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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the reply, applicant argues Inoue only teaches the taper of the socket and nipple are the same in Table 1 and does not teach describe or suggest otherwise in reference. Applicant also claims unexpected results in that the defect rate decreased.
However, Inoue does discloses a difference at C2, Figs 8b-3 and Fig 9, between mating parts (nipple and socket) of 0.1 to 0.7 mm. (See Page 3, Paragraphs 6 or 7, last line). This falls within the claimed range of 0.05-0.7mm.
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, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 61-107695) as cited by applicant with references made to attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses, A graphite electrode (graphite electrode 30, See Fig 2) comprising:
a pole including a socket (pole in socket 10, See Fig 2) in an internal screw shape at an end portion (Figs 2 shows an internal screw shape); and
a nipple in an external screw shape (nipple 20 showing an external screw shape, screw axes of nipple 20 and sockets 10a and 10b match each other. See Page 2, Paragraph 9) that can be fastened to the socket, wherein
a value obtained by subtracting an effective diameter on a small diameter end side of the nipple from an effective diameter on a small diameter end side of the socket is 0.05 to 0.7 mm, (the effective diameter of the difference between the nipple and the socket is 0.7mm, See Page 2, Paragraphs 9-15) The value obtained by subtracting a taper angle of the socket from a taper angle of the nipple is -2 minutes to -3 minutes 30 seconds would be realized.
Inoue discloses the difference between the tapers, but fails to disclose a value obtained by subtracting a taper angle of the socket from a taper angle of the nipple is -2 minutes to -3 minutes 30 seconds. However, it would have been obvious to provide the claimed taper difference since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Altering the taper angle difference would affect the breakage. Selecting the appropriate taper angle would be based on how it would prevent breakage in the electrodes. (See Page 2, Paragraph 7, Page 2, Last 10 lines)
Regarding claim 3, Paragraph [0024] of the present application states the torque is related to the relation between the difference in nipple and socket diameter. As the diameter difference and taper difference are disclosed by the prior art, the loosening torque is at least 1.65 times greater than the tightening torque. Regarding claim 4, the electrode is used in an electric arc furnace. (See Page 1)
Claim(s) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai (JP 50-077945) as cited by applicant with references made to attached machine translation, in view of Inoue (JP 61-107695).
Regarding claim 2, Tokai discloses, A graphite electrode comprising: a pole including a socket in an internal screw shape at an end portion (electrode socket with internal screws, See Page 2, Lines 10-19); and a nipple in an external screw shape that can be fastened to the socket (nipple with external screw fastened to socket See Page 2, Lines 10-19), wherein a value obtained by subtracting a linear expansion coefficient of the nipple from a linear expansion coefficient of the pole is -0.4 to +0.5 (10-6 /oC). (In the structure, the nipples are constituted of a graphite material having α lXl0' /' C - α 5 × 10 -6 (axial thermal expansion coefficient (20 to 1006C) smaller than that of the main body of the electrodes. See Page 1, Lines 38-40)
The teachgins of Tokai have been discussed. Tokai fails to disclose the loosening torque is at least 1.65 times greater than the tightening torque.
However, regarding Inoue, as discussed above Paragraph [0024] of the present application states the torque is related to the relation between the difference in nipple and socket diameter. As the diameter difference and taper difference are disclosed by the prior art, the loosening torque is at least 1.65 times greater than the tightening torque.
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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/28/2026
Prosecution Insights