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.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites in lines 1-2, “The tundish according to claim 1” “a higher boundary.” The language is unclear and it appears that --, wherein-- should be inserted between “claim 1” and “a higher boundary”.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya (US 2015/0273579) in view of Vassilicos (US 5,511,766) and Suer et al (US 6,074,600).
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharya teaches a tundish (paragraph [0032], fig 1, tundish 10) for continuous metal casting, defining a cavity (figs 1-2, paragraph [0032], chamber or reservoir 18), wherein the cavity has a cavity height measured along a vertical axis, a cavity length measured along a longitudinal axis, and a cavity width measured along a transverse axis, with X ꓕ Y ꓕ Z (see figs 1-2), and wherein the cavity comprises:
an inlet portion (figs 1-2, see lower part of ladle shroud 22) configured for receiving a flow of metal melt discharged by gravity from an outside of the tundish into the cavity of the tundish (figs 1-2);
an outlet portion comprising an outlet (figs 1-2, output port 34) configured for discharging the metal melt out of the cavity into a mould (figs 1-2, functional limitation, paragraph [0003], for caster mold);
a filtering system (figs 1-2, weir 26 and dam 30) separating over the whole cavity width the inlet portion from the outlet portion (figs 1-2, see weir 26 dividing the tundish into right and left compartments, paragraph [0033]), the filtering system comprising a filter module (figs 1-2, dam 30) extending over the whole cavity width and extending inside said cavity (figs 1-2), wherein the filter module comprises an inlet side facing the inlet portion of the tundish (figs 1-2, see right side of dam as inlet side) and extending from a floor of the cavity to a top surface whose shortest distance from the floor measured along the vertical axis is equal to a minimum filter module height (figs 1-2, shows a height from the floor), and wherein the filter module comprises a filter unit extending over a filter height along the vertical axis and provided with channels (figs 1-2, cylindrical passages 30a) extending,
from a channel inlet, opening at an inlet side facing the inlet portion of the tundish (figs 1-2, note the inlet of passages 30a is on the right),
to a channel outlet, opening at an outlet side of the filter module facing the outlet portion and separated from the inlet side by a filter depth (figs 1-2, note the outlet of passages 30a is on the left, thus having a filter depth), and
a wall module comprising a wall (figs 1-2, weir 26) extending over the whole cavity width and extending inside said cavity (figs 1-2), and defining one or more openings distributed over a width of the wall (figs 1-2, passage 26a) and over an opening height measured along the vertical axis from the floor (figs 1-2, see height of passage 26a),
wherein the filter module is arranged closer to the outlet than the wall module (figs 1-2, dam 30 is closer to outlet on the left than weir 26), and a bypass passage is defined between the wall module and the filter module (figs 1-2, see space between the dam 30 and weir 26, paragraph [0041], molten steel flows over the dam or through the passages 30a) of largest width measured along the longitudinal axis (figs 1-2, note width between dam 30 and weir 26), such that the metal melt can only flow from the inlet portion to the inlet side of the filter module through the one or more openings, and from the one or more openings to the outlet portion by flowing either through the channels of the filter unit or through the bypass passage (figs 1-2, paragraph [0041]).
Bhattacharya fails to teach a wall ledge protrudes from the wall of the wall module at a wall ledge distance from the floor not larger than the minimum filter module height, and extends towards the inlet side of the filter module without contacting the filter module, the wall ledge having a width measured along the longitudinal axis, wherein 20 mm < t2L < t12,
a filter ledge protrudes from the inlet side of the filter module at a filter ledge distance from the floor greater than the opening height, and is offset relative to the wall ledge, the filter ledge extending towards the wall module without contacting either the wall module or the wall ledge, the filter ledge having a width measured along the longitudinal axis, wherein 20 mm < tiL < t12, and
a ratio, of the sum of the widths of the filter and wall ledges to the largest width of the bypass passage, is higher than 20%.
Vassilicos teaches a tundish (fig 1, col 1 lines 5-12) having a filtration apparatus, having one or more filter walls suitable for filtration of molten metal (col 2 lines 20-50), the filter wall location depending on the size of the inclusions desired to be filtered from the molten metal (col 2 lines 40-50). Vassilicos further teaches to cause increased deposition of inclusions on one or more refractory ball walls placed in the tundish upstream from the filter wall (col 2 lines 60-67). One or more of said refractory baffle walls, interior longitudinal side walls, and end walls of the tundish, filter walls, and bottom are fabricated with small protrusions on one or more planar surfaces (col 2 line 65 - col 3 line 3). The refractory protrusions enhance the deposition of inclusions in molten metal by disrupting the boundary layer of flowing molten metal adjacent to the refractory surfaces as it flows over and around these protrusions (col 3 lines 1-10). The protrusions protrude a distance which is preferably in a range from about ¼ inch to about 3 inches in a direction normal to the direction of molten metal flow (col 7 lines 20-45) and in one embodiment, the protrusions may be horizontally elongated as shown in figure 12, so as to extend continuously from one upright edge of the primary baffle wall to an opposite upright edge thereof (col 7 lines 20-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhattacharya such that the wall module (weir 26) and the filter module (dam 30) further include elongated ledges that protrude a distance in the range of ¼ inch to about 3 inches (overlapping the claimed range of greater than 20 mm) as shown in Vassilicos (figs 1 and 12), as Vassilicos teaches that the protrusions may be include on one or more of said baffle walls, filter walls, etc (col 2 line 65 - col 3 line 3) and that said protrusions enhance the deposition of inclusions (col 3 lines 1-10), thus improving the removing of impurities from the molten metal in the tundish.
The combination of Bhattacharya and Vassilicos still fails to teach a ratio, of the sum of the widths of the filter and wall ledges to the largest width of the bypass passage, is higher than 20%.
However, note that Vassilicos teaches a dam that is immediately downstream from the primary baffle wall so as to provide assistance in directing the molten metal flow up the downstream side of the baffle wall (fig 1, col 7 lines 55-65).
Suer et al teaches a tundish for continuous casting molten steel (abstract) including a weir (26) and a ramp (36) (fig 4) including a first surface adjacent the weir (col 4 lines 30-60). Suer et al teaches an example of a tundish of length 4 m (col 4 lines 55-67), the weir position 16.5 cm above the floor (col 4 lines 55-67), second ramp 36 having an elevation of 18.0 cm above the floor (col 5 lines 40-55), with the horizontal surface 54 position 30 cm away from weir 26 whereas the inclined surface was position 18.0 cm away from weir 26 (col 5 lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to optimize the ratio between the sum of the distances of the ledge to the distance between the weir and the dam, as Vassilicos teaches the distances of the ledges are preferably ¼ to 3 inches (col 7 lines 20-45), Suer et al teaches exemplary distances (col 5 lines 40-60) and that Vassilicos recognizes that the dam is immediately downstream of the baffle so as to provide assistance in directing the molten metal flow upwards (col 7 lines 55-65), thereby further enhancing the inclusion deposition.
"[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 2, the combination teaches a ratio of the opening height to the filter module height is between 20% and 95% (Suer et al shows example of opening height at 16.5 cm and the ramp height at 18 cm, thus 16.5/18 = 92%).
Furthermore, Vassilicos teaches (col 7 lines 55-65) that the dam height is near the level of the top opening of primary baffle so as to direct the molten metal flow up the downstream side of the primary baffle wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of heights so as to control the flow of molten metal so as to enhance the deposition of inclusions on the protrusions of the walls.
"[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 3, the combination suggests the ratio of the sum of the widths of the filter and wall ledges to the largest width of the bypass passage is lower than 150% (see rejection of claim 1, would have been obvious to optimize the distance between the weir and the dam for controlling flow so as to increase deposition of inclusions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the wall module comprises a single opening extending from a lower boundary separated from the floor by a distance of 0% to 5% of the cavity height to a lower edge of the wall, defining the opening height as the distance separating the floor from the most remote point of the lower edge (see Bhattacharya, fig 1, showing the opening being 0% from the floor).
Regarding claim 5, Bhattacharya is quiet to the wall module comprises more than one opening, wherein a top opening is defined as the opening having a boundary most remote from the floor, separated from the floor by the opening height.
Vassilicos teaches the baffle wall having two rows of circular passages (10) for the passage of molten metal (fig 7-8, col 7 lines 1-15). Vassilicos also teaches that passages are sized according to a predetermined volume to be filtered and desired flow rate (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to include more than one opening, as Vassilicos teaches more than one opening is known, and that the passages are sized depending on the desired flow rate and volume to be filtered.
Regarding claim 6, the combination is quiet to a ratio of the opening height to the cavity height is between 10% and 60%.
However, Vassilicos teaches an opening height as shown in figure 1, to be near the base of the baffle wall, and that the openings permit molten metal to flow freely and unfiltered through the primary baffle wall (col 7 lines 1-15). Vassilicos also teaches that a ferrostatic head differential results in the molten steel flow rate (col 4 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height position of the opening of the weir, such as to be between 10% and 60%, as Vassilicos recognizes selecting positions so as to operate with a desired ferrostatic head differential to achieve a desired molten metal flow rate.
"[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 7, the combination is quiet to a straight line extending between the floor in the inlet portion and the outlet portion passing through the bypass passage either does not exist or forms an angle with the vertical of not more than 70°C.
However, note that the angle of the hypothetical straight line depends on the height of the dam (fig 2 of Bhattacharya) and the distance between the dam and the weir (fig 2 of Bhattacharya). Suer et al, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, describes exemplary distances between the weir and the flat portion of the ramp. Note that in Suer et al, the horizontal surface 54 was position 30 cm away from weir 26 and being 18 cm above the floor (col 5 lines 40-65). Thus, in this example, a straight line extending from the floor in the inlet portion (just at the opening of the weir) through the bypass passage, is calculated as arctan (18cm/30cm) is approx. 31°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to optimize the distance between the weir and the dam, so that the dam can provide assistance in directing the molten metal flow upwards (Vassilicos, col 7 lines 55-65), thereby further enhancing the inclusion deposition. Note that as the distance between the dams can be calculated, the resulting angle of the hypothetical straight line would be optimized as a result, with the exemplary calculations above.
"[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 8, the combination is quiet to the filter ledge distance is larger than the wall ledge distance.
However, note that Vassilicos teaches protrusions for each wall having a distance preferably in the range of ¼ inch to 3 inches (col 7 lines 20-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the filter ledge distance to be larger than the wall ledge distance, as Vassilicos teaches the ledges may range from ¼ inch to 3 inches, and that there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the selection of the sizes of each of the ledges (such as whether the filter ledge is larger than wall ledge, the filter ledge has the same distance as wall ledge, or the wall ledge is larger than filter ledge). See MPEP 2143(I)(E), where the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination teaches wherein the wall module comprises more than one wall ledge and more than one filter ledge, parallel to one another, never contacting each other and distributed over a height of the wall module and filter module (note combination, Vassilicos, col 7 lines 20-45, spaced protrusions, protrusions may be elongated).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the bypass passage imposes an inversion of a flow direction component along the longitudinal axis of the metal melt to flow from the inlet portion to the outlet portion of the cavity (see combination, note Bhattacharya, fig 1-2, note flow through passage 26a is directed upwards over dam 30).
Regarding claim 12, the combination is quiet to a higher boundary of the filter unit is separated from the floor by a distance, such that a ratio of the distance to the opening height is between 0.7 and 1.2.
However, Vassilicos teaches that the filter elements are placed near the base of the filter wall (col 4 lines 5-20) so as to achieve a desired ferrostatic head differential to achieve a desired molten steel flow rate (col 4 lines 5-20). Vassilicos teaches that other arrangements of the filter elements would be apparent to achieve the same results (col 4 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the position of the filter elements, such as to be placed so that a ratio of the distance to the opening height is between 0.7 and 1.2, as Vassilicos recognizes the position is selected so as to operate with a desired ferrostatic head differential to achieve a desired molten metal flow rate.
"[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 13, the combination teaches a wall ledge protrudes from a portion of a width of the wall (note combination, Vassilicos, fig 12, col 7 lines 20-45, discloses extending whole width, which meets “a portion,” also note however that the protrusions may be in the shape of the protrusions in figure 2 which are a portion of the width).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein the filter ledge protrudes from a portion of a width of the inlet side of the filter module, or a whole width of the inlet side of the filter module (note combination, Vassilicos, fig 12, col 7 lines 20-45, discloses extending whole width, which meets “a portion,” also note however that the protrusions may be in the shape of the protrusions in figure 2 which are a portion of the width).
Regarding claim 15, the combination is quiet to wherein a lower boundary of the filter unit is separated from the floor of the cavity by a distance of between 0 and 10 cm.
However, Vassilicos teaches that the filter elements are placed near the base of the filter wall (col 4 lines 5-20) so as to achieve a desired ferrostatic head differential to achieve a desired molten steel flow rate (col 4 lines 5-20). Vassilicos teaches that other arrangements of the filter elements would be apparent to achieve the same results (col 4 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the position of the filter elements to be placed near the base of the filter wall, such as within the claimed distance of 0 and 10 cm from the floor, as Vassilicos recognizes the lower position so as to operate with a desired ferrostatic head differential to achieve a desired molten metal flow rate.
"[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 16, the combination teaches wherein a wall ledge protrudes form a whole width of the wall (note combination, Vassilicos, fig 12, col 7 lines 20-45, discloses extending whole width).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights