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 .
Status of Previous Rejection
All prior art rejections are maintained from previous office action of 05/29/2026.
In addition, a new ground of art rejection is rendered in view of amendment of claim 1.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4,7-8,11-13,15-17,20-24 and 27-29 are pending. Claims 1-4,7-8,11-13,15 and 27-29 are presented for this examination. Claims 16-17 and 20-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4,7-8,11,13 are amended. Claims 27-29 are added.
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 1-4,7-8,11-13,15 and 27-29 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.
Instant claim 1 recites “the phase of the refractory material” and “the phase of a matrix part of the refractory material”. It is unclear what is means by “the phase of a matrix part of the refractory material”.
It is noted applicant asserts that a matrix part of the refractory material refers to the part that does not include granular material. it should be noted granular material is merely the starting precursor material to make the refractory material, not the final composition of the refractory material.
Since instant claim 1 is directed to the refractory material itself and the claimed refractory does not encompass granular material. Whether a matrix part of the refractory material refers to the part that does not include starting precursor granular material is product by process and hence is not given patentable distinction over prior art according to MPEP 2113.
Hence, the term “matrix” is given the broadest and reasonable interpretation which is defined as all the constituents of the refractory material. Hence, the phase of the refractory material and the phase of a matrix part of the refractory material are interpreted as the phase of the same refractory material.
As a result of rejected claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claim 1 required “one or more selected from CA6, CMA, corundum and ZrO2” is interpreted as any one of CA6, CMA, corundum and ZrO2. Hence, if prior art teaches any one of CA6, CMA, corundum and ZrO2 with respective phase content, it reads on the claim.
Instant claims 8, 11-13, 15 and 28-29 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.
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) 1-2, 4,7-8,11-13,15 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (CN102531555A).
As for claims 1-2,4,7-8,11-13,15 and 28-29, Yu discloses a refractory material. Example 1 [0021] having CA6 at 85.8% and Al2O3 14.2%. Hence, instant claims 1-2 are met. Since CA6 is presented by formula CaAl12O19 [0021] last line, using molecular weight of CaO of 56.077, 6(Al2O3) of 611.77 and CaAl12O19 is 667.85, the chemical composition of the refractory material is expected to have Al2O3 at 92.7%, CaO at 7.2%. Hence, instant claims 4 and 7 are met.
Instant claims 8, 11-13, 15 and 28-29 are considered, but are not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretations above.
Claim(s) 1-4,7-8,11-13,15 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (CN108178639A).
As for claims 1-4, 7-8, 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. 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, 15 and 28-29 are considered, but are not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretations above.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11-13, 15 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dong (CN113173796A).
As for claims 1-2, 8, 11-13, 15 and 28-29, Dong discloses Table 1 an AMC complex phase refractory material comprising CA6 7-15%, C2M2A14 50-60%. Hence, instant claims 1-2 is met.
Instant claims 8, 11-13, 15 and 28-29 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, 15 and 28-29 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, 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong.
As for claims 2-4, 7 and 27, 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 claim 2 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%. Table 1 ([0038]) discloses bulk density >=3.25 g/cm3 which overlaps claim 27 required 2.9-3.65 g/cm3.
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, 6-7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN107602136A)
As for claims 2, 4, 6-7 and 27, 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. Claim 4 discloses bulk density >=2.8 g/cm3 which overlaps claim 27 required 2.9-3.65 g/cm3.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu.
As for claim 3, Yu discloses 1-2% of sintering aid [0010] which overlaps claimed <=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) 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and evidenced by APA (Applicant’s admitted prior art).
As for claim 27, Yu suggests Table 1 [0026] that as porosity reduces, bulk density increases. That is, Yu suggests porosity is a result effective variable to arrive at desired bulk density. APA (instant application PGPUB[0013]) further evidences that bulk density of 2.6-2.9 g/cm3 is well known in the art.
If a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective ,then the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said parameter might be characterized as routine experimentation.
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have reduced the result-effective variable of porosity, in refractory material Yu in order to achieve a higher bulk density such as 2.9% as evidenced by APA. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 08/31/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to argument that identity of the matrix part of the refractory material and its relationship to the refractory material itself is clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of original disclosure, argument is completely unpersuasive because instant claim 1 is directed to a product, not a process of making. Since matrix part of the refractory material is not a well known term in the art, defining a relationship to the refractory material itself by is not a clear definition of what the matrix part is, it merely disclose what the matrix part does not have.
Second, applicant’s assertion that “The said matrix part of the refractory material refers to the part that does not include granular material” is a clear definition of relationship to the refractory material itself is also incorrect. There is no evidence in the original specification that suggests the refractory material itself includes granular material because granular material is NOT the comprising element of refractory material. It is merely a starting precursor material to make the refractory material.
Third, granular material is not part of refractory material. Instead, it is merely a starting precursor material to be mixed with a fine powder to form a mixture before the mixture is sintered to produce the refractor material. Whether the matrix part of the refractory material includes the granular material is product by process limitation, which is not given patentable distinction in a product claim.
For the above reasons, matrix part of the refractory material is given the broadest and reasonable interpretation.
In response to argument that Li/Dong/Liu does not disclose the phase content of CA6, nor does it disclose the total phase content of CA6 and CMA as required by instant claim 1, argument is completely incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which merely requires “one or more of CA6, CMA, corundum and ZrO2”. Hence, examiner takes the position that as long Li/Dong/Liu discloses CMA content as claimed, it reads on phase content of CMA and total phase content of CA6 and CMA according to claim interpretation above.
In response to argument that applicant demonstrated unexpected result, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which does not require alleged performance (ie. average size of the inclusion, the depth of slag erosion and slag penetration).
Second, alleged performance is an inherent characteristic of refractory material according to MPEP 2112.01.
Third, When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, Yu discloses CA6 phase amount as claimed, it is expected to have the allegedly superior performance absent clear and convincing evidence of the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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