CTNF 18/565,348 CTNF 92200 DETAILED ACTION 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-098151 filed June 11, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2022/259808, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2022/020017 filed May 12, 2022. Response to Restriction Election 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I , Species I-MgO-Less5 , claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 13 , in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Status This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Response filed April 29, 2026 and Claims filed November 29, 2023. Claims Filing Date November 29, 2023 Amended 3-7 New 8-20 Pending 1-20 Withdrawn 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14-20 Under Examination 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (on, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II). The preamble of claim 1 lines 2-5 “a molten steel denitrification treatment in which CaO-and-Al2O3-containing slag is formed on top of molten steel charged in a vessel and an oxygen-containing gas is blown from above the slag, while the slag and the molten steel are brought into contact with each other to remove nitrogen in the molten steel” has been considered and determined to result in a manipulative difference that serves to limit the claim. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 does not end in a period. Each claim ends with a period. MPEP 608.01(m). Claim 2 lines 2-3 “C/A (-) that is a ratio between a CaO concentration (mass%) and an Al2O2 concentration (mass%)” is more succinctly written as “CaO/Al2O3, a ratio between a CaO concentration (mass%) and an Al2O3 concentration (mass%),”. The “(-)” does not appear to add to the claim. The “C/A” is better stated directly as what C and A are, CaO/Al2O3 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi (JP H09-87730 machine translation) in view of Takeuchi (JP 2008-144224 machine translation) . Regarding claim 1 , Higuchi discloses a molten steel purification method ([0001], [0082]-[0083]) that is a molten steel purification treatment in which CaO-and-Al 2 O 3 -containing slag is formed on top of molten steel charged in a vessel (furnace) ([0027]-[0031]) and an oxygen-containing gas ([0021]) is blown from above the slag ([0022], [0032]), while the slag and the molten steel are brought into contact with each other to purify the molten steel ([0027]), characterized in that the oxygen-containing gas is blown such that a ratio between a thickness L S0 of the slag and a depth L S of a depression in the slag resulting from blowing of the oxygen-containing gas meets L S /L S0 >1 (oxygen gas 8 blown from the upward blowing lance 5 onto the surface of the molten steel 3) ([0035]-[0038], [0040], Figs. 1-3, 5). With respect to an Al concentration in the molten steel is kept at or higher than a value determined by Formula (1) according to a stirring power density: Al concentration (mass%) in molten steel = -0.072 x In (stirring power density (W/t)) + 0.5822 ....(1), Higuchi discloses satisfying a relationship between the supply rate of pure oxygen gas in the oxidizing gas, Y, and the stirring power Y and its effect on the cleanliness of the molten steel ([0014]-[0015], [0044]-[0054]). Higuchi discloses that the stirring power, Y, is related to the absolute temperature of molten steel, T ([0045]). Higuchi is silent to relating the Al concentration to the stirring power. Takeuchi discloses producing low-nitrogen, high-purity steel ([0014]) by controlling a relationship between the Al concentration in the molten steel and the stirring power density (the amount of Al added must be adjusted according to the supply amount of oxidizing gas to achieve mixing and gradual compositional changes of Al2O3 at high temperature, enabling control of slag composition; stirring gas contributes to contact between nitrogen in the atmosphere and molten steel; adding Al should be controlled with stirring power as the molten steel flow influences reaction; control stirring force) ([0023], [0028]-[0031], [0037], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0055], [0058], [0081], [0089], [0092], [0111]-[0112], [0122]-[0123], [0134]-[0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Higuchi to keep the Al concentration at a value based on the stirring power density for control of slag composition for complete melting of the slag (Takeuchi [0054]) and to control production of Al2O3 to prevent too much Al2O3 increase in the slag (Takeuchi [0122]) by controlling gas agitation for stable flow conditions (Takeuchi [0134]-[0135]). With respect to the claimed Formula (1), difference 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 claimed are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). With respect to denitrification and removal of nitrogen, Higuchi in view of Takeuchi discloses a refining method for purification (cleanliness) of molten steel (Higuchi [0001], [0028], [0082]-[0083]; Takeuchi [0001], [0063], [0091], [0177]-[0178]) that reads on that claimed. (See above citations.) Since the purification (cleanliness) process of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed process, then denitrification and removal of nitrogen naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. In support, cleanliness as disclosed by Takeuchi includes a low nitrogen content (denitrification and removal of nitrogen) (Takeuchi [0001], [0011], [0014]-[0020], [0177]-[0178]). Regarding claim 2 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein C/A (-) that is a ratio between a CaO concentration (mass%) and an Al 2 O 3 concentration (mass%) in the slag is adjusted to between 0.4 and 1.8, both inclusive (0.8 to 2.5) ([0030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 3 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein an MgO concentration in the slag is adjusted to 5.0 mass% or lower (0%) ([0027]-[0031], [0057]). Regarding claim 5 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein a surface of the slag or the molten steel is depressurized to 1.0 x 10 5 Pa or lower (refining process may be a vacuum) ([0017]-[0018], [0022], [0038], [0053], Fig. 3). Regarding claim 8 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 2 as cited above, wherein an MgO concentration in the slag is adjusted to 5.0 mass% or lower (0%) ([0027]-[0031], [0057]). Regarding claim 10 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 2 as cited above, wherein a surface of the slag or the molten steel is depressurized to 1.0 x 10 5 Pa or lower (refining process may be a vacuum) ([0017]-[0018], [0022], [0038], [0053], Fig. 3). Regarding claim 11 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 3 as cited above, wherein a surface of the slag or the molten steel is depressurized to 1.0 x 10 5 Pa or lower (refining process may be a vacuum) ([0017]-[0018], [0022], [0038], [0053], Fig. 3). Regarding claim 13 , Higuchi discloses the molten steel denitrification method according to claim 8 as cited above, wherein a surface of the slag or the molten steel is depressurized to 1.0 x 10 5 Pa or lower (refining process may be a vacuum) ([0017]-[0018], [0022], [0038], [0053], Fig. 3). Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,754 (US ‘754) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘754 discloses molten steel denitrification using a CaO-and-Al2O3-containing slag with a MgO concentration of 5.0% or lower (claim 1) in an atmosphere of 10-x10 5 Pa or lower (claim 2) controlling the Al concentration and stirring powder density using the same claimed formula (claims 3, 4). Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/560,737 (App ‘737, reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App ‘737 discloses molten steel denitrification using a CaO-and-Al2O3-containing slag with MgO set to 5.0 mass% or lower (claim 1) in an atmosphere of 1.0x10 5 Pa or lower (claim 2) controlling the Al concentration and stirring powder density using the same claimed formula (claims 6, 9). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Related Art Yamaguchi (JP 2000-345234 machine translation) Yamaguchi discloses refining molten steel using a vacuum degassing device such as a VOD ([0001]) that includes a slag with 5 to 25% MgO and a CaO to Al2O3 mass ratio of 0.7 to 2.5 ([0008], [0020]-[0022]) in which the stirring power density epsilon is related to the steel bath temperature T ([0009]-[0010]) and the process is performed as a pressure reduced to 100 Torr or less ([0024]). Tada (US 2009/0019968) Tada discloses a removal method of nitrogen in molten steel ([0001]) including adding metallic Al and charging CaO into the molten steel then supplying an oxygen containing gas ([0021], [0089], [0104]) to the molten steel ([0027]-[0028]). Tada discloses a CaO-SiO2-Al2O3 based slag ([0064], [0082]) with a CaO/Al2O3 ratio of 0.8 to 1.2 ([0084]). Takeuchi ‘583 (CN 101553583 machine translation) Takeuchi ‘583 discloses smelting low nitrogen steel with high purity ([0002], [0036]) using CaO-based flux ([0018], [0143]-[0144]) containing Al, O, and MgO ([0059]) and oxidizing gas ([0019], [0078], [0168]). Takeuchi ‘583 discloses adding metallic Al to the molten steel ([0031]) and a CaO/Al2O3 mass ratio in the slag of 0.9 o 2.5 ([0033]) and adjusting the blowing stirring gas based on the upper surface area of the molten steel ([0034]-[0035]). Takeuchi ‘583 discloses supplying Al ([0063]-[0063]) and oxygen to the molten steel to react ([0081]), which increases the temperature of the molten steel and generates Al2O3, which is absorbed by the slag ([0045], [0047], [0170]), such that the supplied Al and oxygen control the composition of the slag ([0046]) and the amount of Al needs to be adjusted according to the supply of oxidizing gas ([0077]). Park (US 2011/0041653) Park discloses high-purity steel ([0001]) manufactured by reducing pressure, blowing in oxygen gas from the upper of the molten steel through a lance, creating Al2O3 by injecting Al, and forming CaO-Al2O3-Cr2O3-MgO slag ([0009]-[0015], [0025]) with a CaO/Al2O3 ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 ([0016]). Miyamoto (US 6,190,435) Miyamoto discloses vacuum refining molten steel (1:5-12, 4:1-3) by adding Al (4:26-30), where at the time of oxygen blowing decarburization a temperature elevation due to oxidation of aluminum occurs (4:64 to 5:36). Miyamoto discloses blowing through the slag (Fig. 1). Harada (WO 2021/256161 machine translation) Harada, published December 23, 2021 and filed May 20, 2021, is also owned by JFE Steel Corporation. Harada discloses producing high-purity steel ([0001], [0018]) using a slag with a CaO/Al2O3 ratio of 1.5 to 2.5 ([0015], [0030]) by vacuum degassing ([0016]) with a MgO concentration that is more preferably 5% by mass or less ([0031]). Harada discloses preventing MgO-Al2O3 system inclusions by minimizing the reaction between Al and MgO ([0020]) and using stirring power to suppress the reduction of MgO in the slag after Al addition ([0021]), where the higher the MgO activity in the slag and the lower the oxygen activity in the molten steel then the more likely MgO-Al2O3 inclusions form in a short time ([0025]). Harada discloses a first stirring powder greater than 55 W/t to promote slag formation after flux addition, then stirring powder of 25 W/t or more to promote desulfurization ([0027]). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm. 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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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. /STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 2 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 3 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 4 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 5 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 6 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 7 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 8 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 9 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/565,348 Page 10 Art Unit: 1735
Prosecution Insights