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 Objections
The previous objection is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tateno (U.S. Patent 4989218; already of record). Regarding claim 1, Tateno teaches:
Providing a melting furnace chamber (As seen in Figure 1) configured to form a molten copper-based alloy comprising at least 50 weight % copper (the furnace of Tateno is capable of melting such an alloy; however such a limitation does not add to the method of making the apparatus since such a limitation is directed to a method of using the apparatus);
Forming a diffusive lining covering substantially an entire bottom inner surface of the melting furnace chamber (Figure 1, porous furnace body 1), the diffusive lining comprising an aluminum-silicate ceramic material having a porous structure (mullite can be used, column 2, lines 39-50 and gas is introduced into the porous furnace body 1 by the pipes 15) adapted for bubbling an inert gas through the molten copper-based alloy (Since Tateno teaches bubbling gas, Tateno is capable of using inert gas, again this limitation is directed to the use of the apparatus and not its construction method)
Regarding claim 2:
Wherein the diffusive lining comprises alumina and silica (As previously discussed Tateno teaches mullite which is made from alumina and silica)
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateno, in view of He et al (CN 202522062; herein He, already of record, with machine translation). Regarding claims 3:
As previously discussed Tateno teaches a method of making a porous ceramic furnace body. However, Tateno does not teach selectively sintering a surface leaving unsintered material underneath.
In the same field of endeavor He teaches a ceramic furnace liner that has a three layered structure. A inner sintered layer (Figure 2, 11), a middle semi-sintered layer (Figure 2, 12), and an outer unsintered layer (Figure 2, 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the sintering step in Tateno in order to achieve the layers of He, since having an unsintered layer prevents local stress concentration and cracking. The layered structure also increases the service life of the furnace since as the sintered ceramic erodes unsintered material underneath becomes sintered (Abstract and paragraph 0012)
Regarding claims 4:
As seen in Figure 1 of Tateno, the porous body 1 would contact the molten material.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateno and He as applied above, and further in view of Rice (U.S. Patent 4762305; already of record). Regarding claim 5:
Wherein forming the sintered ceramic layer comprises partially sintering a compacted ceramic powder layer such that the sintered layer and the unsintered ceramic layer have substantially the same chemical composition while the sintered ceramic layer comprises ceramic particles that are fused together
As previously discussed Tateno teaches a method of making a porous ceramic furnace body. Tateno further discloses silica, alumina, or mullite (an aluminum silicate) can be used as the ceramic (column 2, lines 39-50). However, Tateno does not disclose the ins and outs of the material system in terms of the processing.
In the same field of endeavor Rice teaches using kyanite, alumina, and silica in a ramming mixture for a furnace liner (column 1, line 53 through column 2, line 34, and Table 1). It is noted that kyanite can be interpreted as a mixture of alumina and silica since it can be represented as 3Al2O3∙3SiO2. In the material system of Rice the kyanite decomposes to mullite and silica, the silica from the decomposition and the silica in Table 1 further react with the alumina in the composition to form additional mullite.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the material system of Rice in the production of the Tateno furnace body, since the formed liner has increased strength and crack resistance which extends the life of the liner (column 1, lines 38-50). Further, since material is sintered the particles would be fused together.
Regarding claim 6:
The material system of Rice has been previously discussed. Based on Table 1 of Rice and converting to mol%, Rice teaches either 74.2 mol% alumina and 23.32 mol% silica in Table A using the stoichiometric kyanite, or 73.45 mol% alumina and 24.82 mol% silica in Table Busing Rice’s definition of kyanite being 3 of each alumina and silica.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the composition of the mixture be as needed since the art has shown a similar composition has benefits in the same environment, and can be seen as optimization of known process variables, since the claimed invention and prior art both desire a mullite based sintered furnace liner. See MPEP 2144.05 I and IIA.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11993828. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1, 7, and 14 are the broader recitation of the methods of 11993828, thus they would infringe on each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The diffusive liner of Tateno and Kim is not adapted to bubble gas through substantially the entire bottom surface. In Tateno the bubbling occurs at the sidewalls, and in Kim the bubbling occurs at a central plug.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but are only partly persuasive. The amendments to claims 7 and 14 overcome the prior art and those rejections are withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 1 still stands.
The Applicant argues that Tateno does not teach the last clause of claim 1:
Forming a diffusive lining covering substantially an entire bottom inner surface of the melting furnace chamber, the diffusive lining comprising an aluminum-silicate ceramic material having a porous structure adapted for bubbling an inert gas through the molten copper-based alloy
The diffusive lining of Tateno covers the entire inner surface of the furnace as seen in Figure 1. The inert gas in Tateno is introduced through the sidewalls. Therefore the furnace of Tateno still anticipates claims 1. Claim 1 does not state that the gas is being bubbled through the bottom, as it is in claims 7 and 14, just that it is bubbled through the lining. Therefore, Tateno still anticipates claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743