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 .
Applicant has filed Request for Continued Examination for consideration of references on the ID filed 6/16/2026 including those cited on a foreign search report.
Below set forth are grounds of rejection. All prior art cited therein has previously been cited and provided.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on [ 1 ] has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiley (US 4,119,468)
Regarding claims 1-11, 13 and 16:
Wiley (US 4,119,468) discloses a particulate metallurgical composition for casting comprising
8-33 % oxidizing constituent,
40-65 % refractory constituent,
15-45 % fuel.
The composition is a metallurgical hot topping composition forming a protective cover by casting
(Abstract)
The composition comprises oxidizing constituents such as red iron oxide (F2 O3) (meeting claim 1 for oxidant and claim 5 for iron oxide) magnesium dioxide, calcium sulfate in the form of gypsum and mixtures thereof (C3 L5-10) (meeting the limitations for oxidizing constituent and for calcium sulfate of claim 1)
The refractory components include sand, lime, siliceous volcanic rock and aluminum dross etc. (C3 L10-22)
The fuel is basically aluminum particles which may be in the form of foil or aluminum grindings (C3 L23-31)
The density of the crust material is controlled by proper blending of ingredients within the compositional ranges balancing of Al2O3, SiO2 and FeO with respect to the aluminum content to form hard medium or powdery crust (C3 L43-60) When SiO2 and FeO are increased a hard crust will result increasing SiO2 lowers melting point of the curst etc. and increasing iron oxide serves two purposes to enhance formation of liquid or tacky phase and promotes faster hotter burn (C3 L60-65)
The reference teaches:
Al dross (i.e., a particulate refractory material) (col 3, lines 11-15; Table 1 - 48..4 wt.), sand, clay or a combination
of sand and clay (i.e., binder) (col 3, lines 11-15; Table 1), 5 to 45 percent by weight of fuel constituent ( Abstract) such as a combination of aluminum and ignition material (i.e., sensitizer) (col. 3, lines 23-27; Table 1 of the 9 to 33 percent by weight of oxidizing constituents, such as a combination of red iron oxide and calcium sulfate in the form of gypsum (col. 3, lines 6-10; Table 1 - 1.0-3.5 wt.% of gypsum). US '468 does not disclose requiring any fluorine.
40 to 65 percent by weight refractory constituents (Abstract), e.g. 68.45 wt.% of Al dross of the total weight of the refractory constituents (Table 1 – 48.4/(48.4+18.1+2.8+1.4) x 100% = 68.46%); claim 1), this can go up to 78.2 by wt. % (claim 1)
5 to 45 percent by weight of fuel constituent (Abstract) , such as a combination of aluminum (an oxidizable metal fuel) and an ignition material such as dextrin (i.e., sensitizer)(col. 3, lines 23-27)(the examiner notes the instant specification indicates sensitizer and initiator are used interchangeably and refer to a substance which lowers the energy required to initiate an exothermic thermite reaction) , e.g. 78.57 wt.% content of aluminum in the total weight of the fuel constituent being aluminum (oxidizable metal fuel) (Table 1) (i.e., 7.7/(2.1+7.7) x 100% = 78.57%)
9 to 33 percent by weight of oxidizing constituents, such as red iron oxide (Abstract; col. 3, lines 6-10) and 1.5-3.2 wt.% calcium sulfate in form of gypsum (Claim 1)
5.8 to 31.5 wt. % of oxidizing constituents with exception of gypsum
Sand, clay or mixture thereof (i.e., binder; co. 3, lines 11-15; Table 1)
The composition comprises silicon (C3 L10-15) and iron oxide alumina and silica to alumina is between 1.4 to 1 and 10/1 (C3 L65-C4 L8)
The composition may be dry blended and stored for shipping and are in powder form (C6 L45-50)
The composition is in a mold (See claim 1 reference)
The composition is used as a hot topping on a surface of molten metal (C2 L45-55) (the composition is capable of use in making a refractory article for use in a feeding system in metal casting)
Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiley (US 4,119,468) further in view of Gough WO 80/02811A1
Regarding claims 12 and 14-15:
Gough WO 80/02811A1 discloses a process of metal castings from compositions with particulate refractory material, finely divided aluminum, an oxidizing agent, a binder and is substantially free of fluoride salts (Abstract P5 2nd to last par)
The refractory mineral includes alumino silicate, chamotte etc. (P4 L2-8 and P6 L5-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(overlapping the claimed ranges of refractory particulate, oxidizing agent and fuel)
The composition may be mixed with water (P7 L21-28) the composition is exothermic. The composition may be molded into a desired chap (P13 L1-5) such as a refractory insulating sleeve (Fig 1)
The composition is substantially free of fluoride salts (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add water to the composition of Wiley as taught by Gough in order to aid in molding the dry composition of Wiley after storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add and use the composition of Wiley as a refractory feed sleeve as taught by Gough as it is a moldable refractory composition and such refractory materials used in that form of article as taught by Gough – further doing so amounts to nothing more than use of a known composition in a known environment metal working casting to achieve an entirely expected result of forming a coating/layer in the form of a refractory sleeve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights