CTNF 18/563,597 CTNF 92967 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-19 are pending and currently under review. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-7, 10, 13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodsworth (US 4,469,511) alone or alternatively further in view of either one of Katayama et al. (US 4,198,229) or De Castejon (US 3,912,501) . Regarding claim 1, Bodsworth discloses a method of removing phosphorous from molten iron (ie. dephosphorization) [abstract]; wherein said method includes steps of melting a charge of iron in a vessel, and supplying hydrogen gas and an oxygen containing substance and mixing with an oxide material (ie. flux) to remove phosphorous [claim1, claim10]. The examiner notes that these above steps will naturally result in a molten iron having phosphorous removed therein (ie. dephosphorized). Bodsworth does not expressly teach that the slag is further separated as claimed. However, the examiner submits that final slag separation is a commonly well-known step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because it is common practice to separate slag from a desired molten iron material for further processing. Alternatively, this is also expressly disclosed in the prior art. Katayama et al. discloses that it is known to separate slag and molten metal after dephosphorization to avoid rephosphorization of the metal melt [col.13 ln.25-35]. De Castejon discloses that it is generally known to further refine molten metal by removal of impurities such as phosphorous, wherein a resulting slag and impurity-free molten iron can be further separated to obtain final products as desired [col.8 ln.5-63]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Bodsworth by performing a slag separation step after dephosphorization as disclosed by the aforementioned prior art for the above benefits. The examiner notes that slag would naturally be present on a surface of molten iron as claimed. Regarding claims 3-5, 10, and 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bodsworth further teaches that the molten iron includes direct reduced iron, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a cold iron source; and an overall C concentration of the iron charge is less than 0.5 weight percent is several embodiments [examples 2, 4-8]. Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bodsworth does not expressly teach a ladle. However, one of ordinary skill would understand that ladles are commonly known and widely utilized vessels for molten iron refining, such that the use of a ladle as claimed is prima facie obvious. Alternatively, Katayama et al. discloses the use of a ladle as a receptacle to handle molten iron materials [col.4 ln.40-45]. Regarding claims 7 and 16-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the recitation of “when obtaining molten iron by melting a cold iron source…” is a contingent process limitation which does not have to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 do not have to be performed when a cold iron source is not utilized. Nonetheless, De Castejon further teaches an apparatus wherein iron is first melted and separated from slag in a first hearth, followed by delivery of the molten iron to a second hearth wherein composition adjustments (ie. dephosphorization) are made [col.8 ln.15-30]. Therefore, the disclosure of De Castejon meets the limitation of a slag separation step prior to discharge of the molten iron from a first melting furnace (ie. first hearth) into a second vessel (ie. second hearth) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodsworth (US 4,469,511) alone or in view of others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either one of Berger et al. (US 4,726,839) or Guo (CN106929633, machine translation referred to herein) . Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bodsworth does not expressly teach a subsequent step of deoxidation as claimed. However, subsequent deoxidation after dephosphorization would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Berger et al. discloses that it is known to desirably adjust iron melt composition after dephosphorization and slag separation by performing deoxidation by adding killing agents such as Al (ie. deoxidizing agent) [abstract, col.4 ln.45-52]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Bodsworth by performing subsequent deoxidation to achieve a desired composition. Alternatively, Guo discloses that it is known to perform deoxidation with aluminum subsequent to dephosphorization and molten iron tapping [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Bodsworth by performing subsequent deoxidation to achieve a desired deoxidized composition. Regarding claims 8-9, 11-12, and 14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bodsworth further discloses that the molten iron includes direct reduced iron, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a cold iron source; and an overall C concentration of the iron charge is less than 0.5 weight percent is several embodiments [examples 2, 4-8]. Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the recitation of “when obtaining molten iron by melting a cold iron source…” is a contingent process limitation which does not have to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 do not have to be performed when a cold iron source is not utilized. Nonetheless, De Castejon further teaches an apparatus wherein iron is first melted and separated from slag in a first hearth, followed by delivery of the molten iron to a second hearth wherein composition adjustments (ie. dephosphorization) are made [col.8 ln.15-30]. Therefore, the disclosure of De Castejon meets the limitation of a slag separation step prior to discharge of the molten iron from a first melting furnace (ie. first hearth) into a second vessel (ie. second hearth) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-7 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodsworth (US 4,469,511) and others as applied to claim s 1-6 above, and further in view of ASM Handbooks (1998, Melting methods ) . Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bodsworth does not expressly teach that the vessel is a ladle. ASM Handbooks discloses that it is well-known to perform molten metal refining in special ladles [p.753, p.755]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing refining in a ladle because it is well-known and commonly utilized as expressly taught by ASM Handbooks. Regarding claims 7 and 15-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claims 1-6 (see previous). Bodsworth does not expressly teach a consideration of an initial slag separation step prior to discharge and dephosphorization. ASM Handbooks discloses that it is well known to utilize a cupola, for example, as a bulk melter for melting iron prior to subsequent transfer to a special refining ladle [p.753]; wherein a cupola has a structure as seen in [fig.6] of ASM Handbooks. This figure expressly depicts separate tapholes for molten iron and slag, such that slag separation and subsequent discharge of the molten metal from a cupola to a subsequent refining ladle as taught by ASM Handbooks above would have naturally flowed from the structure depicted by ASM Handbooks. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5. 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 5712721177. 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 5 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/563,597 Page 7 Art Unit: 1734