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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 uses the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of." See MPEP § 2111.03(IV). In paragraph [0012] of the Specification, applicant notes that the materials forming the launder are structural refractory materials without discussing alternatives. As there is no guidance in the application on how the phrase is defined or intended, the language is therefore interpreted in the same manner as “comprising”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 21A and 21B in [0046]. 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. 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 objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “20A” and “20B”in Fig. 3, 1016 in Fig. 8, does not appear to be in the instant Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “no no-oxide ceramic material” in Line 3. There is no support for the absence of an oxide ceramic material. Applicant’s Specification recites “Launder 1000 is comprised of a material, such as graphite or ceramic (such as silicon dioxide)…” at [0047] Applicant’s Specification recites at [0012], “As used herein “ceramics” or “ceramic” refers to any oxidized metal (including silicon) or carbon-based material, excluding graphite, or other ceramic material capable of being used in the environment of a molten metal bath.” There is no recitation of a negative limitation regarding oxidic ceramics and therefore the recitation “no non-oxidic ceramic material” constitutes the addition of new matter to the original disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, and 13 recite “The unitary launder of claim 1 that…” It is unclear whether these claims are intended to depend from claim 1 or not. Appropriate correction is required to establish that additional limitations are being claimed in addition to the limitations of claim 1. It is noted the other claims recite “The unitary launder of claim 1, wherein.” Appropriate correction is required regarding “The unitary launder of claim 1 that…” and Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in reference to claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “the stop has a height greater than height H1.” It is unclear what “height H1” references as [0037] of the instant Specification refers to H1 as being both the height of the dividing wall and height of the overflow spillway. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish which element and element height is being referenced.
Claims 10-11 recite “channel height and “launder height” while Claims 16 and 17 recite “one of the plurality of channels has a different height.” It is unclear whether the recitation of “height” in Claims 16 and 17 refers to a unitary launder having a branched configuration with different ladle heights, whether each channel within a unitary launder having a plurality of channels has a different “channel height,” or whether a difference between “channel height” and “height” of the channels was intended. Similarly, Claims 6-7 recites “channel width” and “launder width” while Claims 16 and 17 recite “channels has a different height or different width” Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in terminology as the use of “height” and “width” in Claims 16 and 17 and takes on an unclear meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish the height and width of each claimed element.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
897
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
427
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
NPL Reynolds Figs. 22, 24. Vincinet ‘106 Figs. 2-3. Hobson ‘378 Fig. 4.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Reynolds in view of Vincent GB 2492106 A and Hobson EP 1021378 B1.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 15, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Reynolds teaches a unitary launder configured to transfer moving molten metal, the unitary launder comprising a top surface, and a channel configured to transfer molten metal, the channel being V-shaped and having a top surface, an open top comprising an upper cross-sectional area, and a bottom tip comprising no-cross sectional area, wherein each side of the V-shaped channel is formed at an angle and each angled side extends from the bottom tip to the top surface of the launder (Figure 24).
NPL Reynolds does not expressly teach the material of the unitary launder.
However, Vincent ‘106 teaches a unitary launder comprising a top surface and a channel configured to transfer molten metal formed of fused silica or alumina (Page 5)(Figs. 2-3), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for no non-oxidic ceramic material. A reference is prior art for all that it teaches and while Vincent ‘106 describes disadvantages of alumina at (Page 8), this does not constitute a teaching away. Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejections above, Vincent ‘106 expressly teaches alumina may be preferably selected by persons of ordinary skill according to the application (Page 8), meeting the limitations of instant Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the unitary launder of silica or alumina based on the teachings of Vincent ‘399 e.g. at (Page 8, Lines 12-19) in order to form a metal transfer launder with increased thermal shock resistance and increased corrosion resistance.
NPL Reynolds teaches forming a V-shape in order to contain a launder channel flow of molten metal in a narrower cross-section and form a more contained stream of molten metal flowing into the ladle (Page 529). The V-shape depicted in (Figure 24) and more clearly visible in (Figure 22) of NPL Reynolds appears to take on a 45-degree angle, but NPL Reynolds does not expressly provide a specific degree.
However, Hobson ‘378 teaches a weir channel for passing liquid through and allowing the discharge of a liquid over a larger liquid body. 45-degree angles are carved in the weir channel to increase the efficiency of liquid flow [0044, 0048]. This angle meets the limitations of Claims 1, 12, and 15.
In order to construct and utilize a V-shaped launder, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would look to the art for suitable angles for V-shaped liquid passageways. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a 45-degree angled V-shaped unitary launder based on the teachings of Hobson ‘378 at [0044]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art to try and form a 45-degree angle, because such angle is exactly one half of a right angle and takes on the well-known “V” shape.
The weir channel of Hobson ‘378 takes on the 45-degree angled V-shape for the same purpose of the instant claims: easing flow-through of a liquid, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. NPL Reynolds further teaches at (Page 529) “Changing the cross-sectional shape of the launder has a significant impact on the shape and structure of the flow regardless of the material being tapped.” 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. “[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.
Regarding Claims 2-4, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Vincent ‘106 teaches a refractory material e.g. at (Page 8, Lines 7-16), meeting the limitations of the instant claims for consisting of refractory material, consisting essentially of refractory material, and comprising refractory material.
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 form the unitary launder of NPL Reynolds out of silica or alumina refractory material based on the teachings of Vincent ‘399 e.g. at (Page 8, Lines 12-19) in order to form a metal transfer launder with increased thermal shock resistance and increased corrosion resistance.
Regarding Claim 5, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Reynolds teaches the channel is centered in the launder (Figs. 22, 24), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 8-9, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. Hobson ‘378 further teaches a weir channel for passing liquid through and allowing the discharge of a liquid over a larger liquid body having multiple V-shaped throughways in order to increase the efficiency of liquid flow [0044, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a unitary launder with a plurality of V-shaped channels in order to widen the distribution of liquid molten metal and increase the efficiency of liquid flow based on the teachings of Hobson ‘378 at [0048]. Such modification also constitutes a duplication of parts obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. See MPEP 2144.04VI B.
The weir channel of Hobson ‘378 takes on the 45-degree angled V-shape for the same purpose of the instant claims: easing flow-through of a liquid, 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. “[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.
PNG
media_image4.png
295
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
201
761
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-7, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Reynolds in view of Vincent GB 2492106 A and Hobson EP 1021378 B1 as applied to Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, and 15 above, further in view of Dunz US 2750639 A.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 10-11, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Reynolds does not expressly teach a relation between the channel width and channel height.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the channel width and channel height of the unitary launder of NPL Reynolds in order to change the flow pattern of the traveling molten metal.
Additionally, Dunz ‘639 expressly teaches altering the width and height of a channel with respect to the width and length of a molten metal transfer through (meeting the limitation of the instant claims for a unitary launder) in order to alter flow parameters including speed and flow pattern (Column 2 Lines 50-66, Column 4 Lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the launder height, channel height, launder width, and channel width in order to achieve a specific flow pattern, speed, or manufacturing need based on the teachings of Dunz ‘639 at (Column 4 Lines 65-75-Column 5 Lines 1-2).
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. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 16-17, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Reynolds does not expressly teach a relation between the channel width and channel height.
However, Dunz ‘639 expressly teaches altering the width and height of a channel with respect to the width and length of a molten metal transfer through (meeting the limitation of the instant claims for a unitary launder) in order to alter flow parameters including speed and flow pattern (Column 2 Lines 50-66, Column 4 Lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the launder height, individual channel height, launder width, and individual channel width in order to achieve a specific flow pattern, speed, or manufacturing need based on the teachings of Dunz ‘639 at (Column 4 Lines 65-75, Column 5 lines 1-2).
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. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image6.png
291
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Qiu et al. ‘650 Fig. 2
Claims 8-9 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Reynolds in view of Vincent GB 2492106 A and Hobson EP 1021378 B1 as applied to Claims 1-5, 12, and 15 above, further in view of Qiu et al. CN 208087650 U.
Regarding Claims 8-9, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above.
Regarding the limitation for a plurality of V-shaped channels, Qiu et al. ‘650 expressly teaches a multiple channel launder (6) for the transport of molten metal (Abstract)(Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a unitary launder with a plurality of V-shaped channels in order to distribute wear and increase the longevity of the launder, based on the teachings of Qiu et al. ‘650 at (Abstract), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. Such modification also constitutes a duplication of parts obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. See MPEP 2144.04VI B.
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. “[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.
Claims 16-17 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Reynolds in view of Vincent GB 2492106 A and Hobson EP 1021378 B1 further in view of Qiu et al. CN 208087650 U as applied to Claims 8-9 above, further in view of Dunz US 2750639 A.
Regarding Claims 16-17, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above.
As set forth above, Dunz ‘639 expressly teaches altering the width and height of a channel with respect to the width and length of a molten metal transfer through (meeting the limitation of the instant claims for a unitary launder).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the launder height, individual channel height, launder width, and individual channel width in order to achieve a specific flow pattern, speed, or manufacturing need based on the teachings of Dunz ‘639 at (Column 4 Lines 65-75, Column 5 lines 1-2).
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. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Reynolds in view of Vincent GB 2492106 A and Hobson EP 1021378 B1 as applied to Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, and 15 above, further in view of Cooper et al. US 20160082507 A1.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified NPL Reynolds teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the unitary launder of NPL Reynolds includes a first end and a second end that is opposite the first end. NPL Reynolds does not expressly teach the presence of a stop.
However, Cooper et al. ‘507 expressly teaches a launder may have a singular tap, opening, stopped by a removable plug (meeting the limitation for a stop) that allows molten metal to flow through the tap into a ladle [0079].
As established in the 112(b) rejections above, H1 refers to multiple elements and the meaning of the height is unclear.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a stop juxtaposed the second end of the unitary launder of NPL Reynolds that is sufficiently tall to prevent the flow of molten metal through the tap. Adjusting the height of the stop to have a height sufficient to prevent spillage and splatter is well within the realm of persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Additionally, Cooper et al. ‘507 teaches a launder configuration having multiple chambers with a dividing wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the stop height to be taller than the dividing wall of a multi-chambered molten pool in order to prevent spillage between the chambers based on the teachings of Cooper et al. ‘507 at [0075].
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. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 205502343 U teaches a W shaped module for liquid drainage.
DE 102006051814 B3 teaches a guide body for molten metal having a V-shaped channel.
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