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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “valve member”, recited in claim 4, and the “pressure sensor” recited in claims 8 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next
Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to because in figure 1, it appears the position of the “first section 5a” and the “second section 5b” of the discharge piping has been interchanged based on the description in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in specification page 14, line 1, “calibrated orifice 24” should be “calibrated orifice 26”, since the numerical label designate “orifice plate” in the figure 1 for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 2-4, it is suggested to replace “a plurality of cooling arrangements comprising each a set of cooling elements arranged to extract heat from the furnace, the cooling elements having each at least one internal cooling channel for a coolant fluid,” with -- a plurality of cooling arrangements, each comprising a set of cooling elements arranged to extract heat from the furnace, the cooling elements, each having at least one internal cooling channel for a coolant fluid, --.
In claim 5, it is suggested to replace “wherein the flow regulating arrangement comprises: a first conduit connected to receive the entire coolant flow from the cooling arrangement, said calibrated orifice being arranged in said first conduit; and a second conduit parallel to said first conduit, which comprises the regulating valve” with --wherein the regulating arrangement comprises: a first conduit connected to receive the entire coolant flow from the cooling arrangement, said calibrated orifice being arranged in said first conduit; and a second conduit that comprises a regulating valve being arranged parallel to said first conduit--. For claim language clarity. 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 1-16 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 the limitation “a regulating valve selectively operable to define a variable, additional flow cross-section” in lines 15-16. This claimed limitation appears confusing in that it is unclear if the limitation is intended to be interpreted as: (1) the regulating valve selectively operable to define an additional flow cross-section that is variable (i.e., because the flow cross section of a valve is varies based on the degree of turning or degree of actuation by an actuation controller) or (2) the regulating valve selectively operable to define a variable that is an additional flow cross-section. The scope of the claim is therefore rendered indefinite due to the above stated ambiguity in meaning.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “wherein the regulating valve includes a movable valve member, and wherein the calibrated orifice is arranged in the valve member”. However, because the “valve member” is not shown in any of the figures or the structure clearly described in the specification, the essential structural cooperative relationships between the movable valve member of the regulating valve and the calibrated orifice cannot be ascertained for a prior art to be applied. The is therefore indefinite since the scope is unascertainable. For prosecution purposes the claim has been interpreted by the Examiner as “the regulating valve arranged proximate the
calibrated orifice in the flow regulating arrangement” as illustrated in figures 1 and 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the downstream-most cooling elements" in line 2, and “the other part” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each one of these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the
claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menu (US Patent No. 3,799,524).
Regarding claim 1, Menu teaches a cooling system (i.e., cooling panel arrangement, see figures 1 and 3, abstract and column 1, lines 28-35 and lines 45-60) for a metallurgical furnace (i.e., steel making converter (see figure 1 and column 1, lines 1-8) comprising: a plurality of cooling arrangements comprising each a set of cooling elements (i.e., the row arrangement of the set of cooling panels (26 and 28), see figures 1-3 and column 2, lines 23-60, also see column 1, lines 45-55) arranged to extract heat from the furnace (see column 1, lines 28-33), the cooling elements having each at least one internal cooling channel (i.e., the cooling channels in the panels defined by inlet port and outlet port, see column 1, lines 50-60,column 2, lines 35-40 and column 2, line 60-column 3, line 12) for a coolant fluid wherein the cooling elements are fluidly connected within each cooling arrangement (see figures 1-3 and column 2, line 60-column 3, line 12); at least one discharge piping (i.e., outlet conduit (20), see figure 3 and column 2, line 65-column 3, line 12) associated with each cooling arrangement for discharging the coolant fluid from the cooling arrangement towards a main collector (i.e. semicircular mains (24), see column 2, line 59-column 3, line 12, also see column 1, lines 61-65 and figures 1-3); wherein a flow regulating arrangement is serially integrated within the discharge piping and configured to control a flow rate of the coolant fluid therethrough and hence through the cooling arrangement; wherein the flow regulating arrangement includes a calibrated orifice (see column 1, line 65-68) and a regulating valve (see column 1, lines 65-68).
Menu specifically teaches that the calibrated orifice and the regulating valve are provided to control the flow of cooling fluid through each cooling panel (see column 1, lines 65-68); however, fails to expressly state that the calibrated orifice is operable to define a default, minimal flow cross section for the coolant fluid, and the regulating valve is selectively operable to define an additional flow cross-section that is variable as the claim appear to suggest. However, it is noted that because Menu teaches the same structural features as claimed, namely calibrated orifice and regulating valve, adapted
for use for the same application in the same furnace cooling system as claimed, it would
necessarily flow and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the calibrated orifice and
regulating valve would be expected to perform the same function and provide the same benefit as in the cooling system of Menu in the same way as the instant claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Menu teaches a cooling system (i.e., cooling panel arrangement, see figures 1 and 3, abstract and column 1, lines 28-35 and lines 45-60) in which the cooling elements (i.e., cooling panels (26 and 28), see figures 1-3) are in fluid communication with one another, wherein the cooling elements are arranged vertically and/or horizontally to one another (see figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Menu teaches a cooling system in wherein each cooling arrangement of the plurality of cooling arrangements is arranged to cover a predetermined angular sector of a furnace (see in figures 1 -3 the cooling panels (26 and 28) of the cooling system are arranged as such). Menu shows substantially all aspects of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Menu in figures 1 -3 shows a cooling system in which each
cooling arrangement is composed of a plurality of vertical columns of cooling elements (26 and 28) comprising a plurality of cooling channels; and within each column, the cooling elements are fluidly connected in series (also see column 1, lines 60-65).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Menu in figures 1 and 4 shows at least a metallurgical furnace in a form of a converter comprising an outer metal jacket (i.e. metal vessel wall of shell 12, also see column 2, lines 23-28 and lines 48-56) and a cooling system with cooling elements (26 and 28, see figures 1-3 and column 2, lines 23-60, also see column 1, lines 45-55) that are arranged in rows and columns to protect the outer metal jacket, wherein the cooling arrangements are configured to each cover a respective angular sector; wherein the cooling system comprises four cooling arrangements, and each covering one quadrant of the furnace circumference (see figures 1-4 and column 2, lines 23-28 and lines 48-56).
Claims 2, 3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menu (US Patent No. 3,799,524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saarinen et al. (US Paten t No. 8,568,022).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 7-9, Menu fails to expressly teach a cooling system in which the regulating valve is an automatic valve controlled by a control unit depending on sensor signal(s) received from one or more sensor device(s) arranged at predetermined locations in the cooling arrangements, the valve that is a butterfly valve or gate valve, and a piping having a sensor device that comprises one or more of a temperature sensor, a flow sensor and a pressure sensor.
Saarinen et al. teaches a cooling system for cooling a metallurgical furnace (see
Saarinen et al. abstract) that comprises an automatic regulating valve in a form of a butterfly valve (12, see Saarinen et al., figures 1 and 2 and column 4, lines 30-36, column 5, lines 45-53 and column 6, lines 8-15 and lines 33-40) controlled by a control unit with an embedded computer program (see Saarinen et al., column 2, line 63-column 3, line 6); wherein the control of the control valve by the control unit depends on sensor signal (i.e., alarm Saarinen et al., column 5, line 60-column 6, line 8 and column 6, lines 24-33) received from one or more sensor device (i.e., thermometer (8&9), pressure indicator (13), and flow meter (11) see Saarinen et al. , figures 1 and 2, column 4, line 53- column 5, line 30, column 5, lines 54-58 and column 6, lines 1-65) that are arranged at predetermined locations in the cooling arrangements, and wherein the control unit is configured to actuate the regulating valve based on the temperature determined from the sensor signal (see figures 1 and 2, column 4, line 53- column 5, line 30, column 5, lines 54-58 and column 6, lines 1-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the cooling system of Menu to use a controller that is communicatively linked to the control valve, and the sensing devices including temperature sensor, pressure sensor and flowrate sensor as exemplified by Saarinen et al. in order to perform real time monitoring of the performance of the cooling arrangement for cooling the metallurgical furnace.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menu (US Patent No. 3,799,524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kilpela et al. (US 2005/0221004).
Regarding claim 4, Menu teaches a furnace cooling panel having a flow
regulating arrangement that comprises a calibrated orifice and regulating valve (see column 1, lines 65-68) but fails to expressly teach the position of the flow regulating valve along the flow regulating arrangement relative to the calibrated orifice. (i.e., based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim).
Kilpela et al. teaches a fluid/gas flow control system in which the gas delivery piping or conduit is provided with a gas flow control or regulating valve (108, see Kilpela et al., figures 1a-1d and para [0037]- [0040]) and at least one pre-calibrated orifice (112, see Kilpela et al., figures 1a-1d and para [0037]- [0040]) that acts as a choked-flow
element position proximate the gas flow control or regulating valve along the gas
delivery piping or conduit (see Kilpela et al., figures 1a-1d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow regulating arrangement of Menu to arrange the calibrated orifice proximate the flow regulating valve along the flow regulating arrangement as exemplified by Kilpela et al., so as to acts as a choked-flow element that would provide the function and benefit of quickly switching on and off the fluid flow quickly as the cooling process requires (see Kilpela et al., para [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action
and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, Menu, Saarinen et al. and Kilpela et al., either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest:
As in claim 5: a regulating arrangement that comprises a first conduit connected to receive the entire coolant flow from the cooling arrangement, and a calibrated orifice arranged in said first conduit; and a second conduit that comprises a regulating valve being arranged parallel to said first conduit.
As in claim 12: a discharge piping comprises a first section, wherein the first
section comprises an exit line for conducting the fluid towards an intermediate collector,
and wherein the exit line comprises at least one of a flow meter, a temperature sensor,
a shuttle valve and a venting device.
As in claim 14: a part of internal coolant channels of a downstream-most cooling elements of the cooling arrangement being connected to a first intermediate collector of a first discharge piping with integrated flow regulating arrangement; and another part of the internal coolant channels of the downstream-most cooling elements of the cooling arrangement being connected to a second intermediate collector of a second discharge piping with integrated flow regulating arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kudinov et al. (US 4,250,840), Cordier et al. (US 4,398,701), Schechter et al. (US 4,899,714) and Andoniev et al. (US 4,061,317) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759