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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims 7-15 have been withdrawn from prosecution in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification in page 2, para [4}, makes reference to a specific claim number (claim 13), however during prosecution claim numbers do change due to amendment. It is therefore suggested to delete same specific claim number from said portion of the specification and any other portions thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, it suggested to replace the preamble “A transport apparatus for a lining machine” with -- A transport apparatus for a converter or a metallurgical vessel lining machine”, so as to better capture the domain of the invention.
In claim 1, at the beginning of line 12, it is suggested to replace “each of the first
roller” with --each of the at least two first rollers--. For claim language consistency (i.e.
see line 6).
In claim 1, lines 15-16, it is suggested to replace “wherein the second roller
is arranged between the two first rollers, wherein the second roller is mounted on the second roller frame so as” with -- wherein the at least one second roller is arranged between the at least two first rollers, wherein the at least one second roller is mounted on the second roller frame so as--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see lines 6 and 8).
In claim 1, lines 19-20, it is suggested to replace “wherein the first roller has a first rolling surface on the circumferential side and the second roller has a second rolling surface on” with -- wherein the at least two first rollers, each has a first rolling surface on the circumferential side and the at least one second roller has a second rolling surface (450) on--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see lines 6 and 8).
At the end of claim 1, line 22, it is suggested to replace “the second roller” with -- the at least one second roller--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see line 8).
In claim 1, lines 22, it is suggested to replace “wherein in the second position the second roller frame is raised relative to” with -- wherein in the second position, the second roller frame is raised relative to--.
In claim 2, line 6, it is suggested to replace “wherein the third roller is attached to the third roller frame so as” with -- wherein the at least one third roller is attached to the third roller frame so as--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see lines 4-5).
In claim 2, lines 10, it is suggested to replace “wherein the fourth roller is attached to the fourth roller frame so as” with -- wherein the at least one fourth roller is attached to the fourth roller frame so as--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see line
9).
In claim 4, line 8, it is suggested to replace “wherein the fifth roller is
attached to the fifth roller frame so as to be” with -- wherein the at least one fifth roller is attached to the fifth roller frame so as to be--. For claim language consistency (i.e. see line 7). 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 1-6 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 "arranged recessed between two first rollers and the first rolling surface" in line 23. It is unclear which two rollers are being referred to in this limitation since the preceding lines in claim 1, require “at least two first rollers”. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "A transport apparatus for a lining machine, wherein the transport apparatus has a first transport space and a first roller table arranged below the first transport space for transporting a first item to be transported" in 1-4. It is noted that while the preamble of the claim and the limitation following as indicated above suggests an apparatus for transporting a first item to be transported to a lining machine, the body of the claim does not expressly contain any clear linking structures or any communicative link between the transport apparatus and the lining machine; therefore the essential structural cooperative relationships between the transport apparatus and the lining machine is lacking in the claim as set forth. Furthermore, the phrase in claim 1 calling for “a first item to be transported is vague” in that it does no clearly specific what is being transported and where it is being transported to, thereby rendering the scope of the claim vague and unascertainable.
Claim 1, lines 9-11, recites the limitation “wherein the second roller frame is arranged in the first roller frame so as to be movable along an axis between a first position and a second position different from the first position”. In particular, it is unclear in this instant case what the phrase “arranged in” means (i.e. does it mean the second roller frame is embedded or disposed inside the first roller frame?), because as shown in figure 9, the first roller frame (370) and the second roller frame (375) appear to be separate from each other and not the latter disposed inside the former as the limitation appears to suggest. Also, it is unclear what the first position and the second position means, since neither figure 9 nor the specification clearly show of define said position. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "having a first removal table and a second removal table offset in the circumferential direction relative to the axis" in lines 2-3. It is unclear from the manner in which the limitation is set forth and two whether, only the second removal table is offset in the circumferential direction relative to the axis or both first removal table and the second removal table are offset in the circumferential direction relative to the axis. The claim is rendered indefinite due to the ambiguities in meaning, particularly since the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein the housing encloses the first transport space at least in portions" in lines 5-6. In particular, it is unclear from the manner in which the limitation is written as to which one of the housing and the first transport space, the phrase “at least in portions” refers back to; The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since its metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first transport chamber" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the top" and “the bottom” in in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each one of these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 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: Smith (US 3,955,685, IDS) closest cited prior art that is directed to a transport apparatus for transporting refractory bricks (12, see figure 1 and column 6, line 65-column 7, line 3) to a furnace lining machine; wherein said transport apparatus comprising a crane disposed on top of the furnace (10, see abstract , figure 1 and column 6, line 65-column 7, line 3) for centrally lifting pallets (120, see figure 1 and column 10, lines 40-68) of refractory brick (12) from a bottom through the furnace space to a plurality of working platforms of the lining machine; wherein the lining machine protrudes over a bottom floor of the furnace into the reaction space of the furnace and comprises working platforms (84, see figure 1, abstract and column 10, lines 15-40) that are arranged offset to each other in the circumferential direction of the lining machine; and wherein the pallet of the refractory bricks is transported from the crane to the respective working platform by means of a roller table (124, see figure 1 and column 11, lines 5-34). Smith, however differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and or adequately suggest a transport apparatus for a furnace lining machine, comprising a first roller table arranged below a first transport space for transporting a refractory material or a refractory brick to a lining machine, wherein the first roller table comprises a first roller frame, and a first roller arrangement with at least two first rollers, wherein the first roller table has a second roller frame and a second roller arrangement with at least one second roller, wherein the second roller frame is arranged on the first roller frame so as to be movable along an axis between a first position and a second position different from the first position; and other claimed features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cervin (US 4,303,363), Puxkandl et al. (US 3,285,390), Abarotin et al. (US 3,033,389), Jacobsson (US 4,607,994), Kremer et al. (US 5,419,669) and Munroe (US 3,601,245) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights