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
Figures 2, 5a, 7a, 8a, 9a and 11a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (i.e., in this instant case a comparative tundish). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the specification page 1, “SUMMARYThe” appears to be a typographical error.
The specification in page 2, lines 7-9, makes reference to specific claim numbers (i.e., claim 1 and claim 11), however during prosecution, claim numbers do change due to amendment, it is therefore suggested to delete said specific claim numbers in said portion of the specification and any other portion (s) thereof.
In the specification page 9, line 16, “the operator side 8” should be replaced with
“the operator side 7” so as to be consistent with the numerical label designation with the rest of the specification and the drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, it is suggested to replace “the EMS stirrer is disposed to make the molten metal in the outlet portion flow in a horizontal direction” with -- the EMS stirrer is disposed to make the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction--.
In claim 1, at the beginning of line 13, it is suggested to replace “the flow which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer” with -- the flow of the molten metal which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer--.
In claim 4, at the beginning of line 4, it is suggested to replace “the stirrer” with –the EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency.
In claim 5, at the beginning of line 2, it is suggested to replace “the stirrer” with –the EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency.
In claim 6, at the beginning of line 2, it is suggested to replace “the stirrer” with --the EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency.
In claim 16, at the beginning of line 3, it is suggested to replace “the stirrer” with --the EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency.
In claim 17, at the beginning of lines 1-2, it is suggested to replace “each stirrer” with --each EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency.
In claim 18, at the beginning of lines 1-2, it is suggested to replace “each stirrer”
with --each EMS stirrer--. For claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). Also see MPEP 2173.05(q). I.
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 1-9 and 13-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top” in lines 8-9 and "the bottom” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claims 1 and 14, each recites the limitation “the EMS stirrer is disposed outside of the tundish, at a vertical position below the top of the inner volume of the tundish and above the bottom of the inner volume of the tundish”. The specification and figures 1 and 3, designate the EMS stirrer, the tundish and the inner volume of the tundish by the numerical label 10, 1 and 2 respectively. The inner volume would therefore be the included space of the tundish containing the molten metal, and therefore if the EMS stirrer is at a vertical position below the top of the inner volume of the tundish and above the bottom of the inner volume of the tundish in the manner as recited in the claims, then the EMS would reasonably be interpreted as being disposed within said inner volume or within the molten metal included space of the tundish and not outside as claimed. The position of the EMS stirrer as recited appears to make the claim confusing because the EMS stirrer cannot be both inside and outside the tundish at the same time. Furthermore, figure 1 and figure 3, each illustrating the features of claims 1 and 14, cannot quite be interpreted to meet/support said claimed limitation. The claims are therefore, rendered indefinite since their metes and bounds are unascertainable. For prosecution purposed the limitation is interpreted by the Examiner as follow: “the EMS stirrer is disposed outside of the tundish, at a vertical position below a top wall of the tundish and above a bottom wall of the tundish”
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the entire volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each stirrer" in line 2. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1 from which claim 5 depends from requires only a singular EMS stirrer.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each stirrer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1 from which
claim 6 depends from requires only a singular EMS stirrer.
In claim 9, the recitation of multiple instances of “and/or” appears to make the
claim confusing because it is unclear which portion(s) of each limitation before, between, and after the multiple “and/or” are required or optional, and which limitations are linked together by the “and/or”. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the
metes and bounds are unascertainable.
In claim 13, the recitation of multiple instances of “and/or” appears to make the
claim confusing because it is unclear which portion(s) of each limitation before,
between, and after the multiple “and/or” are required or optional, and which limitations are linked together by the “and/or”. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 14, recites the use or EMS stirrer for electromagnetic stirring of molten metal in a tundish, but the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is therefore unclear what method/process the claim is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites the use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this process is actually practiced. For prosecution purposes claim 14 is interpreted by the examiner as a system claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the entire volume" in line 2. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "each stirrer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1 from which
claim 17 depends from requires only a singular EMS stirrer.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "each stirrer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1 from which
claim 18 depends from requires only a singular EMS stirrer.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN211915486, also see the Machine English translation version).
Regarding claim 10, Xu et al. teaches a method of stirring a molten metal (see the English abstract) in a tundish having a tundish body ((1), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) provided with an inlet portion (i.e. the portion for receiving the ladle nozzle (3), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) having an inlet (i.e. equated to the ladle nozzle (3), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) for molten metal (see abstract and the entire description of the invention) an outlet portion (i.e., the portion in which the outlet opening or nozzle 6 located, see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) having at least one outlet (i.e., (6), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention), a flow separator (i.e. the partition wall (2), having flow holes (7), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) and an EMS stirrer ((5), see figures 1, 2 and 4 and the entire description of the invention) for electromagnetic stirring, wherein, the flow separator is positioned between the inlet portion and the outlet portion wherein the EMS stirrer is disposed horizontally (see figures 2 and 4 show as such) outside of the tundish; wherein the method comprising inducing and stirring the molten metal directly by the EMS stirrer in the outlet portion and causing the molten metal to flow in a horizontal direction, and flow away from the inlet (see figure 4 shows a horizontal flow of the molten metal from the inlet portion to the outlet portion in the same manner as claimed, thereby meeting substantially all aspects of the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Xu et al. in figure 4, shows a method of stirring a molten metal in a tundish (1) in which the stirring causes no more than two vortices of molten metal in the tundish or in other word the molten metal flow circulates in no more than two circuit about the outlet portion.
Regarding claim 12, Xu et al. in figure 4, shows a method of stirring a molten metal in a tundish (1) in which the molten metal is stirred in an essentially horizontal direction, with essentially no vertical component (i.e., at least in comparison to the disclosed invention figures 10a to 10d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102/ 103
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Eriksson et al. (US 20150352635).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Eriksson et al. teaches a tundish (5, see figure 1,
2a& 2b and para [0036]-[0040], also see abstract and para [0007]-[0012]) for continuous casting, the tundish comprising an inner volume having an inlet portion (i.e. lid 5c area with an opening 5c, see figures 1 and 2b and para [0036]-[0037]) for receiving molten metal from a ladle (3, see figure 1, 2a& 2b and para [0036]-[0039]) an outlet portion (i.e., the discharge area of the tundish, see figures 1 and 2b and para [0036]-[0037]) having at least one outlet (i.e. discharging or sub-merged entry nozzle 5b, figures 1 and 2b and para [0036]-[0037]) for discharging molten metal, and a flow separator (i.e. the partition walls projecting from both the bottom and top walls of the tundish delimiting the inlet portion from the outlet portion) positioned between the inlet portion and the outlet portion (see figure 2a); the tundish further including an EMS stirrer (9, see figure 2a and para [0040]) for electromagnetic stirring disposed outside of the tundish at a vertical position below a top wall of the tundish and above a bottom wall of the tundish (see figure 2a shows as such) and configured for directly inducing the molten metal to flow away from the inlet portion to the outlet portion.
Eriksson et al. does not expressly state that the EMS stirrer causes or induces the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction as claimed; however, because Eriksson et al. substantially teaches all the key structural features (i.e., EMS stirrer disposed outside of the tundish at a vertical position below a top wall of the tundish and above a bottom wall of the tundish, a flow separator, an inlet portion and an outlet portion with the flow separator disposed therebetween) as well as the same cooperative relationship between said features in the same manners as claimed, It would reasonably be expected, absent any evidence to the contrary, that substantially the same result of having the molten metal to flow in a horizontal direction would be achieved. (Note, claim 14 has been interpreted as a system claimed based on the 112(b) rejection above and since claim 14 recites the same structure features as in claim 1, there are rejected together).
Regarding claim 2, Eriksson et al. does not expressly state that the stirring of the
molten metal by the EMS stirrer (9) causes no more than two vortices of molten metal in the tundish, however such would reasonably be expected because the flow pattern of the molten metal through the tundish to the outlet portion (5b) as illustrated by the figures shows no turbulence or dead zone(s), which causes vortices. Furthermore, Eriksson et al. as in figure 2a and 4 shows the use of only two EMS stirrers or one EMS stirrer, respectively, thereby adequately suggesting that no more than two vortices can be induced in the molten metal during stirring.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Eriksson et al. teaches EMS stirrers (9) that are disposed to stir the entire volume of the molten metal in the outlet portion (see figures 1, 2a and 2b).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Eriksson et al. teaches a tundish that defines an operator side, and a back side which is opposite to the operator side (see figures 1, 2a, 2b and 4); wherein in one embodiment an EMS stirrer is mounted on each of the back side and the operator side (see figure 2a), and in another embodiment an EMS stirrer is mounted on either the back side of the tundish, or on the operator side of the tundish; hence the teachings of Eriksson et al. in entirety encompasses the scope of claims 4
and 16.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 17 and 18, Eriksson et al., teaches a tundish assembly in which the stirring direction and the stirring strength are each adjustable because the ENS stirrer is communicatively link to a controller (13) capable of adjusting both the
stirring direction and the stirring strength (see para [0043]- [0044]).
Regarding claims 7, and 19, Eriksson et al., teaches a tundish assembly in which the flow separator is a dam (see figures 1 and 2b).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Eriksson et al., teaches a tundish assembly in which the flow separator in the form of a dam that is configured to restrict the stirring of the molten metal by the EMS stirrer in the inlet portion (see figure 2a and para [0040]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson et al. (US 20150352635) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Chaudhary et al. (WO2015110984).
Regarding claim 9, Eriksson et al. fails to expressly teach a tundish assembly in which at least maximum surface speed of the molten metal in the outlet portion is no more than 0.50 m/sec.
Chaudhary et al. teaches a tundish assembly in which an EMS stirrer is provided for stirring the molten metal (see Chaudhary et al., para [0045]- [0046]); wherein the average surface speed of the molten metal within the tundish is about 0.2 to 0.3 m/s, which is a range no more than or lie within the claimed range of 0.50 m/s (see Chaudhary et al., para [0046]). Also see MPEP 2144.05, pertaining to claim ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the tundish assembly of Eriksson et al. to provide an EMS stirrer configured to stir the molten metal in a tundish at an average surface speed or velocity of about 0.2 to 0.3 m/s as exemplified by Chaudhary et al. for the benefit of preventing shearing or cutting through any entrained slag into the molten metal that may lead to slag inclusion or slag entrainment in the molten metal that flows through the discharge outlet of the tundish into a downstream casting unit; which could affect the casting product quality.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN211915486, also see the Machine English translation version) as applied to claim 10 above and in view of Chaudhary et al. (WO2015110984).
Regarding claim 13, Xu et al. fails to teach a method of stirring a molten metal in a tundish in which at least maximum surface speed of the molten metal in the outlet portion is no more than 0.50 m/sec.
Chaudhary et al. teaches a method of stirring a molten metal in a tundish in which the average surface speed of the molten metal within the tundish is about 0.2 to 0.3 m/s, which is a range no more than or lie within the claimed range of 0.50 m/s (see
Chaudhary et al., para [0046]). Also see MPEP 2144.05, pertaining to claim ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Xu et al. to stir the molten metal in a tundish at an average surface speed or velocity of about 0.2 to 0.3 m/s as exemplified by Chaudhary et al. for the benefit of preventing shearing or cutting through any entrained slag into the molten metal that may lead to slag inclusion or slag entrainment in the molten metal that flows through the discharge outlet of the tundish into a downstream casting unit; which could affect the casting product quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Umezawa; et al. (US 5,884,685), Schmidt (US 8,551,672) and Zhong et al. (CN203853530) 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