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 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 3 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “high thermal conductivity”, and the claim also recites “preferably above 60 W/m·K” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burtsev (RU 2321682).
Regarding claim 1, Burtsev discloses a cathode assembly of a reduction cell for aluminum production (abstract; page 1, paragraphs 1-2 under Description), containing a metal pot (1; figures 4-5) with a bottom (3), bearing members (5) covering the longitudinal and end walls (2) and bottom of the pot, with lining (6) enclosed therein and cathode blocks (7) with cathode rods (8) forming the cathode of the reduction cell (page 2, paragraphs 17-18),
characterized in that on the longitudinal and end walls (2) of the metal pot (1) in the gaps between the bearing members (5) there are fixed plate ribs (9) with a developed structure for heat removal (page 2, paragraphs 6, 9-11 and 19-21), with a belt/adapter (12) for steady heat removal made of composite material (steel-aluminum or steel-copper) installed in the upper part of the longitudinal and end walls (2) of the metal pot (1; page 2, paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 2, the composite material of the belt/adapter (12) of Burtsev consists of at least two metal layers (page 2, paragraph 20 – the adapter comprises steel-aluminum or steel-copper).
Regarding claims 3-5, the top layer of the belt/adapter composite material of Burtsev is made of a metal with high thermal conductivity, i.e. aluminum or copper, which are well known in the art to have a thermal conductivity above 60 W/m-K (page 2, paragraphs 10, 20).
Regarding claim 6, even though Burtsev fails to explicitly teach wherein the belt/adapter composite material is made by joining the metal layers by pulse welding, it has been held by the courts that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113.I. Burtsev discloses an adapter comprising a composite material (page 2, paragraph 20 – the adapter comprises steel-aluminum or steel-copper) and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the belt/adapter composite material of Burtsev further comprises an intermediate/barrier layer made of titanium to preserve the thermal and mechanical characteristics of the bimetallic adapter (page 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Burtsev further teaches heat removal regulators (14) installed above the bearing members (5; figures 4-5; page 2, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, Burtsev discloses wherein forced cooling devices, i.e. fans (15), are placed in the gaps between the bearing members (5; page 3, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 10, the plate fins (9) of Burtsev are made of a material with a thermal conductivity above 60 W/m-K (page 2, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 11, the height of the belt/adapter of Burtsev is about 300-600mm (~0.3 to 0.6m – page 3, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 12, the top layer of the belt/adapter composite material of Burtsev is made of a metal with high thermal conductivity, i.e. aluminum or copper, which are well known in the art to have a thermal conductivity above 60 W/m-K (page 2, paragraphs 10, 20).
Regarding claims 13-14, the top layer of the belt/adapter composite material of Burtsev is made of a metal with high thermal conductivity, i.e. aluminum or copper, which are well known in the art to have a thermal conductivity above 60 W/m-K (page 2, paragraphs 10, 20).
Regarding claim 15, Burtsev further teaches wherein the heat removal regulators (14) are designed as pivoting flaps (abstract; page 3, paragraph 2 – heat sink regulators are installed in the form of rotary flaps).
Regarding claim 16, the forced cooling devices (15) of Burtsev are fans (page 3, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, even though Burtsev fails to explicitly teach wherein the belt/adapter composite material is made by joining the metal layers by pulse welding, it has been held by the courts that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113.I. Burtsev discloses an adapter comprising a composite material (page 2, paragraph 20 – the adapter comprises steel-aluminum or steel-copper) and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 18, even though Burtsev fails to explicitly teach wherein the belt/adapter composite material is made by joining the metal layers by pulse welding, it has been held by the courts that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113.I. Burtsev discloses an adapter comprising a composite material (page 2, paragraph 20 – the adapter comprises steel-aluminum or steel-copper) and thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, even though Burtsev fails to explicitly teach wherein the belt/adapter composite material is made by joining the metal layers by pulse welding, it has been held by the courts that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113.I. Burtsev discloses an adapter comprising a composite material (page 2, paragraph 20 – the adapter comprises steel-aluminum or steel-copper) and thus, it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights