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 .
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 1-5 and 10-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, limitations “to adjust chemical components to an internal control standard”, “chemical components are qualified”, “sampling and analyzing chemical components to an internal control standard” in steps (1)-(3) are ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by internal control standard and being qualified? Feature of adjusting chemical components to an internal control standard after sampling and analyzing in step (2) lacks sufficient antecedent basis because sampling is not previously recited or defined. The subjective terms are open to differing interpretations and need to be clearly defined. Additionally, it is not clear what is implied by relative limitation of “soft blowing”. Furthermore, “when a furnace type of the VD furnace is 20 t” in step (3) appears to be conditional limitation and it is confusing whether the limitations following this conditional phrase are required or not? The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: adding alloy to adjust chemical components. The conditional features are taken to be optional.
With respect to claim 5, recited relative limitation of “soft blowing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation. Therefore, the present indeterminate language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: blowing argon in step (3).
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 103710489 A, of record, see attached document and translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a process for smelting high-speed steel by an intermediate frequency furnace, ladle refining furnace (LF) and vacuum degassing (VD) treatment (pg. 1- summary of invention), comprising the following steps:
(1) rough smelting: melting a steel material in the intermediate frequency furnace, smelting until the steel material is melted, then adding alloy to adjust chemical components, adding aluminum particles for 1.4-1.7 kg/ton of molten steel, then adding a slagging agent to slag, controlling a mass of slag to be 3-5% of a mass of the molten steel, and performing electric heating for steel tapping, wherein the molten steel for steel tapping in the step (1) has a temperature of 1540-1560 °C (pg. 2), which overlaps with claimed range of 1530-1550 °C;
(2) refining in the LF furnace: sending coarsely smelted molten steel in the intermediate frequency furnace into the LF furnace for smelting, performing electric heating to 1470-1510 °C, feeding an aluminum wire 5 min before steel tapping, adjusting a content of aluminum in the molten steel to 0.03-0.05%, calculating a recovery rate of aluminum at 70%, and performing electric heating for steel tapping, wherein the molten steel for steel tapping in the step (2) has a temperature of 1540-1560 °C, which is very close to 1570-1585 °C; and
(3) VD treatment: sending refined molten steel in the LF furnace into a VD furnace for smelting, closing a cover to extract vacuum, increasing a flow rate of argon after a vacuum degree reaches 67 Pa, ensuring that the molten steel and a steel slag do not splash, degassing for 13-20 min, reducing the flow rate of argon, stopping air bleeding, breaking vacuum, adding a heat insulating agent into a steel ladle, adjusting the flow rate of argon to control the steel slag to slightly move without exposing a molten steel surface for soft blowing, wherein the molten steel for steel tapping in the step (3) has a temperature of 1475-1485 °C (pg. 2). The processing conditions taught by Jiang overlap with recited conditions. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Jiang discloses that steel material is at least one selected from the group consisting of steel ingot cutting heads, rolling waste, and waste drill bits (pg. 1- Background).
As to claims 3 and 10, Jiang discloses that the slagging agent in the smelting step (1) is a mixture of lime & fluorite and also recognizes that a mass ratio of the slagging agent is adjusted for controlling the alkalinity of the slag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select recited lime and fluorite mass ratio of 7-10:1 in the process of Jiang with the motivation to obtain desired alkalinity of the slag in the molten steel.
As to claims 4 and 11, Jiang discloses adjusting the chemical components in the molten steel to weight percentage as follows: C 0.86%-0.94%, Mn 0.20%-0.35%, Si 0.25%-0.35%, S<0.005%, P<0.030%, Cr 3.90%-4.30%, V 1.80%-2.00%, W 6.00%-6.30%, and Mo 4.80%-5.00%, in respectively overlapping ranges of elements (pg. 2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Jiang teaches blowing argon in step (3) of VD treatment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/13/23 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights