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 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: belt surface 952, texture pattern 954, first grooves 956, second grooves 958, texture pattern 1054, texture pattern 1154, parallel grooves 1156. 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: 306 (see Fig. 3). 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 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 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation "from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm" in lines 3-4. However, paragraphs [0041], [0088], and [0096] of the US PGPub all have this range as “0.1 mm to 0.3 mm”. It is unclear as to if this range should be in mm or in µm. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this range as “0.1 mm to 0.3 mm”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 18, 32, 33, 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrington (US 6,063,215).
Regarding claim 1, Harrington teaches a method of texturizing a casting mold of a continuous belt casting system, the method comprising:
providing at least one endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) comprising an elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the elongated belt surface comprises at least a first region (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 6:1-6) and at least a second region adjacent to the first region across a width of the elongated belt surface (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples), and wherein the elongated belt surface is configured to at least partially define a casting cavity of the continuous belt casting system (see Fig. 1 and 4:14-36); and
texturizing the elongated belt surface by applying a predetermined texture to the first region and such that the second region does not comprise the predetermined texture (see Fig. 5; 6:1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Harrington teaches wherein providing the at least one endless belt comprises providing at least one of a copper-based endless belt (see 4:52-65), an iron-based endless belt, an aluminum-based endless belt, or a steel-based endless belt (see 4:52-65).
Regarding claim 11, Harrington teaches wherein texturizing the elongated belt surface comprises laser texturing the first region of the elongated belt surface (see 5:50-6:6)
Regarding claim 18, Harrington teaches wherein the elongated belt surface comprises a plurality of first regions (see Fig. 5 – plurality of dimples 56), wherein the second region is between adjacent first regions across the width of the elongated belt surface (see Fig. 5 – plurality of areas between adjacent dimples), and wherein the method further comprises:
texturizing the elongated belt surface by applying the predetermined texture to the plurality of first regions (see 5:50-6:6).
Regarding claim 32, Harrington teaches a continuous belt casting system (see Fig. 1) comprising an endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26); comprising an elongated belt surface (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the elongated belt surface comprises a predetermined texturized pattern defined in the elongated belt surface (see Fig. 5; 6:1-6)., wherein the elongated belt surface at least partially defines a casting cavity of the continuous belt casting system (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Harrington teaches wherein the predetermined texturized pattern comprises a ridge pattern, a groove pattern, a cross-hatch pattern, or a diamond pattern formed on the elongated belt surface (ridge pattern, see Figs. 3-4, and groove pattern in dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6).
Regarding claim 36, Harrington teaches a method of casting a metal slab using the continuously belt casting system of claim 32 (see rejection for claim 32 above) comprising the endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) and a second endless belt (endless belt 12, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26), the method comprising:
introducing molten metal into a casting cavity defined by the endless belt and the second endless belt (see Fig. 1 and 4:14-36);
advancing the molten metal through the casting cavity by advancing the endless belts and such that the molten metal solidifies (see Fig. 1 and 4:14-51); and
causing the solidified molten metal to emerge from an exit of the casting cavity as a metal slab (see Fig. 1) and such that the as-cast metal slab comprises a surface texture pattern corresponding to the texturized pattern (see Figs. 3-5 and 5:50-6:6) of the belt surface (as the method of the prior art is identical to that of the claimed invention, it must follow that if the method of the instant invention results in an as-cast metal slab comprising a surface texture pattern corresponding to the texturized pattern of the belt surface then the method of the prior art of Harrington must also result in an as-cast metal slab comprising a surface texture pattern corresponding to the texturized pattern of the belt surface).
Regarding claim 37, Harrington teaches wherein the predetermined texturized pattern on the belt surface comprises a ridge pattern, a, groove pattern, a cross-hatch pattern, or a diamond pattern (ridge pattern, see Figs. 3-4, and groove pattern in dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 21, 27-31, 34, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington (US 6,063,215; listed in the IDS filed 8 February 2024).
Regarding claim 3, Harrington teaches wherein the at least one endless belt is a first endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1) and the elongated belt surface is a first elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1), and wherein the method comprises:
providing a second endless metal belt (endless belt 12, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) comprising a second elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the second elongated belt surface is configured to at least partially define the casting cavity see Fig. 1 and 4:14-36).
Though Harrington is silent to specifically teaching wherein the second elongated belt surface comprises a first region (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6) and a second region (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples); and
texturizing the second elongated belt surface by applying the predetermined texture to the first region of the second elongated belt surface and such that the second region of the second elongated belt surface does not comprise the predetermined texture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so because it would allow for the second elongated belt surface to comprise a first region (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6) and a second region (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples) with the same texturized surface as the first elongated belt surface in order to apply a homogenous increase in heat transfer between the molten metal and the belt from both the first and second belts.
Regarding claim 21, Harrington teaches wherein applying the predetermined texture to the first region comprises forming a crater having a depth from 20 µm to 1000 µm (see 6:1-15 – Harrington teaches the grooves or irregularities have a depth ranging from 1-40% the thickness of the belt, and Harrington teaches that thickness of the belt ranges from 0.05 to 0.15 inches (see 5:25-35), and so the depth can range from 12.7 µm to 1524 µm (The smallest thickness, 0.05 in, multiplied by 1% (0.05 x 0.01 = 0.0005 in), and converted to µm is equivalent to 12.7 µm. Similarly, the largest thickness, 0.15 in, multiplied by 40% (0.15 x .4 = 0.06 in), and converted to µm is 1524 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Harrington teaches a method of texturizing a casting mold of a continuous belt casting system, the method comprising:
providing at least one endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) comprising an elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the elongated belt surface comprises a plurality of first regions (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 6:1-6) and a plurality of second regions surface (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples), wherein adjacent first regions of the plurality of first regions are separated by one of the plurality of second regions (see Fig. 5), and wherein the elongated belt surface is configured to at least partially define a casting cavity of the continuous belt casting system (see Fig. 1 and 4:14-36); and
texturizing the elongated belt surface by applying a predetermined texture only to the plurality of first regions (see Fig. 5; 6:1-6).
Harrington is silent to specifically teaching that a distance between adjacent first regions of the plurality of first regions is from 0.01 mm to 1.0 mm. However, Harrington teaches that it is frequently desirable that the surface irregularities be equally spaced each from the other and that they have a frequency ranging from 20 to 120 irregularities per inch (see 6:1-15). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 28, Harrington teaches wherein applying the predetermined texture only to the plurality of first regions comprises applying the predetermined texture such that the distance between the adjacent first regions of the plurality of first regions is from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm. However, Harrington teaches that it is frequently desirable that the surface irregularities be equally spaced each from the other and that they have a frequency ranging from 20 to 120 irregularities per inch (see 6:1-15). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 29, Harrington teaches wherein applying the predetermined texture only to the plurality of first regions comprises forming a crater having a depth from 20 um to 1000 um in each first region of the plurality of first regions (see 6:1-15 – Harrington teaches the grooves or irregularities have a depth ranging from 1-40% the thickness of the belt, and Harrington teaches that thickness of the belt ranges from 0.05 to 0.15 inches (see 5:25-35), and so the depth can range from 12.7 µm to 1524 µm (The smallest thickness, 0.05 in, multiplied by 1% (0.05 x 0.01 = 0.0005 in), and converted to µm is equivalent to 12.7 µm. Similarly, the largest thickness, 0.15 in, multiplied by 40% (0.15 x .4 = 0.06 in), and converted to µm is 1524 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 30, Harrington teaches wherein applying the predetermined texture only to the plurality of first region comprises forming the crater having the depth from 200 um to 250 um in each first region of the plurality of first regions (see 6:1-15 – Harrington teaches the grooves or irregularities have a depth ranging from 1-40% the thickness of the belt, and Harrington teaches that thickness of the belt ranges from 0.05 to 0.15 inches (see 5:25-35), and so the depth can range from 12.7 µm to 1524 µm (The smallest thickness, 0.05 in, multiplied by 1% (0.05 x 0.01 = 0.0005 in), and converted to µm is equivalent to 12.7 µm. Similarly, the largest thickness, 0.15 in, multiplied by 40% (0.15 x .4 = 0.06 in), and converted to µm is 1524 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 31, Harrington teaches wherein applying the predetermined texture only to the plurality of first regions comprises forming a groove in each first region of the plurality of first regions that is elongated in a casting direction and comprises a depth from 20 um to 1000 um (see 6:1-15 – Harrington teaches the grooves or irregularities have a depth ranging from 1-40% the thickness of the belt, and Harrington teaches that thickness of the belt ranges from 0.05 to 0.15 inches (see 5:25-35), and so the depth can range from 12.7 µm to 1524 µm (The smallest thickness, 0.05 in, multiplied by 1% (0.05 x 0.01 = 0.0005 in), and converted to µm is equivalent to 12.7 µm. Similarly, the largest thickness, 0.15 in, multiplied by 40% (0.15 x .4 = 0.06 in), and converted to µm is 1524 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 34, Harrington teaches wherein the endless belt is a first endless belt (endless belt 10, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) and the elongated belt surface is a first elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1), and wherein the continuous belt casting system comprises a second endless belt (endless belt 12, see Fig. 1; 4:14-26) comprising a second elongated belt surface (see Fig. 1) at least partially defining the casting cavity (see Fig. 1).
Though Harrington is silent to wherein the second elongated belt surface comprises a predetermined texturized pattern, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so because it would allow for the second elongated belt surface to comprise a first region (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6) and a second region (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples) with the same texturized surface as the first elongated belt surface in order to apply a homogenous increase in heat transfer between the molten metal and the belt from both the first and second belts.
Regarding claim 35, Harrington teaches wherein the predetermined texturized pattern of the second elongated belt surface is the same as the predetermined texturized pattern of the first elongated belt surface (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so because it would allow for the second elongated belt surface to comprise a first region (dimples 56, see Fig. 5; 5:50-6:6) and a second region (see Fig. 5 – areas between adjacent dimples) with the same texturized surface as the first elongated belt surface in order to apply a homogenous increase in heat transfer between the molten metal and the belt from both the first and second belts).
Regarding claim 38, Harrington teaches at least a first pattern and a second pattern (see Figs.3-5), but is silent to the method further comprising changing the predetermined texturized pattern from a first pattern to a second pattern based on a type of metal being cast. However, as different metals have different thermal heat transfer rates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the best texturized pattern based on the cooling requirements for different metals, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum pattern by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buxmann et al. (GB 2034217 A; hereinafter “Buxmann”; listed in the IDS filed 8 February 2024).
Regarding claim 4, Harrington is silent to wherein texturizing the elongated belt surface comprises:
applying a masking agent on at least the second region of the elongated belt surface;
etching the first region of the elongated belt surface with an etchant to form the
predetermined texture; and
removing the masking agent from the second region of the elongated belt surface.
Buxmann teaches creating a roughened surface of a caterpillar type mold via a photochemical etching process (see Fig. 2 and 2:84-115). Buxmann teaches that compared to mechanically roughened surfaces, the photochemical etching process results in a considerable improvement in surface quality of the casting product.
In view of Buxmann’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Harrington to include wherein texturizing the elongated belt surface comprises: applying a masking agent on at least the second region of the elongated belt surface, etching the first region of the elongated belt surface with an etchant to form the predetermined texture, and removing the masking agent (these masking and etching steps are conventional to a photochemical etching process) from the second region of the elongated belt surface, as taught by Buxmann, because a photochemical etching process to create first regions of the elongated belt surface with valleys and second regions which are pyramidal shaped projections (see Fig. 2 of Buxmann) creates a pattern that results in a considerable improvement in surface quality of the casting product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein texturing comprises mechanical texturing, and wherein mechanical texturing comprises:
providing a texturing tool comprising a roller, wherein the roller comprises a roller surface, and wherein the roller surface comprises at least one rib;
contacting the roller with the elongated belt surface and such that the at least one rib contacts the first region of the elongated belt surface; and
moving the roller along the elongated belt surface such that the at least one rib forms the predetermined texture on only the first region of the elongated belt surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 20 September 2025
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735