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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly amended claim 16 which is directed to a non-elected process claim; and all subsequent dependent claims 17-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-24 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 are presented for this examination. Claims 16-24 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/20/2023, 01/29/2025, 06/04/2025, 02/12/2026 and 04/30/2026 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 6-7 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sintering-promoting component" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "the matrix part of the refractory material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
It is further unclear what is the difference between the refractory material of claim 1 and the matrix part of the refractory material of claims 6 and 7. The term “matrix” is given the broadest and reasonable interpretation which is defined as all the constituents of the refractory material. Hence, the matrix part of the refractory material of claims 6 and 7 are interpreted as the same refractory material of claim 1
The terms “high temperature”, “norma temperature” and “low temperature” in claim 13 are all relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high”, “normal” and “low” are 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.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claims 8, 11-13 and 15 are product by process limitations in a product claims. According to MPEP 2113, determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product. Examiner takes the positions that if prior art discloses the same refractory material with same phase as required by claim 1, then it reads on claim 1.
Second, because term “preferably” means ideally and if possible, it is considered as optional term. Hence, all limitations following optional terms “preferably”, “more preferably” are not given patentable distinction over prior art.
Instant claim 1 “with the function of cleaning molten steel” is intended use and preamble of claimed product.
Because the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than a claim limitation, no patentable weight would be given. See MPEP 2111.02 II or if a Prior Art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (CN108178639A).
As for claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15, Li discloses a high purity C2M2A14 (i.e. claimed CMA phase) refractory material with the function of purifying molten steel (Abstract). (Claim 2), the phase content of C2M2A14 is 98-100% as required by instant claims 1-2 and 6. The chemical composition of the refractory material comprises Al2O3, MgO and CaO. Hence, instant claim 3 required sintering promoting component is expected to be 0%. Example 1 ([0015]) discloses Al2O3 88.84%, MgO 4.23%, CaO 6.93% by mass. Hence, instant claims 4 and 7 chemical compositions ranges are met.
Instant claims 8, 11-13 and 15 are considered, but are not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretations above.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dong (CN113173796A).
As for claims 1, 8, 11-13, and 15, Dong discloses Table 1 an AMC complex phase refractory material comprising CA6 7-15%, C2M2A14 50-60%. Hence, instant claim 1 is met.
Instant claims 8, 11-13 and 15 are considered, but is not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretations above.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (CN107602136A)
As for claims 1, 3, 8, 11-13, and 15, Liu discloses a refractory material for tundish, the phase of the material is calcium hexaluminate (i.e. CA6 as claimed) and the corundum phase. (Abstract) Hence, Liu anticipated instant claim 1.
Liu does not disclose any sintering promoting component. Hence, instant claim 3 is met.
Instant claims 8, 11-13 and 15 are considered, but is not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretations above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong.
As for claims 2-4 and 6-7, Dong discloses 30-95% AMC complex phase, which suggests total phase content overlaps claimed >=90%. Table 1 the compositions of CA6 7-15%, C2M2A14 50-60% are within claims 2 and 6 required CA6 and CMA phase range. Table 1 also discloses Al2O3>=85%, MgO<=8%, CaO<=7%. Hence, Al2O3, MgO and CaO all overlap with claims 4 and 7. Same Table 1 illustrated sintering promoting component such as Fe2O3 <=0.8 and SiO2 <=0.8. Hence, summation of Fe2O3 and SiO2 is <=1.6%, which overlaps claim 3 required <=1.5%.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN107602136A)
As for claims 2, 4 and 6-7, Liu discloses the main phase calcium hexaluminate is >=80%, which overlaps claims 2 and 6 required %. [0008] The material comprises Al2O3 85-94.5%, MgO 0-6% and CaO 5-9% [0007], which overlaps instant claims 4 and 7 required composition ranges.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights