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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the ellipsoid shape 520, described in the specification para [0036] is not shown in any one of figures 5A and 5B as indicated in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, (i) the major axis of the cooling features that are substantially aligned with from a top to a bottom of the hot plate, recited in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note the ellipsoid shape 520, claim 2 is directed to is not shown in any of the figures in the drawing No new matter should be entered.
(ii) The limitation in claims 6 and 14, calling for “a first cooling feature in the first row is immediately adjacent a second cooling feature in a third row” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In fact, figures 4A and 4B showing the rows and columns arrangement of the cooling features do not appear to clearly illustrate the features as claimed. Note the plain meaning of the word “adjacent” is as follows: next to or adjoining something or having a common vertex side or a common side.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (i) the numbering of pages in the specification is in error because all the pages have been assigned a page number “15”. (ii) in para [0003], lines 8- 9, it is suggested to replace “The sprayed water is then collecting in a drain and pumped from the sidewall and/or.” with “The sprayed water is then collected in a drain and pumped from the sidewall and/or the roof of the furnace.” (iii) In the specification para [0026], lines 5, “the cover plate 205.”, should be replaced with “the hot plate 200”, so as to be consistent with figure 2A. (IV). In the specification para [0028], lines 3-4, “The slag retainers 240 is configured to trap slag” with “The slag retainers 240 are configured to trap slag”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, lines 7-8, it is suggested to replace “a metallurgical furnace” with --the metallurgical furnace--. In that antecedent basis of the limitation is already provided in line 1 of the claim. 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 2, 6, 9, 10 and 14 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, it is unclear what the limitation calling for “the cooling features have a major axis substantially aligned with from a top to a bottom of the hot plate” means. In that said claimed cooling features are not particularly illustrated in any of the figures of the drawing to allow one reading the claim to appreciate the exact structural cooperative relationships between said claimed cooling features and the hot plate, thereby rendering the scope of claim indefinite. For prosecution purposes, the Examiner interprets a rectangular cooling feature disposed on top of a rectangular hot plate meets the claim in that their verticals axes are colinear.
Claims 6 and 14, each recites the limitation "the first row" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the molten material" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, it is unclear as to what the limitation calling for “a first cooling feature in the first row is immediately adjacent a second cooling feature in a third row” means. In that figures 4A and 4B showing the rows and columns arrangement of the cooling features do not appear to clearly illustrate the features as claimed, thereby rendering the scope of claim indefinite. Note the plain meaning of the word “adjacent” is next to or adjoining something or having a common vertex side or a common side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyons et al. (US Patent No. 6,870,873).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lyons et al. teaches a water cooled roof (10, see, column 2, lines 25-48 and figures 1-3, 5, 6 and 8for example) for a metallurgical furnace (see column 1, lines 5-15 and column 2, lines 25-35), the roof comprising: a cover plate (i.e., the upper plate or panel opposing the lower roof panel (38), see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example); a hot plate (i.e., the lower roof panel (38), see, column 2, lines 64-67, column 3, lines 23-41, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example) coupled in a spaced apart relation to the cover plate (see, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such), the hot plate (i.e., lower roof panel 38) and the cover plate (i.e., the opposing upper roof panel, see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8) defining an inner volume (i.e., the water containing chamber 430, see column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19 and figures 5, 6 and 8) there between, the hot plate (38) comprising: an inner surface (see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example ) configured to face an interior volume (i.e., the space in the furnace below the hot plate (38) containing for example the slag (470), see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such also see column 6, lines 1-19) of the metallurgical furnace; an outer surface (see figures 5a, 5b, 6 and 8, each, shows as such) exposed to the inner volume (430) and facing the cover plate (see figures 5a, 5b, 6 and 8, each, shows as such); and a plurality of cooling features (i.e. fins 455, see column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19 and figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, and 8) extending from the outer surface of the hot plate (see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such) in a spaced apart relationship into the interior volume (see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such); and a spray cool system (i.e., the spray system comprising spray nozzle 34, see figure 2a and column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19) disposed in the inner volume (430) and configured to spray coolant on the outer surface of the hot plate (38) and into contact with the cooling
features (455, see column 6, lines 1-9, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8).
With respect to claim 9, a similar rejection as claim 1 above is applied in that the scope of the two claims are substantially similar. Particularly, claim 1 is directed to either a roof or a sidewall of a furnace, and that the sidewall comprises substantially the same features and/or corresponding features as the roof of claim 1, to include a cover pate and a hot place with an inner volume define therebetween, and having a plurality of cooling features and a cooling system provided in a similar way as in the roof. Lyons et al. also specifically, states that “A similar (referring to the roof) cooling system is shown at 100 in FIG. 3 and FIG. 3a for a furnace sidewall 138 in the form of a unitary, one-piece cylindrically shaped shell” and also that “the cooling system utilizes a
fluid coolant such as water or some other suitable liquid to cool the furnace roof
sidewall or other unitary closure element” (see column 2, line 65-column 3, line 7, and also see figures 3 and 3a). Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are rejected together.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Lyons et al. in each one of figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, 8a and 8 for example, shows cooling features in the form of rectangular fin (455), having at least a vertical axis that are aligned with the vertical axis of the hot plate (38) and therefore meets the claim, in that their verticals axes are colinear.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lyons et al. in each one of figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, 8a and 8 for example, shows cooling features (455) that comprises: a width measured at a cross-section of the first cooling feature; and a length extending from the hot plate (38) into the inner volume (i.e., the water containing chamber 430, see column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19 and figures 5, 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 17, Lyons et al. teaches a metallurgical furnace (see column 1,
lines 5-13, column 2, lines 25-32 and lines 54-67 and figures 2 and 3) comprising: a hearth (i.e., for an electric arc furnace (see column 1, line 5-10 and column 2, lines 25-30), the presence of a hearth ius inherent, even is not specifically mention in the disclosure of Lyons et al.) a sidewall (138, (see figures 3 and 3a and column 3, lines 1-7) sitting on the hearth (see figure 3); and a roof (10, see figures 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 and column 2, line 54-column 3, line 7) disposed on the sidewall, the hearth, sidewall (see figures 1, 2, 3 , 3a and column 2, line 54-column 3, line 7); and roof (10) defining an interior volume (i.e., the space in the furnace below the hot plate (38) containing for example the slag (470), see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such also see column 6, lines 1-19) of the metallurgical furnace, the interior volume configured for processing molten material, the sidewall and roof comprising: a cover plate (i.e., the upper plate or panel opposing the lower roof panel (38), see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example); a hot plate (i.e., the lower roof panel (38), see, column 2, lines 64-67, column 3, lines 23-41, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example) coupled in a spaced apart relation to the cover plate (see, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such), the hot plate (i.e., lower roof panel 38) and the cover plate (i.e., the opposing upper roof panel, see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8) defining an inner volume (i.e., the water containing chamber 430, see column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19 and figures 5, 6 and 8) there between, the hot plate (38) comprising: an inner surface (see figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8 for example ) configured to face an interior volume (i.e., the space in the furnace below the hot plate (38) containing for example the slag (470), see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such also see column 6, lines 1-19) of the metallurgical furnace; an outer surface (see figures 5a, 5b, 6 and 8, each, shows as such) exposed to the inner volume (430) and facing the cover plate (see figures 5a, 5b, 6 and 8, each, shows as such); and a plurality of cooling features (i.e. fins 455, see column 5, line 55- column 6, line 19 and figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, and 8) extending from the outer surface of the hot plate (see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such) in a spaced apart relationship into the interior volume (see figures 5, 6 and 8, each, shows as such); and a spray cool system (i.e., the spray system comprising spray nozzle 34, see figure 2a and column 5, line 55 – column 6, line 19) disposed in the inner volume (430) and configured to spray coolant on the outer surface of the hot plate (38) and into contact with the cooling features (455, see column
6, lines 1-9, figures 2a, 5, 6 and 8).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons et al. (US Patent No. 6,870,873) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, 16 and 18, Lyons et al. in figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, 8a and 8, shows a plurality of cooling features (i.e. fins 455) that appears rectangular in shape in the form of stud, and thus defining a length that extends from the cooling plate (38) and defining a width that extends along a plane defined by the hot plate. However, fails to particularly teach the exact numerical dimension of the length as being between about 2 inches to about 10 inches as claimed. However, the court held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Also see MPEP 2144.04. IV.A. In this instant selection of a suitable length for each of the cooling features or fins (455) in the arrangement of Lyons et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made by a mere routine optimization, particularly since said length would reasonable be dictated by the dimension of the inner volume defined
between the cover and the hot plate.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Lyons et al. in figures 5, 5a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, 8a and
8, shows a plurality of cooling features (i.e. fins 455) that appears rectangular in shape and thus defining a width that extends along a plane defined by the hot plate (38). However, fails to particularly teach fins that are cylindrical in shape to the extent of defining a diameter about 1.75 inches and about 3.50 inches. Therefore, Lyons et al. differs from the instant claims only in terms of shape, but the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Also see MPEP 2144.04. IV.B. In this instant case selection to modify the arrangement of Lyons et al. to use fins of any desirable shape to include the cylindrical shape defining a diameter as set forth in these claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since cooling fins are art recognized to come in different shapes, particularly as demonstrated in the art of heat exchanges, air conditioners and radiators.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, Lyons et al. in figure 7a, shows an arrangement of cooling features or fins (455) that are arranged in a staggered pattern on the hot plate (38)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elsner (US 5,290,016), Lee (US 10,132,566), F FERGUSON et a; (US 2019/0219333), Grageda (US 4,637,034), Fischer et al. (US 4,273,949) and
Hashimoto et al. (US 2006/0016582) 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