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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 3- Claims 8-10 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 01 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected composite additive and method for preparing the composite additive, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01 June 2026.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner inadvertently omitted claim 8 from the restriction requirement mailed on 01 June 2026. Claim 8 is included in Group 3 with claims 9-10 and 19-20 which is the invention that applicant elected in the reply filed on 20 July 2026. Group 3, including claim 8 is examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 March 2024 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112442568A (machine translation) of Ouyang in view of CN102827999A (machine translation) of Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Ouyang discloses a composite deoxidizer for oxide metallurgy and application in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ouyang teaches steelmaking using a converter, Para[0016]. Ouyang discloses converter tapping of the steel resulting in molten steel, Para[0016, 0017]. Ouyang teaches adjusting the composition of the steel by using tapping converter alloy materials, Para[0040]. Ouyang adjusts the temperature of the steel to 1597 °C, Para[0040]. Ouyang also teaches a ladle, Para[0017]. Ouyang discloses pre-oxidation of the steel with SiMn composite deoxidation, Para[0016], and a final deoxidation, Para[0017, 0018], using a deoxidizer containing Ti: 18-23%, Ce: 10-14%, Mg: 5-8%, Zr: 4-7% by mass percentage, and the rest It is the other associated element in the original alloy, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the Ti, rare earth (RE), and Zr ranges of the claimed invention. The range for Fe would also overlap as it would be the other associated element in the original steel alloy taught by Ouyang and one of ordinary skill in the art could select within the elemental ranges of Ouyang resulting in an Fe percentage that falls within the claimed range of 41-59%. For example, Ti: 21%, Ce: 12%, Mg: 8%, and Zr: 6% would result in an Fe value of 53%. These values would also result in a (Ti+Mg+RE)/Zr value of 6.8. This falls within the claimed range of 4-8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ouyang discloses refining the molten steel by vacuum degassing or Ruhrstahl-Heraeus refining, Para[0033], followed by continuous casting, Para[0033]. While, Ouyang teaches the controlling of inclusions through the combined use of different element, Para[0007], Ouyang does not specifically mention core-shell structure as in the preamble of claim 1. However, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation, see MPEP 2111.02. Since Ouyang discloses the full composition of the composite additive in the claim body, the core-shell structure recited in the preamble is not a claim limitation. Ouyang’s range for Mg is lower than the claimed range.
Chen discloses a magnesium deoxidation composite powder for molten steel deoxidation and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Chen teaches that the present invention provides a kind of smelting iron and steel with magnesia deoxidation compound powder, its component (weight percent): passivation Mg powder: 10%～50%, Para[0011]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Chen discloses that Mg adds the transition process that will experience Mg (s) → Mg (l) → Mg (g) → [Mg] in the molten steel, dissolve, deoxidation, desulphurization reaction, partly will scaling loss in the process of adding, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of magnesium taught by Chen in the deoxidizer of Ouyang in order to deoxidize the molten steel. Thus, Ouyang in view of Chen covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 10 further limits claim 8 by claiming that in step (2), an amount of the composite additive added per ton of the pre-deoxidated molten steel is 0.51-4.9 kg.
Ouyang discloses that the converter tapping volume is 139.49 tons, Para[0028], and the deoxidizer is in the form of a cored wire that is 361m, Para[0031], and weighs 310g/m, Para[0026]. This corresponds to an amount of the deoxidizer of 0.65 kg per ton of molten steel. This value overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Ouyang teaches all limitations of claim 10. Thus, Ouyang in view of Chen covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112442568A (machine translation) of Ouyang in view of CN102827999A (machine translation) of Chen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN111172354A (machine translation) of Liao, CN1185813A (machine translation) of Nakato, and CN115404392A (machine translation) of Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Ouyang teaches temperatures of the molten steel of 1562℃, Para[0030], 1597℃, Para[0042], and 1563℃, Para[0054]. These all fall within the claimed range of 1551-1690°C of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ouyang also teaches pre-deoxidation with Fe-Si, Para[0028], ladle furnace refining, Para[0030], vacuum degassing, Ruhrstahl-Heraeus refining, and continuous casting, Para[0033]. While Ouyang teaches stirring, Para[0031], Ouyang does not specifically teach micro-sub bubble stirring. Ouyang also does not teach a free oxygen content.
Liao discloses microbubble molten steel purification device and purification method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liao teaches that he present invention provides a very effective microbubble molten steel purification device and purification method. The bottom blowing bubbles are broken into a large number of microbubbles by a high-speed rotating stirring blade, and the molten steel circulation can ensure A large number of dispersed microbubbles are formed in the molten steel, and the purpose of purifying the molten steel is achieved through the microbubbles, which greatly improves the purity of the molten steel, while the processing time is short and the operation is simple, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the microbubble stirring of Liao in the smelting method of Ouyang in order to purify the molten steel.
Nakato discloses a process for producing aluminum-killed steel free of cluster in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nakato teaches that free oxygen in molten steel is not more than 200 ppm by weight before alloy addition, Para[0038]. Nakato teaches a specific example in which the free oxygen in the molten steel was reduced from 600 ppm by weight to 180 ppm by weight during the reflux of 5 minutes, Para[0053]. The values of Nakato fall within the claimed range of 101-399 ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Nakato teaches that the use of the molten steel for deoxidation with a deoxidizing alloy is effective for preventing the formation of dendritic oxide-based inclusions, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the smelting method of Ouyang resulting in a free oxygen content of the molten steel as taught by Nakato in order to prevent the formation of dendritic oxide-based inclusions.
Zhang teaches a method for controlling forms of MnS inclusions in silicon killed steel in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang discloses that After deoxidation, the oxygen content in the steel is controlled to be less than 15×10-4 wt%, Para[0036]. This is equivalent to 15 ppm which falls within the claimed range of 11-99 ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang discloses that the present invention effectively controls the content of magnesium, calcium, oxygen and other elements, the properties and distribution of inclusions in the steel by designing a reasonable alloying process route and refining process system for continuous casting molten steel, Para[0024]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the smelting method of Ouyang resulting in a free oxygen content of the molten steel as taught by Zhang in order to control the properties and distribution of inclusions in the steel.
Thus, Ouyang in view of Chen, Liao, Nakato, and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112442568A (machine translation) of Ouyang in view of CN102827999A (machine translation) of Chen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN102031441A (machine translation) of Kai-ming.
Claim 19 further limits claim 8 by claiming that the composite additive comprises the following chemical components by the mass percentage: the Fe: 46-57%, the Zr: 6-11%, the Ti: 15- 16%, the Mg: 12-19%, and the RE: 9-10%.
Ouyang discloses pre-oxidation of the steel with SiMn composite deoxidation, Para[0016], and a final deoxidation, Para[0017, 0018], using a deoxidizer containing Ti: 18-23%, Ce: 10-14%, Mg: 5-8%, Zr: 4-7% by mass percentage, and the rest It is the other associated element in the original alloy, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the rare earth (RE), and Zr ranges of the claimed invention. The range for Fe would also overlap as it would be the other associated element in the original steel alloy taught by Ouyang and one of ordinary skill in the art could select within the elemental ranges of Ouyang resulting in an Fe percentage that falls within the claimed range of 46-57%. For example, Ti: 21%, Ce: 12%, Mg: 8%, and Zr: 5% would result in an Fe value of 54%. These values would also result in a (Ti+Mg+RE)/Zr value of 6.8. This falls within the claimed range of 4-8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ouyang’s range for Mg is lower than the claimed range. Ouyang’s range for Ti is higher than the claimed range.
Chen teaches that the present invention provides a kind of smelting iron and steel with magnesia deoxidation compound powder, its component (weight percent): passivation Mg powder: 10%～50%, Para[0011]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Chen discloses that Mg adds the transition process that will experience Mg (s) → Mg (l) → Mg (g) → [Mg] in the molten steel, dissolve, deoxidation, desulphurization reaction, partly will scaling loss in the process of adding, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of magnesium taught by Chen in the deoxidizer of Ouyang in order to deoxidize the molten steel.
Kai-ming teaches a complex additive for spheroidizing and dispersing sulfides in steel and use method thereof. Kai-ming discloses that the chemical composition and content of the additive are: Si is 30 to 65 wt%, Ca is 5 to 15 wt%, Ti is 5 to 25 wt%, and Zr is 10 to 35 wt%, Nd is 10 ~ 35wt%, the rest is Fe and inevitable impurities, Para[0026]. Kai-ming’s ranges for Ti and Zr overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kai-ming teaches that the present invention uses Si, Ca, Ti, Zr and Nd as the main components, which are melted and cast in a vacuum induction furnace, so it has low cost and simple process. The prepared composite additive is beneficial to the sulfide spheroidizing composite sulfur oxide, and at the same time provides a favorable nucleation particle for refining the structure, and a plurality of elements are made into alloys or core-cored wires in a proportion favorable to the sulfide spheroidizing Join in the form to complete the tasks of sulfide spheroidization and organization refinement. Therefore, the process of the present invention is simple, the process time is short (deoxidation and alloying are completed at one time), and the component hit rate is high, Para[0029]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Ti and Zr, in the amounts taught by Kai-ming, in the composite additive of Ouyang and Chen in order to adequately spheroidize the sulfide inclusions and reduce the processing time by deoxidating and alloying at one time.
Thus, Ouyang in view of Chen and Kai-ming covers all limitations of claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112442568A (machine translation) of Ouyang in view of CN102827999A (machine translation) of Chen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN102166642A (machine translation) of Zheng.
Claim 20 further limits claim 8 by claiming that the composite additive comprises the following chemical components by the mass percentage: the Fe: 50%, the Zr: 8%, the Ti: 20 %, the Mg: 15%, and the RE: 7%.
Ouyang teaches steelmaking using a deoxidizer containing Ti: 18-23%, Ce: 10-14%, Mg: 5-8%, Zr: 4-7% by mass percentage, and the rest It is the other associated element in the original alloy, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the Ti value of claim 20. The range for Fe would also overlap as it would be the other associated element in the original steel alloy taught by Ouyang and one of ordinary skill in the art could select within the elemental ranges of Ouyang resulting in the claimed Fe value. For example, Ti: 22%, Ce: 13%, Mg: 8%, and Zr: 7% would result in an Fe value of 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ouyang’s range for Mg and Zr are lower than the claimed value. Ouyang’s range for Ce is higher than the claimed value for RE.
Chen discloses a magnesium deoxidation composite powder for molten steel deoxidation and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Chen teaches that the present invention provides a kind of smelting iron and steel with magnesia deoxidation compound powder, its component (weight percent): passivation Mg powder: 10%～50%, Para[0011]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Chen discloses that Mg adds the transition process that will experience Mg (s) → Mg (l) → Mg (g) → [Mg] in the molten steel, dissolve, deoxidation, desulphurization reaction, partly will scaling loss in the process of adding, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of magnesium taught by Chen in the deoxidizer of Ouyang in order to deoxidize the molten steel.
Zheng teaches a method for controlling morphologies of inclusions in cast structure of steel in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zheng discloses a specific range for TiO2 of 2-10wt%, Para[0038]. Zheng teaches an additive to spheroidize and fine-tune the inclusions in the steel that consists of a total amount between 7 and 18% of one or more of Mg, Ce, Zr, and TiO2, Para[0023]. This would correspond to a combined range for Mg, Ce, and Zr of 5-16% at the lower limit of TiO2 equal to 2wt%. This range overlaps with the combined value of Zr and RE (15%) of claim 20. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. For example, one or ordinary skill in the art would be able to select values such as 2% for TiO2, 8% for Zr, and 7% for Ce, and 1% for Mg, based on Zheng’s teaching for spheroidizing and fine-tuning inclusions, resulting in the claimed composition. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of Zr and Ce as taught in the additive of Zheng in the smelting method of Ouyang in order to control the inclusions in the steel. Thus, Ouyang in view of Chen and Zheng covers all limitations of claim 20.
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
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights