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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7 ,9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1, “a remelting plant” should read –the remelting plant–.
In claim 5, line 2, “claim 1” should read –claim 1, –.
In claim 7, line 1, “a remelting plant” should read –the remelting plant–.
In claim 7, line 1, “claim 2” should read –claim 2, –.
In claim 9, line 1, “a remelting plant” should read –the remelting plant–.
In claim 9, line 1, “claim 3” should read –claim 3, –.
In claim 11, line 1, “a remelting plant” should read –the remelting plant–.
In claim 11, line 1, “claim 4” should read –claim 4, –.
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 1-12 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 “one or several melting sites,” which renders the claim indefinite, because the metes and bounds of the term “several” is indefinite. Does several mean about seven or more than one? Would two melting sites read on the limitation “one or several melting sites”? Would 100 melting sites read on “several”?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the underground" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “comprising a first and a second vertical column, which are connected on their upper end” and “along their height” which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “connected their upper end” renders the claim indefinite, because “their upper end” is a singular upper end, which makes it unclear whether the first and second vertical columns share an upper end, or the first and second vertical columns have separate upper ends which are connected. Similarly, “their height” suggests a singular height, which makes it unclear whether the first and second vertical columns share a single height (i.e., they are the same height), or the first and second vertical columns each have separate heights which may or may not be the same height.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the furnace portal with the first vertical column is connected with the foundation such that it can be rotated,” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether “it” is referring to the furnace portal or the foundation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “which are able to fix the furnace chamber in the vertical.” The term “the vertical” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what “the vertical” means. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the limitation “which are able to fix the furnace chamber in the vertical” is interpreted as which are able to fix the furnace chamber in a vertical direction.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
The term “large-diameter slewing ring bearing” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-diameter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what diameter slewing ring bearings would and would not be considered “large-diameter,” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Claims 7 and 8 are dependent claim 2 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a remelting plant for metals as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Zhu et al. (CN 101457297A), hereinafter “Zhu,” teaches a remelting plant for metals, comprising a plurality of melting sites, the respective largest part of which is located underground in a foundation of the remelting plant, each of said melting sites having a crucible, a furnace portal comprising a first and a second vertical column which, at their upper end are connected to two opposites sides of a horizontal connecting frame, and along their height are connected to at least one further frame by two brackets, wherein the furnace portal is rotatably connected to the foundation by the first vertical column and can be moved on a curved rail by the second vertical column, the lower end of which is provided with a drive and at least one wheel, such that the furnace portal can carry out a swiveling movement over the one or more melting sites (Abstract, [0006]-[0017], Figs. 1-2).
However, Zhu fails to teach or adequately suggest a one-piece furnace chamber, which is open on its lowr side and which can be vertically moved within the frame being formed by the two brackets, openings, which are arrange on sides of the connecting frame, which are not connected with the vertical columns, a plurality of locking elements, which are provided on the brackets and which are able to fix the furnace chamber in a vertical direction, and a balance, which with its lower side is connected with an upper side of the furnace chamber, as required by claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2-12 further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734