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 amended Claims 13-24. Applicant added Claims 25-31. A new matter rejection appears below.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "seal and locking mechanism" in Claim 21 Line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites the molten aluminum is tapped from a Hall-Héroult electrolysis cell. While the Hall-Héroult electrolysis cell is a known industrial device, there is nothing to support the use of a Hall-Héroult electrolysis cell in the original disclosure. The instant Specification merely states at Page 1 Line 8: “Commonly, aluminum metal is produced in electrolysis cell of Hall-Héroult type.” This does not support the use of a Hall-Héroult with the instantly claimed method. Appropriate correction is required.
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 29 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.
Claim 28 recites “a tapping and transport crucible used to transport the molten aluminum from an electrolysis cell to a casting furnace.” It is unclear whether this is an intended use, or meant to recite a tangible and repeatable method step. It is unclear what method step constitutes ‘usage’ or the metes and bounds of using a ‘transport’ crucible as recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “the electromagnetic stirring field is generated by being an EMS coil into operative proximity…” in Lines 2-3. This recitation presents the following issues:
It is unclear what is meant by “being an EMS coil into,” whether this is meant to indicate a position, a method step, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required.
It is unclear the metes and bounds of “operative proximity.” As recited, “operative proximity” is a relative term which does not convey to persons of ordinary skill in the art any distance or position. The term “operative” is subjective and indefinite, as an EMS coil is “operative” even if not in use. Combined, “operative proximity” does not relay a tangible actionable and repeatable method step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites “ambient air is is admitted into the crucible through a controllable inlet valve during evacuation, and the sub-pressure in the crucible is regulated by controlling the flow of ambient air through the inlet valve.”
Claim 30 recites “a controllable inlet valve” in Line 2 and “the inlet valve” in Line 3. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “the inlet valve. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus between any inlet valve and any flow of ambient air.
As used the term “regulated” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of any ‘regulation’ and this term does not convey an actionable and repeatable method step. It is unclear what parameter impacts ‘regulation’ or how controlling the flow ensures the sub-pressure is “regulated.”
It is further unclear the metes and bounds of “controlling” the flow of ambient air through the inlet valve. It is unclear what constitutes “control” and how the flow is changed or altered as a result of “control.”
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps with positive active claim language.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 13-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011.
Regarding Claims 13, 14, 15, and 19, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches a method and apparatus for treating molten metal in a tapping crucible (Page 3, Translation), the method including generating a stirring action of molten metal, wherein the tapping crucible has a mantle wall of a non-magnetic shell material that allows an electromagnetic field generated by an electromagnetic coil brought in vicinity of said material to generate a stirring action of the molten metal inside the tapping crucible when energizing the electromagnetic coil (Page 1, Translation). The crucible is sealed with a lid and the lid is provided with an evacuation conduit (Page 2, Translation).
Karlsson et al. ‘876 does not expressly teach aluminum is the treated metal or that sodium is the impurity removed. However, as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al., sodium is a known impurity element in molten aluminum. Though NPL Zhang et al. teaches refining methods different from those of Karlsson et al. ‘879 and Lefebvre et al. ‘589, NPL Zhang et al. is used strictly to evidence that sodium is a known impurity prior to the addition of a salt-based flux.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove sodium as an impurity of aluminum, a known metal with alkali impurities, using the teachings of the method and apparatus of Karlsson et al. ‘876.
Karlsson et al. ‘876 does not expressly teach sodium removal without the application of fluxing agents. However, Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches separating dross from molten aluminum in a tapping furnace and removing dross (meeting the limitation for sodium removal) without the addition of fluxing agents by inducing stirring generated with an electromagnetic coil [0066].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove sodium from an aluminum melt in the method of Karlsson et al. ‘876 without the use of fluxing agents based on the teachings of Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at [0066].
Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches the degassing of the melt is achieved by establishing and maintaining an exemplary underpressure of 50 Torr (approximately 66.7 mbar), lying within the instantly claimed ranges of “10-300 mbar,” “10-200 mbar,” and “10-100 mbar,” meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Notwithstanding the 112(f) claim interpretation above, See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Lefebvre et al. ‘589 further teaches at (Abstract) that the stirring is operated to generate forced convection in the upper part of the melt in the tapping/transport crucible, maximizing the exposure of volatile components to the sub pressurized space, and the highest metal velocity is in the bottom part of the crucible (Fig. 1). See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to generate forced convection in the upper part of the melt of Karlsson et al. ‘876 in order to ease the removal of dross based on the teachings of Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at [0011].
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 2, Translation) that the container wall (meeting the limitation for the crucible mantle wall) is made out of “a non-magnetic material, for example stainless steel, the lid of which is provided with “a vacuum tight cover,” between the lid and the crucible (Page 2, Translation)(Fig. 3, 19) meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 22, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 2, Translation) the lid comprises a gas connection via which the vacuum pressure is controlled and maintained, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 2, Translation) the lid is provided with an evacuation conduit (meeting the limitation for an ejector) capable of allowing continuous removal of the atmosphere in the crucible, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 3, Translation) maintaining the entry of new air into the lid (meeting the limitation for a controllable inlet), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 28, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches degassing and EMS treatment in the crucible prior to transfer and tapping into a casting furnace (Pages 2-3, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for taking place in a tapping and transport crucible.
Regarding Claim 29, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches a wheeled carriage (Page 2, Translation) meeting the limitation of the instant claim for sodium removal being performed while the tapping and transport crucible is positioned on a tapping and transport vehicle. An EMS coil is applied to the outside of the tapping and transport crucible while the tapping and transport crucible remains on the tapping and transport vehicle (Figs. 1-3), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011 as applied to Claims 13-17 and 19-24 above, further in view of Araseki US 20120261262 A1.
Regarding Claims 18 and 27, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above, including that operation takes place above the melting point of aluminum. However, Karlsson et al. ‘876 and Lefebvre et al. ‘589 do not expressly teach the treatment temperature.
Nonetheless, Araseki ‘262 expressly teaches removing non-metallic impurities from an aluminum melt (inherently including sodium) in a crucible via electromagnetic stirring (Abstract) wherein the temperature during treatment is 900 °C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct the electromagnetic purification of aluminum in the process of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at a temperature of 900 °C in order to control the precipitated elements in a gaseous state at the melt surface, based on the teachings of Araseki ‘262 at [0043] meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 25-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011 as applied to Claims 13-17 and 19-24 above, further in view of Kemmer et al. US 20160312322 A1.
Regarding Claims 25-26 and 30, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 contemplates purging the gas above the melt with a desired atmosphere and optionally introducing ambient air (Page 3, Translation), but does not expressly teach continuous evacuation.
Nonetheless, Kemmer et al. ‘322 teaches a device and method for treating metallic materials by both degassing and electromagnetic stirring wherein continuous evacuation is implemented by means of an ejector driven by compressed air [0025, 0078] . Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Kemmer et al. ‘322 teaches connections for gas purging [0057], meeting the limitation of instant Claim 30 for admitting ambient air into the crucible through a controllable inlet valve during evacuation, and the sub-pressure in the crucible being regulated by controlling the flow of ambient air through the inlet valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct continuous evacuation with ambient air in the process of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 in order to maintain the sub-pressure based on the teachings of Kemmer et al. ‘322 at [0078], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011 as applied to Claims 13-17 and 19-24 above, further in view of NPL Hatch.
Regarding Claim 31, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 and Lefebvre et al. ‘589 do not expressly teach tapping from a Hall-Héroult electrolysis cell.
Nonetheless, NPL Hatch expressly teaches at (Page 146) “Sodium is a universal contaminant of aluminum from the reduction process. Most of the sodium is readily oxidized and disappears from the metlt. The aluminum from the Hall-Héroult process contains approximately 100 ppm of sodium. On holding or transfer, this sodium level is readily reduced to 10 ppm.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct the electromagnetic purification of aluminum in the process of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 as the transfer process in order to reduce the amount of sodium impurity in the aluminum melt, based on the teachings of NPL Hatch meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, the known concentration of sodium resulting from the use of a Hall-Héroult electrolysis cell lies within the instantly claimed range of 80 to 200 ppm. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the method of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 to remove impurities from an aluminum melt until sodium levels to 10 ppm or less in order to improve mechanical properties and increase workability based on the teachings of NPL Hatch at (Page 146), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011 as applied to Claims 13-17 and 19-24 above, further in view of Steinhäuser et al. US 4521001 A and Hui-Gyong et al. KR 950004228 B1.
Regarding Claim 32, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches degassing molten metal by maintaining an underpressure of 100 Torr (approximately 135 mbar) at (Pages 2-3, Translation) but does not expressly teach the instantly claimed pressure range.
However, Steinhäuser et al. ‘001 teaches removing gases from molten material, particularly from molten aluminum, by maintaining a vacuum pressure of 50 to 500 mbar for a suitable time to remove impurities, overlapping and encompassing the instantly claimed sub-pressure of approximately 180 mbar (Column 1/Lines 39-41).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct the electromagnetic purification of aluminum in the process of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at a pressure overlapping the instantly claimed range based on the teachings of Steinhäuser et al. ‘001 (Column 1/Lines 39-41), for a time sufficient to remove impurities (Colum 4/ Lines 29-32), including sodium, from the melt. As the sodium removal rate is a result-effective variable, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would expect the same or similar results from the process of modified Karlsson et al. ‘876.
Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches degassing molten metal while stirring with a low frequency current at (Pages 2-3, Translation) but does not expressly teach the instantly current intensity.
However, Hui-Gyong et al. ‘228 teaches stirring molten metal for continuous casting with a current intensity of 200 amperes or less in order to control the flow of molten metal within the tundish (Abstract, Page 4 Translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply a current in tensity of 200 Amperes or less, overlapping the instantly claimed current intensity of 85 Amperes, in the method of modified Karlsson et al. ‘876 in order to stabilize the speed and control the flow of molten metal during the continuous casting process based on the teachings of Hui-Gyong et al. ‘228 at (Page 4, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references are not analogous art. However, the prior art is analogous as the prior art pertains to metal treatment including evacuation of an atmosphere from a crucible while generating an electromagnetic field for stirring across the entire molten metal volume in the crucible.
Combining vacuum degassing with electromagnetic stirring of molten metals is a longstanding practice. Karlsson et al. ‘876 is designed for degassing and stirring molten metal generally and this does not make the art non-analogous. The process and apparatus disclosed in Karlsson et al. ‘876 may be used for a wide variety of applications. Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches at (Abstract) that EMS stirring is generates convection forces in the upper part of the melt in the tapping/transport crucible, maximizing the exposure of volatile components to a sub pressurized space during degasification, and does not require the addition of fluxes to remove unwanted alkali metals from aluminum, including sodium.
Further, when dross is removed from aluminum, elemental sodium is necessarily removed without necessity for the addition of fluxes, meeting the limitations of the instant claims. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220250141 A1 teaches degassing a Ti-Al alloy at .001 to 700 torr.
US 3230073 A teaches methods of degassing molten metal with electromagnetic stirring.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights