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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/25 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Luca (EP 3013498 B1, cited by applicant) in view of Heini et al. (EP 3406368 A1, hereinafter Heini, previously cited), Poloni (Wo 2016/178153 A1, previously cited), and Wobker et al. (EP 1792676 A1, hereinafter Wobker).
Re Claim 1. De Luca teaches a crystallizer for continuous casting comprising
a tubular body (Fig. 1-3, item 11) defining a longitudinal axis X and having a wall (item 12) with at least one inner face defining a longitudinal through casting cavity (item 13),
a plurality of longitudinal grooves (item 14) produced on at least a portion of an outer surface of said wall and open towards the outside thereof, a production of said plurality of longitudinal grooves defining a corresponding plurality of longitudinal fins (walls between items 14) on the tubular body,
a non-removable (para. 24 & 26) covering winding (item 15) made of composite material (para. 57) wound directly about the outer surface of said wall to close said longitudinal grooves forming corresponding longitudinal cooling channels (item 17) adapted to make a cooling liquid flow therein, so as to create an inseparable whole between said wall and the covering winding (para. 24 & 26),
wherein a portion of the outer surface of said wall occupied by said longitudinal grooves and said longitudinal fins is at least 70% of said outer surface (Fig. 1-3),
wherein a total thickness of the tubular body is comprised in a range from 10 to 50 mm (para. 55).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
De Luca fails to specifically teach that a width of the longitudinal grooves, which corresponds to a width of the longitudinal cooling channels, is greater than a width of the longitudinal fins, that a depth of the longitudinal cooling channels is comprised in a range from 4 to 6 mm, and that a residual wall thickness of the tubular body in the region of the longitudinal cooling channels in the range from 12 to 18 mm.
The invention of Heini encompasses mould for continuous casting of metallic products. Heini teaches that a width of the longitudinal grooves, which corresponds to a width of the longitudinal cooling channels, is greater than a width of the longitudinal fins (Fig. 5), and that the dimensions of the grooves can be chosen differently depending on the casting conditions (P3).
The invention of Poloni encompasses crystallizer for continuous casting. Poloni teaches that a width of the longitudinal grooves, which corresponds to a width of the longitudinal cooling channels, is greater than a width of the longitudinal fins (Fig. 2 & 3).
In view of Heini and Poloni, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of De Luca to have a width of the longitudinal grooves, which corresponds to a width of the longitudinal cooling channels, greater than a width of the longitudinal fins, since using a well-known configuration of the longitudinal grooves and fins is within purview of one skill in the art and Poloni teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to improve heat exchange (P10).
The invention of Wobker encompasses mould for continuous casting. De Luca teaches that a depth of the longitudinal cooling groove is comprised in a range from 3 to 6 mm (P2).
In view of Wobker and Heini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of De Luca in view of Heini and Poloni to employ a depth of the longitudinal cooling channels in a range from 3 to 6 mm, since Wobker teaches the advantage of using it, which is to achieve the best results (P2) and Heini teaches that the dimensions of the grooves can be chosen differently depending on the casting conditions. Therefore, one would perform routine experiments to find the optimum dimensions for the grooves.
The combination teaches that a residual wall thickness of the tubular body in the region of the longitudinal cooling channels in the range from 4 to 47 mm (total thickness of the tubular body 10 to 50 mm – depth of the longitudinal cooling channel 3 to 6 mm = 4 to 47 mm).
Re Claims 2 and 3. Wobker further teaches that the width of the longitudinal grooves is comprised in a range from 5 to 20 mm (P3) but fails to specifically teach that the width of the longitudinal fins is comprised in a range from 0.5 to 5 or 1 to 2.5 mm.
However, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of De Luca in view of Heini, Poloni, and Wobker to employ the width of the longitudinal fins is comprised in a range from 0.5 to 5 mm/1 to 2.5 mm by performing routine experiments to find optimum width of the longitudinal fins while finding the optimum dimensions of the grooves.
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the width of the longitudinal grooves is at least twice the width of the longitudinal fins and less than four times the width of the longitudinal fins (Heini, Fig. 5).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the tubular body is made of copper or copper alloy (De Luca, para. 55).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein said covering winding comprises one or more layers made of composite material made using fiber-impregnated, or pre- impregnated, with a polymeric material (De Luca, para. 57).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein a thickness of said covering winding is constant along a longitudinal extension of the tubular body or is maximum at the area of the tubular body where a meniscus of a molten metal is provided (De Luca, para. 65 & 66).
Re Claim 11. The combination teaches wherein said longitudinal fins on the tubular body are mutually equal (De Luca, Fig. 1-5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Luca in view of Heini, Poloni, and Wobker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lorento (US 2013/0277006 A1, previously cited).
De Luca in view of Heini, Poloni, and Wobker fails to specifically teaches that a longitudinal extension of the tubular body is comprised in a range from 700 to 1200 mm.
The invention of Lorento encompasses mould for the continuous casting of metals. Lorento teaches that a longitudinal extension of the tubular body is 1000 mm (para. 48).
In view of Lorento, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of De Luca in view of Heini, Poloni, and Wobker to have a longitudinal extension of the tubular body to be 1000 mm, since Lorento teaches the advantage of using it which is to enable a withdrawal of sufficient heat quantity from the liquid metal and thus to enable formation of a sufficiently firm shell of the cast strand (para. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Wobker addresses the new limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
1/5/2026