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 Status
The present application is a continuation-in-part of App. No. 18/295752, now U.S. Patent No. 12234531.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 8 and 10 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 8 recites the limitation "one or more diffuser blocks adapted for diffusing the inert gas" in line 2. Claim 2 recites diffuser blocks, however, claim 1 from which the claim depends does not. The claim lacks antecedent basis for “diffusing the inert gas.” In particular, it is unclear if the diffuser blocks for diffusing inert gas are drawn to further limiting the “bubbling an inert gas” step of claim 1, or a separate step of diffusing inert gas. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as drawn to further limiting the bubbling an inert gas step of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "one or more diffuser blocks adapted for diffusing the inert gas" in line 2. Claim 2 recites diffuser blocks, however, claim 1 from which the claim depends does not. The claim lacks antecedent basis for “diffusing the inert gas.” In particular, it is unclear if the diffuser blocks for diffusing inert gas are drawn to further limiting the “bubbling an inert gas” step of claim 1, or a separate step of diffusing inert gas. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as drawn to further limiting the bubbling an inert gas step of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101965768)(machine translation provided) in view of Dong Hun Yoo (KR 102075884 B1)(machine translation)(hereafter, “Yoo”).
With respect to Claim 1, Kim teaches a method of making and treating an iron-copper alloy comprising more than 50% copper, wherein the method comprises providing in a melting furnace the base materials (i.e. feedstock) in a solid phase, heating the feedstock to melt the feedstock in the melting furnace to form a molten copper-based alloy, and flowing/bubbling an inert gas, such as argon, through the molten alloy using a porous plug embedded in a refractory lining of the furnace, wherein the refractory lining may comprise alumina or magnesia-based refractory composition, and wherein the furnace is adapted for bubbling the inert gas through the molten alloy. (p. 1, 4-8 of translation). Kim further teaches wherein the melting furnace is a rotary furnace. (pg. 6 of translation). One of ordinary skill in the art that a rotary furnace necessarily rotates about an axis, however, the reference is silent as to whether the rotary melting furnace rotates about a central axis as instantly claimed.
Yoo teaches a cylindrical rotary melting furnace for melting copper, wherein the rotary melting furnace rotates about a central longitudinal axis. (see pgs. 1, 3-4 of translation; Figs. 1, 6-7). Yoo teaches that such rotation about a central axis allows for movement of the molten material within the furnace and allows for discharge of the molten material through a tap hole. (pg. 3-5 of translation; Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim comprising melting copper-based material in a rotary melting furnace to select a cylindrical rotary melting furnace that rotates around a central axis, as taught by Yoo, in order to allow for enhanced mixing of the material resulting in improved uniformity and to allow for discharge of the molten copper-based alloy to a desired location.
With respect to Claim 2, the claim recites a “diffuser block comprising a porous diffusing material.” The term “block” is not defined by the instant specification and the specification and claims do not appear to contain any specific recitation of the shape of a “block.” As a result, the term may be interpreted as having a solid shape with the required porous material, but does not require, for example, a rectangular prism shape.
As detailed above, Kim teaches a porous plug for bubbling inert gas through the molten copper-based alloy, the porous plug deemed to constitute a diffuser block having a porous diffusing material. Moreover, selection of a plug shape (e.g. cylindrical or rectangular) would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With respect to Claim 6, Kim teaches providing an Fe-Cu feedstock into the furnace then providing a Cu feedstock into the furnace (see p. 6-8 of translation) and thus, teaches providing a plurality of feedstock pieces having a combined composition configured to form the molten-copper based alloy. Moreover, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a feedstock into a melt in the form of a plurality of pieces in order to alloy for easer handling and measurement.
With respect to Claims 8 and 9, Kim teaches wherein the porous diffuser block/plug is located on the bottom side of the furnace while melting and bubbling inert gas through the feedstock (i.e. positioned under the feedstock and on a bottom surface of the molten copper-based alloy)(see Fig. 2). Furthermore, Kim in view of Yoo teach a method of melting copper-containing feedstock in a rotary furnace (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the rotary furnace may be rotated around a central axis for discharging molten material but is rotated in an upward position for melting and diffusing inert gas into the feedstock. (see Fig. 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the rotary melting furnace of Kim in view of Yoo such that one or more diffuser block/plug adapted for diffusing the inert gas therethrough are positioned under the feedstock.
With respect to Claim 10, as detailed with respect to cl aims 8 and 9, Kim teaches wherein the porous diffuser block/plug is located on the bottom side of the furnace while melting and bubbling inert gas through the feedstock (see Fig. 2). Kim in view of Yoo teach a method of melting copper-containing feedstock in a rotary furnace (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the rotary furnace is rotated in an upward position for melting and diffusing inert gas into the feedstock and rotated around a central axis for discharging molten material thereby resulting in a downward position. (see Figs. 6-7). Accordingly, i5t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the rotary melting furnace of Kim in view of Yoo such that one or more diffuser block/plug adapted for diffusing the inert gas therethrough are positioned under above the molten copper-based alloy for discharging/transferring the molten-copper based alloy out of the melting furnace.
With respect to Claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the inert gas may be argon, a noble gas. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 13, Kim teaches bubbling an inert gas, such as argon, to remove impurities, and is therefore, interpreted to teach away from an inert gas comprising unstated impurities (e.g. hydrogen). (p. 2-4, 6-7 of translation). Accordingly, the argon gas of Kim is deemed to meet or overlap “wherein the inert gas is essentially hydrogen-free and moisture-free.” Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 14, Yoo teaches a substantially enclosed rotary furnace. (see Fig. 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the step of heating the molten copper-based alloy in an enclosed furnace/chamber configuration in which an atmosphere above the molten-copper based alloy is isolated from the outside atmosphere. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as Kim is drawn to removing impurities, to carry out the heating and melting in an isolated atmosphere, in order to prevent unwanted impurities from entering the melt.
With respect to Claims 15-17, Yoo teaches a method of heating and melting copper material by injecting a flame (i.e. stream of flame) substantially along a central axis of the melting furnace. (pgs. 3-6 of translation; Figs. 1, 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo to perform the heating and melting of the feedstock using the injected flame step/means of Yoo, in order to efficiently and/or effectively heat and melt the copper-containing feedstock. Furthermore, with respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject the flame along a central axis of a melting furnace in order to more uniformly heat the feedstock along said axis. Finally, with respect to Claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “flame” requires burning a fuel, and therefore, the injected flame of Yoo would necessarily comprise injecting and igniting a stream of fuel. See also MPEP § 2144.04 (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious).
With respect to Claim 19, Yoo teaches rotating the melting furnace left and right (i.e. rocking around the central axis). (see pg. 3 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo to comprise rocking the melting furnace around the central axis while bubbling the inert gas into the molten copper-based alloy, as taught by Yoo, in order to improve the uniformity of heating and/or inert gas bubbling through mixing and movement of the feedstock/melt.
With respect to Claim 20, the rotary melting furnace of Kim in view of Yoo comprises a central axis substantially parallel to a ground plane. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Yoo, Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101965768)(machine translation provided) in view of Dong Hun Yoo (KR 102075884 B1)(machine translation)(hereafter, “Yoo”) as applied to Claim 1 above (with respect to Claim 2), further in view of Willoughby (US 2004/0100004).
In the alternative to the above rejection of claims 2, 8, and 10 if the porous diffuser plug of Kim is not interpreted as a porous diffuser “brick,” Willoughby teaches a method of injecting gas into a molten metal, wherein the injector is a plug or brick (i.e. block) formed of a refractory material comprising a porosity of 20% or greater. (para. 13-18, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo to substitute one porous diffuser (plug) for another (block), as taught by Willoughby, with a predictable result of success. The substitute one shaped diffuser material for another having the same composition, function, and effect would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 3, Kim is silent as to the specific porous of the diffusing material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo and Willoughby to select a refractory material with a porosity of 20% or greater, overlapping the claimed range, as taught by Willoughby, in order to form a diffusive lining and/or diffuser, in order to allow for a desired flow gas through the diffuser/diffusive lining. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the porous material may comprise alumina. (see rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, Willoughby teaches wherein the porous block material may be formed of, for example, alumina. (see para. 17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the diffuser block from alumina, in order to obtain a diffuser material with a known ability to bubbling inert gas into a molten metal.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101965768) in view of Dong Hun Yoo (KR 102075884 B1) as applied to Claim 1 above (with respect to Claim 5) and Claim 6 (with respect to claim 7), further in view of Bakke et al. (US 2014/0248739).
With respect to Claims 5 and 7, Kim teaches the benefit of bubbling inert gas through the molten metal to degas, remove impurities, and stir the molten metal (see, e.g., p. 2-4, 6-7 of translation) ; however, the reference is silent as to wherein heating of the feedstock or the molten copper-based alloy is under a substantially inert atmosphere and wherein prior to and during heating of the feedstock pieces, flowing inert gas through gaps between the plurality of feedstock pieces.
Bakke teaches conventional melting of a feedstock of a furnace may comprise providing a feedstock in a furnace and flowing an inert purge gas, such as argon, during the period when the heating elements of the furnace are engaged so protect the feedstock from contamination and remove unwanted gas as the feedstock melts. (para. 3)
Thus, Kim and Bakke are drawn to the melting of a feedstock in a furnace with the capability of flowing inert gas through the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo, to in addition to bubbling inert gas into the melt to degas and stir the melt, flow inert gas prior to and during heating of the solid phase feedstock, as taught by Bakke, thereby resulting in a substantially inert atmosphere in order to prevent contamination of the feedstock and obtain a melt with reduced contaminants.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101965768) in view of Dong Hun Yoo (KR 102075884 B1) as applied to Claim 1 above (with respect to Claim 5) and Claim 6 (with respect to claim 7), further in view of Oyamada et al. (US 2020/0279824) and
With respect to Claim 11, Kim in view of Yoo are silent as to a step of cooling the molten copper-based alloy under a substantially inert atmosphere prior to transferring the molten copper-based alloy out of the melting furnace.
Oyamada teaches a method of melting a copper material in a furnace followed by allowing the molten material to cool within the furnace, wherein the method takes place in an inert atmosphere in order to prevent admixture of atmospheric gases such as oxygen and hydrogen into the molten material. (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo, to provide an inert atmosphere in the furnace during melting and maintaining it during a cooling step, as taught by Oyamada, in order to prevent contamination of the copper-based alloy. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the molten alloy to cool within the furnace, at least a minor amount, by shutting off the flame/heating element prior to rotating the rotary melting furnace to a discharge position, in order to improve the safety of the method and prevent damage to the furnace elements.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101965768)(machine translation provided) in view of Dong Hun Yoo (KR 102075884 B1)(machine translation)(hereafter, “Yoo”) as applied to Claim 1 above (with respect to Claim 2), further in view of Paubel (US 2024/0125470).
In the alternative to the above rejection of claims 16-17, if Yoo is not interpreted to teach injecting a flame along a central axis of the melting furnace, Paubel teaches a method of heating a material, such as copper, with a flame injected into a furnace along a central longitudinal axis of the furnace. (see Fig. 1; para. 38, 63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim in view of Yoo to inject the flame along a central axis of a melting furnace, as taught by Paubel, in order to more uniformly heat the feedstock along said axis.
With respect to Claim 18, Kim in view of Yoo are silent as to the specific fuel used to form the flame.
Paubel teaches injecting and igniting a natural gas with a burner tip into a furnace. (para. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a known fuel for providing a heating/melting flame in a furnace, such as natural gas, as taught by Paubel, in order to efficiently and/or effectively heat and melt the copper-based feedstock.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4353534, drawn to revolving cylindrical furnace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights