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 .
Examiner’s Claim Interpretation
Applicant includes the following equations in paragraphs [0044-0048] of the instant specification: LA + LB = Lc, LA+EA+LB+EB>Lc+Ec, (LA+LB)+EA+EB>Lc+Ec, Lc+EA+EB>Lc+Ec, EA + EB> Ec. “L” and “E” are never defined in the specification. As best as can be determined for examination purposes “L” will be interpreted as “Length” and “E” will be interpreted as “Elongation”. If such meanings are inconsistent with applicant’s understanding or with the art, clarification by applicant is requested.
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 9 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.
The term “elongated” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elongated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of elongation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the term “elongated” modifies the term rod; for example, the difference between an “elongated rod” and a “rod” is not clearly set forth. Furthermore, paragraph [0017] of the instant specification states that the assembly includes a rod, but does not mention to what degree, if any, it should be “elongated”. Claims 2-12 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
The term “heat resistant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heat resistant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of heat resistance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-12 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 uses the term “operable” to describe the elongated rod. It is unclear how the term “operable” modifies the term elongated rod, and with what function(s) this operability is associated. It is unclear as to what change or changes must occur to the rod to make it “operable”. It is also unclear as to what properties would make the rod (in)operable. The specification does not provide clarity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Claims 2-12 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claims 5 and 9 both claim that the elongated rod does not unload at a temperature “about 500 °C”. The term “about” 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 invention. It is unclear if temperatures close to 500 °C but not equal to 500 °C would be encompassed by the claim. one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 is identical to claim 1 and does not add a further limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US6106226 of Morando.
Claims 1 & 21 require a molten metal pump post comprising: an elongated rod of a first material that is heat resistant; an inner member at least partially surrounding the elongated rod wherein the inner member is of a second material; and wherein the elongated rod is operable due to a difference in a coefficient of thermal expansion between the elongated rod and the inner member which creates a compressive force.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando teaches a shaft which includes a prestressed, tubular shield that is in a state of longitudinal compression as it is being rotated, Para[0001]. Morando also teaches that the shield (equivalent to the claimed inner member), is of a material that has a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the shaft (equivalent to the claimed elongated rod), Para[0035]. Therefore, Morando covers all limitations of claims 1 & 21. Claims 2-12 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by stating that the first material of the elongated rod provides no compressive force at room temperature and provides compressive force at a temperature above 500°C.
While Morando does not specify the numerical limitation for temperature recited in claim 1, the prior art teaches the same product composed of the same materials as that claimed. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Morando covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the first material of the elongated rod comprises steel or a steel alloy.
Morando discloses a shaft, equivalent to elongated rod, of steel or a steel alloy, Para[0035]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 11 further limits claim 1 by claiming an outer sheath.
Morando discloses an outer shield (equivalent to an outer sheath), Para[0020]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the inner member is disposed between the rod and the outer sheath.
Morando teaches a shaft which includes a multi-layer shield assembly including an outer tubular ceramic shield (equivalent to an outer sheath), and an inner tubular ceramic shield (equivalent to an inner member), Para[0017]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13 claims an assembly for attaching an associated molten metal pump post to a component of a molten metal pump, the assembly comprising a rod having a first end that accommodates an elongated refractory element and an opposed end at least partially surrounded by an inner member wherein the assembly uses thermal expansion to create a compressive force.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando teaches a shaft which includes a prestressed, tubular shield that is in a state of longitudinal compression as it is being rotated, Para[0001]. Morando also teaches that the shield (equivalent to the claimed inner member), is of a material that has a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the shaft (equivalent to the claimed elongated rod), Para[0035]. Therefore, Morando covers all limitations of claim 13. Claims 14, 18-20 are rejected as they depend on claim 13.
Claim 14 further limits claim 13 by claiming that the rod comprises steel or a steel alloy.
Morando discloses a shaft (equivalent to elongated rod), of steel or a steel alloy, Para[0035]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 14.
Claim 18 further limits claim 13 by claiming an outer sheath.
Morando discloses an outer shield (equivalent to an outer sheath), Para[0020]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 18. Claim 19 is also rejected as it depends on claim 18.
Claim 19 further limits claim 18 by claiming that the inner member is disposed between the rod and the outer sheath.
Morando teaches a shaft which includes a multi-layer shield assembly including an outer tubular ceramic shield (equivalent to an outer sheath), and an inner tubular ceramic shield (equivalent to the claimed inner member), Para[0017]. Thus, Morando covers all limitations of claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6106226 of Morando in view of US3880055 of Nakamura.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the second material of the inner member comprises tungsten and/or titanium.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not disclose tungsten and/or titanium.
Nakamura teaches an injection pump for use in hot chamber type die cast machines in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nakamura teaches a cylinder with guide rings (equivalent to the claimed inner member), of tungsten, Para[0026]. Nakamura teaches that as a result of using tungsten, it is possible to use simple machine tools and cheap materials, thus decreasing the cost of manufacturing of the injection pump, Para[0039]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the inner member disclosed in Morando using tungsten to achieve a decreased cost of manufacturing. Thus, Morando in view of Nakamura covers all limitations of claim 4. Claim 5 is rejected as it depends on claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 4 by claiming that the elongated rod is preloaded with tension at room temperature and does not unload at a temperature about 500°C. It is unclear what is meant by about 500°C, see 112(b) above.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Morando does not specify the numerical limitation for temperature recited in claim 5, the prior art teaches the same product composed of the same materials as that claimed. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Morando in view of Nakamura covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6106226 of Morando in view of EP2518274 of McCaffrey.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion is at least 0.001852 ppm/°C.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not specifically disclose the numerical limitation for difference in coefficient of thermal expansion. However, Morando discloses the shield (equivalent to the claimed inner member), made of graphite or ceramic, Para[0004], and the shaft (equivalent to the claimed elongated rod), of steel, Para[0035]. It is well known in the art that steel has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 11 to 13 ppm/°C, and refractory graphite has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 0.5-2 ppm/°C.
McCaffrey teaches blade clearance control using high-CTE and low-CTE ring members in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. McCaffrey teaches ceramics and ceramic matrix composites (CMC) and have an exemplary CTE range of up to 2.5 ppm/C, Para[0015].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Morando and McCaffrey and well-known coefficient of thermal expansions, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials disclosed in Morando, achieving a difference of coefficient of thermal expansion between the steel and the ceramic/graphite in the range of 8.5 - 13 ppm/°C. This exceeds the claimed minimum of 0.001852 ppm/°C. Thus, Morando in view of McCaffrey covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by stating that the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion is at least 0.011109 ppm/°C.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not specifically disclose the numerical limitation for difference in coefficient of thermal expansion. However, Morando discloses the shield (equivalent to the claimed inner member), made of graphite or ceramic, Para[0004], and the shaft (equivalent to the claimed elongated rod), of steel, Para[0035]. It is well known in the art that steel has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 11 to 13 ppm/°C, and refractory graphite has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 0.5-2 ppm/°C.
McCaffrey teaches blade clearance control using high-CTE and low-CTE ring members in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. McCaffrey teaches ceramics and ceramic matrix composites (CMC) and have an exemplary CTE range of up to 2.5 ppm/C, Para[0015].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Morando and McCaffrey and well-known coefficient of thermal expansions, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials disclosed in Morando, achieving a difference of coefficient of thermal expansion between the steel and the ceramic/graphite in the range of 8.5 - 13 ppm/°C. This exceeds the claimed minimum of 0.011109 ppm/°C. Thus, Morando in view of McCaffrey covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6106226 of Morando in view of WO2016025676 of Henderson.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming the elongated rod comprises carbon-carbon.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not teach carbon-carbon.
Henderson discloses advanced material for molten metal processing equipment in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Henderson teaches C/C composites as molten pump components having thermal stability, high resistance to thermal shock due to high thermal conductivity, and low thermal expansion behavior, i.e., low thermal expansion coefficient. These materials are also characterized as having high toughness, strength and stiffness in high temperature applications, Para[0032]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the components disclosed in Morando using the carbon-carbon material disclosed in Henderson to achieve good high temperature properties. Thus, Morando in view of Henderson covers all limitations of claim 8. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as they depend on claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 8 by stating the elongated rod is preloaded with tension at room temperature and does not unload at a temperature about 500°C. It is unclear what is meant by about 500°C, see 112(b) above.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Morando does not specify the numerical limitation for temperature recited in claim 9, the prior art teaches the same product composed of the same materials as that claimed. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Morando in view of Henderson covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 20 further limits claim 13 by stating that the inner member comprises carbon-carbon and a packing material, such as a ceramic fiber, provided to reduce exposure of the inner member to an external atmosphere.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not teach carbon-carbon.
Henderson discloses advanced material for molten metal processing equipment in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Henderson teaches C/C composites as molten pump components having thermal stability, high resistance to thermal shock due to high thermal conductivity, and low thermal expansion behavior, i.e., low thermal expansion coefficient. These materials are also characterized as having high toughness, strength and stiffness in high temperature applications, Para[0032]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the components disclosed in Morando using the carbon-carbon material disclosed in Henderson to achieve good high temperature properties. Thus, Morando in view of Henderson covers all limitations of claim 20.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6106226 of Morando in view of WO2016025676 of Henderson further in view of US3612715 of Yedidiah.
Claim 10 further limits claim 8 by claiming a stainless-steel flange coupled to the elongated rod.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando does not teach a stainless-steel flange.
Henderson discloses advanced material for molten metal processing equipment in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Henderson discloses a flange, Para[0046], stainless steel is not taught.
Yedidiah teaches a pump for molten metal and other high-temperature corrosive liquids in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yedidiah discloses that Accordingly, the drive shaft, which includes a flange portion, may, in accordance with the invention, be constructed of a metallic material like stainless steel much more able to withstand the shear stresses developed during the pumping operation than the refractory drive shafts prevalent in the prior art, Para[0006].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Morando, Henderson and Yedidiah it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the elongated rod with a stainless-steel flange so it would be more able to withstand shear stresses developed during pumping. Thus, Morando in view of Henderson further in view of Yedidiah covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6887425 of Mordue in view of US6106226 of Morando.
Claim 22 further limits claim 21 by claiming a cap and a base.
Mordue teaches Shaft and post assemblies for molten metal apparatus in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Mordue teaches a steel shaft surrounded by a ceramic post, Para[0001]. Mordue also discloses a cap, Para[0001], and a base, Para[0002]. Mordue does not teach materials with different coefficient of thermal expansion.
Morando discloses a high velocity prestressed shaft for degasser or pumping application in molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Morando teaches materials having different coefficients of thermal expansions, Para[0035]. Morando discloses the advantage of this arrangement is that both shields are in positive compression, the compression prevents the shield material, such as a ceramic, from experiencing tensile loads as the vibrating shaft is rotated, Para[0005].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the assembly disclosed in Mordue, including a cap and a base, using the materials with differing coefficient of thermal expansions disclosed in Morando in order to keep the shield, or inner member, in positive compression. Thus, Mordue in view of Morando covers all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 23 further limits claim 22 by claiming the cap is removably coupled to the base.
Mordue teaches that the rod extends through the base and includes a threaded end on which graphite cap is secured, Para[0065]. Therefore, Mordue in view of Morando covers all limitations of claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733