combination is quiet to the preheating is by positioning at least one inductor in close proximity to at least parts of the outside of the steel portion and supplying electric energy to the inductor, causing induction preheating of the cathode steel bar, and that the cooling is carried out directionally, in a direction from a lower part of the cathode bar towards its upper part.
Bunn et al teaches a method and apparatus for making high purity copper castings (abstract). Bunn et al teaches the use of a coil induction furnace (abstract), and that the electric furnaces are preferred for the reasons to not introduce impurities (col 5 lines 38-67). A power source 29 is provided to supply a current to the coil (col 7 lines 1-17). Bunn et al also teaches a controlled cooling, where the container is cooled from the bottom upwards toward the top of the container (col 6 lines 25-45), and that this cooling provides a substantially void free and inclusion free copper casting (col 6 lines 25-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Martilla such that the preheating step uses an inductor with electric energy supplied by a power source, as Martilla is not specific to the type of heater, and that Bunn et al teaches that induction heating is preferable to use as it would not introduce impurities when making copper castings (abstract, col 5 lines 38-67). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Martilla such that the cooling is carried out directionally from the lower part to the upper part, as Bunn et al teaches that controlled cooling from the bottom upwards provides a casting that is substantially void free and inclusion free (col 6 lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches supplying electric energy, but is quiet to a frequency of between 1 kHz to 50 kHz from a power unit to the inductor.
However, note that Martilla teaches that it is preferable to preheat the steel jacket powerfully (p.6 lines 5-25), and that Bunn et al teaches supplying a current to the coil to form an electromagnetic field (col 7 lines 1-17), where it is well known that the induction coil generates a time-varying induction field when excited by an alternating current, and that the size of the furnace including coil size, coil height, number of windings, current level, etc, are well known apparatus and operating parameters which may be calculated for a desired melting and warming operation (col 7 lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize a frequency of the electric energy supplied to the inductor, as frequency is a known operating parameter and that Bunn et al teaches that the well known operating parameters can be calculated for a desired melting and warming operation (col 7 lines 1-17). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 16, the combination fails to explicitly teach (claim 3) the temperature of preheating is above the melting temperature of copper or copper alloy, (claim 4) the preheating is held for a period of 10 seconds to 12 hours, and (claim 16) the preheating is held for a period of 1 minute to 1 hour.
However, Martilla teaches that it is preferable to preheat the steel jacket powerfully (p.6 lines 5-25) and that jacket is in contact with the molten copper for enough of a long time so that a metallurgical bond has time to form between the jacket and the core (p.6 lines 5-25). If the jacket tube is not heated in advance, the core metal will solidify so quickly that a metallurgical bond will not form (p.6 lines 5-25).
In view of the teachings of Martilla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the preheating temperature to be a temperature above the melting temperature of copper or copper alloy, and to optimize the preheating time to be held for a period of 1 minute to 1 hour, as Martilla teaches a powerful preheat and long time is required so that a metallurgical bond can form between the jacket and the core (p.6 lines 5-25). Note that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the directional cooling is obtained by downward movement of the mold length wise (Bunn et al, abstract, crucible passed continuously downwardly through the opening in the cooling jacket), quiet to the reversed movement where the inductor is upward moving.
However, it would have been obvious to move the inductor upward as an obvious alternative to moving the steel portion (mold) downward, as it would yield the same predictable result of the directional solidification from the bottom upwards. Note that the courts have held that mere reversal of movement was an obvious modification. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A).
Regarding claim 8, note that Martilla teaches process ii) where molten copper is provided and poured into the steel tube. The solid copper item(s) are not required, as the solid copper item(s) are part of process i) in claim 1, which is not required since process ii) is taught (note the use of “or” in claim 1 line 15, claim 1 is directed to either process i) or process ii)). Thus, the limitation of “wherein the solid copper item(s) is provided from used cathode bars” is met, as the prior art teaches process ii).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination teaches wherein pouring of the molten copper into the cavity of the steel portion is obtained by top filling (Martilla, p.6 lines 5-25, pouring molten core metal inside an upright steel tube that is closed at the lower end (thus poured from above)).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martilla as modified by Monnot and Bunn et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jonqua et al (GB 2536901, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Martilla is quiet to wherein the method is circular in that the solid copper item(s) or molten copper is provided from used cathode bars.
Jonqua et al teaches a cathode element suitable for use in a Hall-Heroult electrolysis cell (abstract). Jonqua et al teaches that it is desirable to separate the copper insert from the steel bar as copper is more expensive than steel and therefore desirable to recover the copper insert for recycling (p.4 lines 30-38).
As Martilla is quiet as to where the molten copper is provided from, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the molten copper is provided from used cathode bars, as Jonqua et al teaches that the copper insert from the steel bars can be recycled as copper is more expensive than steel.
Regarding claim 8, note above where the solid copper item(s) are not required as they further narrow process i) whereas process ii) is taught to meet claim 1. Furthermore, note the combination, where Jonqua et al suggests recycling the copper inserts from the steel bar (p.4 lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the molten copper is provided from used cathode bars (see rejection of claim 7 above, Jonqua et al suggests the copper insert can be recycled, p.4 lines 30-38).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martilla as modified by Monnot and Bunn et al as applied to claims 9-10 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 202861322 U).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the combination is quiet to wherein the steel portion of the cathode bar is kept at an angle during filling of molten copper.
However, Chen teaches that an inclined mold is known (figure 1) and that by using an inclined cavity, defects such as cold shuts are overcome, thereby improving the casting yield (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the steel portion (mold) is kept an angle during filling, so as to reduce the occurrence of defects such as cold shuts (Chen, paragraph [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the subject-matter of claim 1 is directed to a method for producing a cathode steel bar with a copper insert for use in an electrolytic cell for the electrolytic production of aluminum using the Hall-Héroult process, wherein the cooling is carried out directionally, in a direction from a lower part of the cathode bar towards its upper part.
Applicant argues that Bunn describes controlled solidification of copper in a crucible to obtain a casting without voids and inclusions, which is a general metallurgical principle known from casting, whereas the claimed invention concerns production and recycling of cathode bars for the Hall-Héroult process, where copper solidifies inside a steel structure with completely different geometric and process-related framework conditions. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply the controlled cooling principles from the bottom up known in traditional casting in the specific process of the claimed invention.
The examiner disagrees. The claims are not directed to the Hall-Héroult process and are directed to a method for producing a cathode steel bar with a copper insert for use in an electrolytic cell for the electrolytic production of aluminum using the Hall-Héroult process. Note that the claims are thus directed to the steps of manufacture of the cathode steel bar with a copper insert.
Regarding Bunn, it is noted that the controlled cooling from the bottom upwards provides a casting that is substantially void free and inclusion free (col 6 lines 25-45). This known technique by Bunn improves the prior art in the same way as applicant’s use of directional cooling, as discussed on p.8 lines 1-10 of the specification, in that due to the controlled cooling, piping and formation of shrink holes is reduced and controller, and a copper insert of good quality in that it is virtually pore-free and with no suctions is ensured in the cathode bar. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(D). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claims 7-8 and 12, applicant argues that although Jonqua et al generally recognizes that it is desirable to recycle copper because copper has a higher value than steel, Jonqua et al does not describe the solution or process described in the claimed invention. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is precisely aimed at solving the practical challenges of separation and recycling in a more efficient, safe and industrially applicable way.
The examiner notes that the claims do not require any particular details to the recycling and/or separation steps, only requiring that the molten copper is provided from used cathode bars (see claim 7, 8, and 12).
With respect to claims 11 and 17, applicant argues that Chen describes a general casting technology measure, whereas applicant’s solution of the claimed invention concerns filling and solidifying copper in cathode bars for electrolytic cells.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(D). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As discussed in the rejection above, Chen’s technique reduces the occurrence of defects such as cold shuts, thereby improving the casting yield (paragraph [0008]).
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144 (IV).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
