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 1 and 3. Support for the amendments and new claim are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2024, 12/30/2025, and 07/01/22026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 07/06/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Park et al. WO 2011087225 A2 are maintained under additional grounds necessitated by amendment.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. WO 2011087225 A2 in view of Richaud et al. US 20070102852 A1 and Toshihiko et al. JP H0839208 A.
PNG
media_image1.png
227
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park et al. ‘225 Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
582
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park et al. ‘225 Figs. 5 and 6
PNG
media_image3.png
311
169
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Richaud et al. ‘852 Fig. 11
PNG
media_image4.png
380
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Richaud et al. ‘852 Fig. 11
PNG
media_image5.png
777
727
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Toshihiko et al. ‘208 Fig. 2
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Park et al. ‘225 teaches an immersed nozzle for continuous casting having a first section, wherein the flow channel in the first section has a lateral cross-sectional shape that is a circular shape, a second section, the flow channel has a lateral cross-sectional shape that is a rectangular shape, and a connection section wherein the flow channel in the first section is continuously connected to the flow channel in the second section (Fig. 2). Park et al. ‘225 teaches a polygonal discharge portion which may take on any suitable shape in the casting nozzle which can be either integrally formed or formed as separate parts (Pages 8, 12-13). Park et al. ‘225 teaches a rectangular cross section at (Fig. 2) with a long side and short side but does not expressly detail measurements or communication ratios of its passageways.
However, Richaud et al. ‘852 teaches a continuous casting nozzle having a plurality of symmetrical openings 60 (corresponding with two first openings) and openings 62 (corresponding with two second openings) [0014], (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the discharge end in the nozzle of Park et al. ‘225, to have a plurality of exit stream pairs with adjustable discharge flow angles in order to stabilize and improve exit flow based on the teachings of Richaud et al. ‘852 at [0008-0010]. The through holes comporting with first openings have equal surface areas (corresponding with S3), as Richaud et al. ‘852 teaches at [0010] (Fig. 9).
Richaud et al. ‘852 teaches modifying the angle of discharge from either or both sets of openings but does not expressly establish a communication ratio between the holes and their surface areas.
Additionally, Toshihiko et al. ‘208 expressly teaches a communication ratio corresponding with the instantly claimed ratio between the long side, short side, as well as expressions (1) and (2).
Toshihiko et al. ‘208 teaches the ratio between the long and short side of the flat nozzle (corresponding with a/b) is 3.32 (996 mm/300 mm) [0036], lying within the instantly claimed range of 3 or greater and 7 or less. The surface areas of the openings in the nozzle for Toshihiko et al. ‘208 meet the limitations for S3 and S4 and satisfy expressions (1) and (2) when e.g. when D (corresponding with S5) is 125 mm and (corresponding with S4) is 100 mm.
Additionally and alternatively, a duplication of surface area 22a (Toshihiko et al. ‘208, Fig. 2) (corresponding with S3) above the lower set of discharge holes is a duplication of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to change the velocity of molten metal through the nozzle. See MPEP 2144.04VI B. 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 modify the discharge end in the nozzle of Park et al. ‘225, by modifying the relation of the exit streams in order to stabilize and improve exit flow based on the teachings of Richaud et al. ‘852 at [0008-0010] as well implement the communication ratio of Toshihiko et al. ‘208 in order to prevent skinning in the meniscus of the casting based on the teachings of Toshihiko et al. ‘208 at [0017], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I.
Regarding Claim 3, Park et al. ‘225 modified as set forth above with either a duplication of parts or by establishment of the communication ratio of Toshihiko et al. ‘208 teaches the limitations set forth above. Park et al. ‘225 further teaches each of the openings meeting the limitation for the first openings has an opening area on an external surface corresponding with S3 which is smaller than opening area corresponding with S6, as can be viewed in (Fig. 5)(dashed lines added), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Further regarding the shape of the opening areas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form an interior opening surface area to be larger than an exterior opening surface area in order to increase the speed of discharge of molten metal from the immersion nozzle. Such feature is well-known of a conventional funnel.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Park et al. ‘225 teaches the limitations set forth above. Toshihiko et al. ‘208 teaches the immersion nozzle has a largest width of 300 mm, intersecting the claimed range of 300 mm or less, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the prior art rejections.
Applicant argues the cited references do not disclose or suggest all the features of the instantly claimed nozzle. However, the nozzle rendered obvious by the prior art to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention renders the claimed nozzle patentably indistinct from the prior art.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Applicant has not addressed criticality of the nozzle shape.
The nozzle of Park et al. ‘225 features openings designed to discharge molten metal out of at least a pair of first outlets and at least a pair of corresponding second outlets. Richaud et al. ‘852 expressly teaches modifying the angle of discharge from either or both sets of openings of an immersion nozzle featuring multiple corresponding outlets. Toshihiko et al. ‘208 teaches a communication ratio corresponding with the instantly claimed ratio between the long side, short side, as well as expressions (1) and (2).
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the discharge end in the nozzle of Park et al. ‘225, by modifying the relation of the exit streams in order to stabilize and improve exit flow based on the teachings of Richaud et al. ‘852 at [0008-0010] as well implement the communication ratio of Toshihiko et al. ‘208 in order to prevent skinning in the meniscus of the casting based on the teachings of Toshihiko et al. ‘208 at [0017], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030201587 A1 teaches adjusting the downward stream of a flat continuous casting nozzle.
JPH 0512061 B2 teaches a flat continuous casting nozzle having a width of 100 to 600 mm.
JPH 01293942 A teaches a flat continuous casting nozzle.
US 20220250142 A1 teaches a cylindrical to flat continuous casting nozzle having angled discharge holes.
JPH 07232247 A teaches an immersion nozzle for continuous casting with a slit designed to reduce inclusion defects.
WO 2010109887 A1 teaches an immersion nozzle with an adjustable-angle funneled outlet.
JP 2016209924 A teaches an immersion nozzle for continuous casting with inner surface areas larger than outer surface areas at the discharge port site.
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