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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9 and 13-18 have been amended and claims 1-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 10, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction, and the flow of the molten metal which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer flows away from the inlet”.
Claim 10, recites the limitation “the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction, and so that the flow which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer flows away from the inlet”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction, such that the flow of the molten metal which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer flows away from the inlet”.
In each one of these claims, it appears the flow of molten metal in the horizontal direction is initiated in the outlet portion and therefore the phrase “the flow” should refer back to the outlet portion. Therefore, it is suggested to replace in each one of
these claims “flows away from the inlet” with – flows away from the outlet portion--;
since the stirring is induced in the outlet portion.
In each one of claims 3 and 15 as amended, it is suggested to replace “the EMS stirrer is disposed to stir substantially all of the molten metal in the outlet portion” with --the EMS stirrer is disposed to stir an entire volume of the molten metal in the outlet portion --; in that the previous 112(b) rejection was meant to correct the insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 outlet portion (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 § 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Xu et al. (CN211915486), Eriksson et al. (US 2015/0352635) and Chaudhary et al. (WO2015110984) are the closet prior art of record, however these prior art either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach at least a tundish for continuous casting or a method of stirring a molten metal in a tundish for continuous casting by disposing an EMS stirrer outside of the tundish, at a vertical position below a top of the inner volume of the tundish and above a bottom of the inner volume of the tundish, and disposing and operating the EMS stirrer to make the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction, and the flow of the molten metal which is directly induced by the EMS stirrer flows away from the outlet portion.
Particularly to make the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction means that the flow is directly caused by the EMS stirrer (e.g., the momentum imparted by the EMS stirrer without considering pre-existing flow, e.g., from inlet to outlet) is primarily horizontal. The vertical component of the flow is preferably as small as possible as per the published specification [0037].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 with respect to claims 10-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal argument regarding the independent claim 10 is that Xu's Figure 4 does not disclose a specific method step of deliberately stirring the molten metal in the outlet portion to achieve horizontal flow as a controlled outcome. The flow pattern depicted in Xu is an incidental consequence of the overall apparatus geometry, not a deliberate method of controlling the flow direction in the outlet portion as recited in claim 10. That the published specification para [0039] explains that making the molten metal flow in a horizontal direction has the specific advantage of maximizing stirring of the outlet portion while reducing the turbulence at the surface of the molten metal. These
teachings reflect a deliberate process design, not merely an apparatus arrangement. Xu does not disclose or suggest this deliberate control of horizontal flow direction as a method step.
In response, it is noted that while the examiner recognizes the definition or the description of the phrase “to make the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction” in the specification, claim 10 only requires a step of stirring the molten metal in the outlet portion for the molten metal to flow in the horizontal direction and such process step is clearly demonstrated by Xu et al. in figure 4 for example. In addition, it should be pointed out that the argument advanced by Applicant regarding claim 10 is not commensurate in scope with the claim because claim 10 does not recite the limitation “to make the molten metal in the outlet portion to flow in a horizontal direction” which derives its interpretation from the published specification para [0037]- [0039] as pointed out by Applicant in the argument. The Rejection of claims 10-13 is hereby deemed proper and the rejection is maintained in the instant office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights