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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 28 March 2024 were
considered by the examiner The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0509699 of Engel in view of US2006166053 of Badding.
Claim 11 claims a gas injected upper tundish nozzle, the nozzle comprising: a protective can; a ceramic inner portion disposed within the protective can, the ceramic inner portion having gas flow pathways therein, the gas flow pathways having been formed using a sacrificial mold when producing said ceramic inner portion; a gas injection port attached to the protective can, the gas injection port allowing for injection of gas through the protective can and into the gas flow pathways within the ceramic inner portion; a gas flow seal formed on interior surfaces of the gas flow pathways within the ceramic inner portion, the gas flow seal blocking gas leakage from the gas flow pathways into any cracks in the ceramic inner portion; the gas flow seal being formed of nickel or an alloy of nickel.
The limitation “the gas flow pathways having been formed using a sacrificial mold” Is a product by process limitation. 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, see MPEP 2113. Therefore, the sacrificial mold is given no patentable weight.
Engel teaches a gas permeable well nozzle in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Engel discloses an inner nozzle for a metallurgical vessel such as a tundish, Para[0005]. Engel teaches a castable member (equivalent to the claimed inner portion) which defines a gas annulus (equivalent to the claimed gas flow pathways), surrounded by a can, Para[0005]. Engel also teaches a gas inlet channel (equivalent to the claimed gas injection port), Para[0005], and a gas seal, Para[0020]. Engel discloses a wax sleeve employed to form the open gas annulus (equivalent to the sacrificial mold), Para[0015]. Engel does not teach a seal being formed of nickel or an alloy of nickel.
Badding teaches solid oxide fuel cell assembly with replaceable stack and packet modules in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Badding teaches that Nickel-based coatings that may be deposited via electroless plating are particularly attractive; nickel-niobium coatings appear to be superior to oxide coatings for some applications, Para[0098]. Badding also discloses that the sealing rings can be formed of bare metal, or they may be coated with another metal, such as nickel or a corrosion resistant precious metal such as gold, to aid in ensuring a gas-tight seal, Para[0110]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nickel or a nickel alloy to form a gas tight seal in the gas pathways disclosed by Engel. Thus, Engel in view of Badding teaches all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 16 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the protective can is formed of a metal material.
Engel teaches that the can is steel, Para[0016]. Therefore, Engel teaches the additional limitation of claim 16. Thus, Engel in view of Badding teaches all limitations of claim 16.
Claim 17 further limits claim 16 by claiming that the protective can is formed of a steel material.
Engel teaches that the can is steel, Para[0016]. Therefore, Engel teaches the additional limitation of claim 17. Thus, Engel in view of Badding teaches all limitations of claim 17.
Claim 18 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the ceramic inner portion is formed from a refractory material consisting of a ceramic oxide of one or more of aluminum, silicon, magnesium, chromium, or zirconium, or mixtures thereof.
Engel discloses that the porous member is preferably formed of a pressed and fired ceramic refractory material having a high resistance to molten metal erosion such as alumina, zirconia or magnesia, Para[0005]. Thus, Engel in view of Badding teaches all limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the gas distribution channels have gas outlets to release the gas into steel flowing within the upper tundish nozzle.
Engel teaches that an open gas annulus is positioned intermediate the members and includes a transverse channel which is adapted to be placed into communication with a remotely positioned supply of pressurized inert gas. In operation, the pressurized inert gas fills the annulus and permeates the porous refractory member. The gas exits along the sidewall of the axial bore as a fine dispersion of inert gas bubbles in the molten stream of metal passing therethrough, Para[0014]. Therefore, Engel teaches the additional limitation of claim 19. Thus, Engel in view of Badding teaches all limitations of claim 19.
Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0509699 of Engel in view of US2006166053 of Badding, as cited above, further in view of US4836508 of Fishler.
Claim 12 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the gas flow passages include a gas pressure/distribution manifold and individual gas injection channels.
While Engel teaches gas pathways formed by sacrificial wax, Engel does not specifically teach a manifold.
Fishler teaches a ladle shroud with co-pressed gas permeable ring in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fishler discloses that the porous ring is preformed and the so-called "green", unfired preform is then coated on an outside diameter with a material, such as a wax or like substance that will burn out in the final firing of the body. This coating forms a channel or manifold in the fired body so that the later injected inert gas may be evenly distributed around the porous ring, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the manifold taught by Fishler in the nozzle disclosed by Engel so that the inert gas is evenly distributed. Thus, Engel in view of Badding and Fishler covers all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13 further limits claim 12 by claiming that the sacrificial mold includes a proto-manifold and proto-injection channels formed of sacrificial material.
Engel teaches proto channels formed by “lost wax” or sacrificial casting, Para[0015].
Fishler discloses that the porous ring is preformed and the so-called "green", unfired preform is then coated on an outside diameter with a material, such as a wax or like substance that will burn out in the final firing of the body. This coating forms a channel or manifold in the fired body so that the later injected inert gas may be evenly distributed around the porous ring, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the manifold taught by Fishler in the nozzle disclosed by Engel so that the inert gas is evenly distributed. Thus, Engel in view of Badding and Fishler covers all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 further limits claim 13 by claiming that the gas flow seal is formed by depositing nickel or nickel alloy onto the proto-manifold and proto- injection channels by a method selected from the group consisting of electroless plating, nickel foil strip application, sputtering, physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, plasma deposition, and metal printing.
Engel does not teach depositing nickel or a nickel alloy.
Badding discloses that Nickel-based coatings that may be deposited via electroless plating are particularly attractive; nickel-niobium coatings appear to be superior to oxide coatings for some applications, Para[0098]. Therefore, it would be obvious to use electroless plating to deposit the nickel-based coating as taught by Badding onto the gas passageways taught by Engel because they are superior to oxide coatings. Thus, Engel in view of Badding and Fishler covers all limitations of claim 14.
Claim 15 further limits claim 14 by claiming that additional nickel or nickel alloy is deposited into the gas pressure/distribution manifold and individual gas injection channels after the sacrificial mold has been removed from said ceramic inner portion.
Engel does not teach depositing nickel or a nickel alloy.
Badding discloses that Nickel-based coatings that may be deposited via electroless plating are particularly attractive; nickel-niobium coatings appear to be superior to oxide coatings for some applications, Para[0098]. Therefore, it would be obvious to use electroless plating to deposit the nickel-based coating as taught by Badding onto the gas passageways taught by Engel, after the sacrificial mold has been removed, because they are superior to oxide coatings. Thus, Engel in view of Badding and Fishler covers all limitations of claim 15.
Claim 20 further limits claim 12 by claiming that the gas flow seal is formed by depositing nickel or nickel alloy into said gas pressure/distribution manifold and individual gas injection channels after the sacrificial mold has been removed from the ceramic inner portion.
Engel does not teach depositing nickel or a nickel alloy.
Badding discloses that Nickel-based coatings that may be deposited via electroless plating are particularly attractive; nickel-niobium coatings appear to be superior to oxide coatings for some applications, Para[0098]. Therefore, it would be obvious to use electroless plating to deposit the nickel-based coating as taught by Badding onto the gas passageways taught by Engel, after the sacrificial mold has been removed, because they are superior to oxide coatings. Thus, Engel in view of Badding and Fishler covers all limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights