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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control/regulating unit recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next
Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-4, it is suggested to replace “surface of which provided for receiving aluminum scrap” with -- surface of which is provided for receiving aluminum scrap--.
In claim 3, lines 6-7, it is suggested to replace the limitation “heat exchanger (15) which is set up to absorb heat from the exhaust gas and to discharge it to the air” with -- heat exchanger (15) which is set up to absorb heat from the exhaust gas and to discharge it to the atmosphere--. It appears “atmosphere" is a much more appropriate word than “air”, to avoid any confusion with the “air supply 13”, also recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 3. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 15, recites the limitation “a refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth (6) and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber (2) in the region of the dry hearth (6) have channels (18) which can be acted upon by hot gas and are designed to absorb heat from the hot gas and to release it to the aluminum scrap located on the surface of the dry hearth (6)”. It is unclear from the manner in which the limitation is written as to (i) how the channels are designed and (ii) how the channels are acted upon by hot gas or how the channels absorb heat from the hot gas; particularly since the claim does not expressly recite how the channels are designed or the specific configuration of the channels. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any clear description about the configuration of the channels and how they are designed to allow said claimed heat absorption to be achieved. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable. For prosecution purposes, the channels provided in refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth (6) and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber are not given any patentable weight in this instant office action. Said limitation is interpreted by the Examiner as “characterized in in that a refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth (6) and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber (2) in the region of the dry hearth absorbs heat from the hot gas and to release it to the aluminum scrap located on the surface of the dry hearth (6) for its thermal pretreatment.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what the limitation “the branch (16) is variably
adjustable with respect to the ratio of the air flow supplied to the burner (9, 10) and the partial flow (17)” means, particularly because the branch (16) is shown in figure 1 for example as a junction between the air supply line (13) and the partial flow line (17) or in other words a point at which the partial flow line (17) splits from the air supply line (13), and therefore it appear inconceivable how the junction (16) can be variably adjustable in the manner as claimed. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a control/regulating unit which is set up to regulate the furnace temperature in the region of the dry hearth (6)" in lines 1-3, without reciting how said control/regulating unit is set up to allow said temperature in the region of the dry hearth to be regulated as claimed, particularly when none of the figures in the drawing shows and/or illustrates how it is set up, or the specification not describing how it is set up. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are
unascertainable.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the source of said hot gas is not specified in the claim, and therefore the Examiner interprets and/or equates gas generated from the
burner as a result of the firing of fuel and combustion air to read on the claimed hot gas.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cibaldi (US Patent No. 5,846,480).
Regarding claim 1, Cibaldi teaches a melting furnace (1A, see figure 1, abstract and column 2, lines 9-14), having two-chamber furnace (see figure 1 and 2), for recovering aluminum from aluminum scrap (see abstract and column 1, lines 37-58), having: a scrap chamber (first chamber 2, see figures a and 2 and column 2, lines 9-40) with a dry hearth (11, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 15-25), the surface of which provided for receiving aluminum scrap is arranged above the surface of an aluminum melt (see in figures 1 and 2, the surface of the hearth 11 is inclined towards the melt in the second chamber (3) also see column 2, lines 15-25) located in the scrap chamber (2) during operation of the melting furnace (see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 9-25), and a heating chamber (3) having at least one burner (13, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 15-40) for fuel firing, the heating chamber (3) and the scrap chamber (2) being separated from each other by a partition wall (i.e., dividing wall 17, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 26-40), the partition wall (17) having at least one opening (i.e., port 12, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 15-35) for recirculation of the aluminum melt (7) between the heating chamber (3) and the scrap
chamber (2, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 15-35).
Cibaldi does not expressly teach that the refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber in the region of the dry hearth absorbs heat from the hot gas and to release it to the aluminum scrap located on the surface of the dry hearth for its thermal pretreatment as claimed. However, Cibaldi teaches a burner (8) provided in the scrap chamber (first chamber 2, see figures 1 and 2) that is supplied with combustion air and fuel (see column 2, lines 15-25 and lines 54-65); and upon firing the fuel and the combustion air, hot gas would be generated within the scrap chamber which would necessary heats up the surface of the dry hearth and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber and the same manner as claimed; and release the sensible heat absorbed to the scrap deposited on the inclined dry hearth (11) and preheat it before the scrap slides (see column 2, lines 35-45) into the melting chamber (3, see figures 1 and 2). It is noted that because the two-chamber scrap melting furnace of Cibaldi, reasonably achieves the same results as the instant claimed scrap melting furnace, it fairly constitutes an and obvious variant; insofar as claim 1 is definite.
Regarding claim 2, Cibaldi teaches a melting furnace in which the scrap chamber (2, see figures 1 and 2) also has a burner (8, see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines
15-35) for fuel firing.
Regarding claim 3, Cibaldi teaches a melting furnace in which at least one burner (13 see figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 15-35) of the heating chamber (3, see figures 1 and 2) and/or the scrap chamber (2, see figures 1 and 2) has an air supply (13) for supplying air as combustion air and an exhaust gas recirculation (14) for discharging exhaust gas, the air supply (i.e., indicated by arrow L see figure 1 and column 2, lines 54-65) and the exhaust gas recirculation being connected in a heat-transferring manner by means of a heat exchanger (5, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 50-65) which is set up to absorb heat from the exhaust gas and to discharge it to the atmosphere by the stack (7, see figure 1 and column 2, line 44-column 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Cibaldi teaches a melting furnace in which the scrap chamber (2, see figures 1 and 20) has a loading door (19, see figures 1 and 2 and column 3, lines 10-30) through which the surface of the dry hearth (11, see figures 1 and 2) can be loaded with aluminum scrap in batches (see column 1, lines 47-58).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cibaldi (US Patent No. 5,846,480) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GÜLTEKIN et al. (DE102020132240, see the US Equivalent US 2024/0011122).
Cibaldi fails to teach a melting furnace in which a control/regulating unit is provided to regulate the furnace temperature in the region of the dry hearth (6) to 400-
600° C.
GÜLTEKIN et al. teaches a melting furnace (1, see GÜLTEKIN et al., figure 2 and para [0081]- [0082]) in which a control/regulating unit (14, GÜLTEKIN et al., figure 2
and para [0091]) is provided to regulate the furnace temperature in the region of the
dry hearth to about 550° C which lies within the claimed range of 400-600° C. (see GÜLTEKIN et al., para [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the melting furnace of Cibaldi to provide a control/regulating unit as exemplified by GÜLTEKIN et al. to allow the temperature in the region of the dry hearth to be maintained at about 550° C to prevent oxidation of the aluminum scrap during pretreatment (see GÜLTEKIN et al., para [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cibaldi and GÜLTEKIN et al., either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest:
As in claim 4: a melting furnace in which an air supply between the heat exchanger and the burner has a branch via which a partial flow of the air is supplied to channels provided in refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth and/or a refractory lining of the inner wall of the scrap chamber in the region of the dry hearth as hot gas.
As in claim 7: a melting furnace in which a hot gas outlet through which the hot gas leaves the melting furnace into the environment after flowing through channels
provided in refractory lining of the surface of the dry hearth and/or a refractory lining of
the inner wall of the scrap chamber in the region of the dry hearth as hot gas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hertwich (US2001/0028136), Riley (US 5,673,900), Abulnaga (US 9,617,610) and Wigchert (US 6,136,264) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759