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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 27-36 and 50 in the reply filed on 19 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 37-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 February 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 September 2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim 35 is 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 35, the phrase “metal oxide like iron oxide" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally claim 35 includes the limitation “metal sulfide like iron sulphide," which similarly is considered to render the claim indefinite.
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(s) 27-36 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,915,693 A (hereinafter “Rasmussen”).
Regarding claim 27, Rasmussen teaches a master alloy in rod or wire form (See title). Rasmussen teaches that the master alloy may include a hollow tube which is filled with a desired filler material (col 1). Rasmussen teaches that the filler material may be granular, and may be an alloy, or a blend of materials or alloys (col 1). Rasmussen teaches that the alloy is used as an inoculant or a grain refiner (see col 1 and claim 1-2). Rasmussen teaches a composition of the filler of the master alloy which overlaps the claimed composition (See claim 1). It is noted here that columbium (“Cb”) is understood by the skilled artisan to be an obsolete name for the element niobium . The composition of the alloy of Rasmussen is compared with the claimed alloy in the chart below (all values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
Rasmussen claim 1
Si
V and/or Nb
Mo
Cr
Cu
Ni
Mg
Al
Ba
Ca
Mn
Zr
La and/or Ce and/or mischmetal
Sr
Bi
Sb
Ti
Fe/impurity
10-80
5-35
Up to 10
Up to 5
Up to 3
Up to 3
Up to 20
0.01-7
Up to 13
0.01-7
Up to 13
Up to 8
Up to 12
Up to 5
Up to 3
Up to 3
Up to 1.5
Balance
30-60
(1-6 V, 1-6 Cb+Ta)
--
--
--
--
--
1-3
(0-15 Ca + Ba)
(0-15 Ca + Ba)
5-15
1-6
5-20 Ce + La
--
--
--
1-6
Balance
The composition of the filler metal of Rasmussen overlaps the claimed composition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Rasmussen teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 28, the difference from claim 27 is the amount of Si is adjusted to 15-29 wt %. Rasmussen does not teach such an alloy. However a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the Si content value of Rasmussen of 30-60% is considered close enough to what is claimed that the skilled artisan would have expected the claimed alloys to have had similar properties. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
In the alternative, the alloy of Rasmussen is explained as being the filler within a steel tube (claim 1, col 1). If the iron content in the steel tube itself were to be considered, the constituent amounts of each other alloying element in the filler would have been lowered accordingly. Thus if the filler metal of the claim 1 of Rasmussen would not have made obvious what is claimed, the entire master alloy of Rasmussen, including the steel tube, would have been considered to have rendered the claim obvious as by raising the amount of iron, and lowering the amounts of other elements to calculate the composition.
Regarding claim 29, the difference from claim 27 is the amount of Si is adjusted to 30-50 wt %. The content of Rasmussen is 30-60 wt% (claim 1), and the alloy is considered to overlap the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 30, the difference from claim 27 is the amount of Si is adjusted to 51-80 wt %. The content of Rasmussen is 30-60 wt% (claim 1), and the alloy is considered to overlap the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 31, the difference from claim 27 is the amount of Mg is adjusted to up to 15 wt %. The content of Mg is not specified in Rasmussen claim 1. Thus the alloy is considered to overlap the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 32, the difference from claim 27 is the amount of Mo is adjusted to up to 5 wt %. The content of Mo in Rasmussen is not specified in claim 1. Thus the alloy is considered to overlap the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 33, Rasmussen does not describe a melting temperature of the alloy. However, it is believed that the melting temperature would have been a function of the composition. Thus the selection of a composition in the overlapping ranges of Rasmussen with the melting temperature as claimed would have required no more than a routine investigation of the prior art. Further, Rasmussen teaches that the melting temperature of the master alloy is a results-effective variable in regard to the casting of the metal (See cols 2-3). The melting temperature would have been adjusted by the skilled artisan ion order to achieve desirable results based on these teachings . The alloy having a melting temperature such as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 34, Rasmussen teaches that the filler material may be granular, and may be an alloy, or a blend of materials or alloys (col 1). The selection of granules of the raw material would have required no more than a routine investigation of the broad teachings of Rasmussen. Rasmussen further describes that the material is sieved to -24 mesh, and further that this may include fines (see col 3 ll 35-45). Thus the grain size of the granules of Rasmussen overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 35, it is noted that the claims is indefinite. See rejections above under 35 USC 112. Rasmussen teaches that the material includes a positive addition of aluminum (claim 1). The limitation of being mixed with metal oxides is considered to be met inherently based on the oxidation potential of aluminum.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation of being an “additive for use in production of cast iron” is a statement of intended use. In this case all of the structures of the claimed alloy are described by Rasmussen. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2111.02
Regarding claim 50, the limitation of an additive “for use in the manufacture of vanadium and/or niobium containing cast iron” is a statement of intended use. In this case all of the structures of the claimed alloy are described by Rasmussen. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2111.02
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200399725 A1 teaches an inoculant for cast irons which is similar to the claimed alloy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights