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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-17) in the reply filed on 3/10/26 is acknowledged. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-4, 6-12, and 16-17 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 line 1, --a-- should be inserted between “with” and “copper insert” . Claim 1 recites the limitation " the upper part " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside of the steel portion" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 line 12, “to molten” appears to be a grammatical error for --to melt--. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer part of the copper item(s)" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper part" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside of the steel portion" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower part" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 line 2, “be held” should be changed to --is held--. Claim 16 line 2, “be held” should be changed to --is held--. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the steel portion of the copper bar.” This limitation is unclear as the claim recites a cathode bar and a copper insert. It appears the claim is intending to claim --the steel portion of the cathode bar--. 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) and Bunn et al (US 6,192,969 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1, Martilla teaches a method for producing a cathode steel bar with 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 the electrolytic production of aluminium using the Hall- H e roult 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 the 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 mov ement 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. N ote 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) . 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 copper 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]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5749 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /JACKY YUEN/ Examiner Art Unit 1735 /KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735