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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 11/17/25. Claims 16-33 are pending, wherein claims 31-33 were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 32 and 33 are 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.
The term “generally” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “rib-like” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rib-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III) regarding approximations.
Regarding claim 33, the phrases “one of the through openings” and “the respective through opening” in lines 5-6 is unclear and renders the claim indefinite, as the language is unclear as to whether “the through openings” refer to the through openings extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the adapter element, or whether referring to the through openings (31) that were already recited in independent claim 16 (see claim 16 line 12). For examination purposes, the limitation is treated as referring to the through openings extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the adapter element.
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.
Claim(s) 16-23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouri (US 5,456,307, cited in IDS filed 5/9/24) in view of Abe et al (JP H0480639 U, cited in IDS filed 8/18/25).
Regarding claim 16, Mouri teaches a sealing system for use with a dummy bear head of a continuous casting plant (fig 1, starter bar head for a continuous caster), comprising:
a head element (plate 12), the head element being plate-shaped (figure, col 3 lines 25-45, plate 12);
a peripheral seal (figure, col 3 lines 25-45, sealing mat 14) attached to an edge region of the head element (figure, col 3 lines 25-45, superimposed between plates 12,13, sealing mat is well supported by lower plate close to mold side walls, at least at its peripheral edge);
an adapter element (figure, col 3 lines 25-45, lower plate 13) made from metal (col 3 lines 25-45, steel plate 13), having a bottom side which can be fastened to an upper end surface of the dummy bar head (functional limitation, see figure, bottom side of plate 13 is fastened to lower portion 7, col 4 lines 5-11),
wherein the head element can be fastened to a top side of the adapter element and can be connected to the dummy bar head as a result (figure, plate 12 screwed or clamped to plate 13 which is connected to lower part 7 via groove counter-elements 20); and
a positive-locking connection, by which the head element and the adapter element can be connected to one another, including a plurality of through openings, which are formed in the head element (figure, col 3 lines 40-67, fastening upper to lower plate by screw bolts 19, screw bolts pass through the two plates (thus suggesting through openings)),
a plurality of bolts (fig, col 3 lines 40-67, screw bolts 19), which are attached to the top side of the adapter element and can be plugged through the through openings formed in the head element (col 3 lines 40-67, passes through two plates 12,13).
Mouri is quiet to an elongated hole formed at a free end of each bolt or adjacent thereto, through which a wedge can be driven, the wedge being seated on a top side of the head element if it is plugged with its through openings onto the bolts.
Abe et al teaches a dummy bar head where a bolt 7 penetrates and connects contact parts 1 and 4 (fig 4). Figure 5 shows that the bolt 6 may be provided with a pin 9 (appears wedge shaped) in order to connect the parts via the bolt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mouri so as to include a hole extending through the bolt and a corresponding pin, as an alternative means of providing the clamping force for clamping the upper and lower plates together. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches wherein the bottom side of the adapter element is adapted to the upper end surface of the dummy bar head and can be fastened to the upper end surface of the dummy bar head by first fastening means (invokes 112f, see applicant’s specification, paragraph [0058] comprising a connecting bar, mushroom-shaped bulge, recess with a widened region, Mouri teaches a structural equivalent where the T-shaped counter element 20 corresponds to the mushroom-shaped bulge, the narrow portion connecting the collar to T-shape corresponds to the connecting bar, and the grooves 9 correspond to the recess with a widened region).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches wherein the first fastening means are designed to be positive-locking (Mouri, figure, see counter elements 20 with an undercut in groove 9).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches wherein the first fastening means have at least one connecting bar (Mouri, figure, see narrower portion connecting collar 22 to T-shaped part of groove element 20), which has a bulge or hook at its free end (figure, T-shaped), and at least one recess (groove 9), wherein the bulge or hook of the connecting bar and the recess can be brought into engagement with one another (figure shows groove counter element 20 engaged in groove 9).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the connecting bar has a T-shaped bulge and the recess comprises a widened region and the T-shaped bulge and the widened region of the recess are formed complementary to one another (figure, groove counter element 20 and groove 9), but is quiet to the shape being mushroom-shaped.
However, mushroom shape is well known and similar to T-shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mushroom shaped bulge as an obvious alternative to a T-shape. Note that the courts have held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches wherein the connecting bar is attached to a bottom side of the adapter element (Mouri, figure, see collar 22 at plate 13) and the recess is formed in the dummy bar head adjacent to its upper end surface and opens into this end surface (Mouri, figure, groove 9 corresponds to groove counter-element 20).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches wherein the recess has a narrow bottleneck-like section that, starting from the upper end surface of the dummy bar head, leads into the widened region of the recess (Mouri, figure, note the groove 9 is also T-shaped, col 3 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches wherein the recess is open on at least one side surface of the dummy bar head, such that the connecting bar with its bulge can be introduced into the recess from this side surface (Mouri, col 4 lines 20-35, note that the groove counter-elements slide out of the groove, suggesting being open on one side to do so).
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches wherein a plurality of elevations are formed on a top side of the head element (Mouri, figure, projections 17 (col 4 lines 20-25) may be construed as elevations).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouri as modified by Abe et al as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Takesue (US 5,335,716, previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, the combination is quiet to wherein the head element and the adapter element in each case have a rectangular cross-section with a longitudinal side and a short side in a plane running orthogonally to a transport direction of the dummy bar head, wherein a longitudinal extent of the longitudinal side is greater by a multiple amount that a longitudinal extent of the short side.
Takesue et al teaches a method for starting continuous slab casting (abstract) including setting a dummy bar 4 and filling sealing materials 5 into the clearances (abstract). Takesue et al teaches dimensions of the dummy bar of 1917 mm for casting a slab 1920 mm in width and 250 mm in thickness (col 7 lines 25-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the head element and the adapter element are rectangular in cross-section having a longitudinal side multiple times greater than the short side, as the dimensions are known in the art as taught in Takesue (approximately 1900 mm x 250 mm), and that the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830,225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Furthermore, note that changes in shape and size have been held by courts as a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches wherein the head element and the adapter element are in each case adapted to a cross-section of a mold of a continuous casting plant with their cross-section in the plane orthogonal to the transport direction of the dummy bar head (Mouri, see figure, note that the plates 12 and 13 are dimensioned to be close to the size of the mold).
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches wherein a short side of the rectangular cross-section of the adapter element or of the head element has a length of at least 100 mm (note rejection of claim 24 above, Takesue teaches that these dimensions are known, as Takesue teaches a cast slab being 1900x250 mm which is approximately the size of the mold and the dummy bar, and that the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830,225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 28-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouri as modified by Abe et al as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ros Navarro (EP 0114309 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 28, the combination is quiet to the peripheral seal is made from plastic.
Ros Navarro teaches a start-up head for continuous casting molds (paragraph [0002]), and teaches that a gap is usually sealed with a sealing cord or with a plastic mass (paragraph [0002]). Ros Navarro teaches a sealing system that may be used with plastic (paragraph [0008]) or asbestos (paragraph [0010]). Ros Navarro teaches the start-up head is provided with a seal before entering the mold (paragraph [0001]) and shows the seal having dimensions slightly larger than the cross-section of the mold (fig 2) which is then deformed when entering the mold (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plastic seal, as a known alternative to the refractory materials of Mouri such as asbestos, as Ros Navarro teaches that sealing cords or plastic mass are commonly used (paragraph [0002]), recognizes both plastic and asbestos can be used (paragraph [0008] and [0010]), and that Ros Navarro’s process overcomes the disadvantages in the prior art of requiring additional prep and manual sealing work (paragraph [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches wherein external dimensions of the peripheral seal are slightly larger than a cross-section of a mold of a continuous casting plant in a plane orthogonal to a transport direction of the dummy bar head (Ros Navarro, fig 2, paragraph [0011], cross-section slightly larger, when entering the mold, seal is deformed).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches wherein the peripheral seal is made of plastic (see rejection of claim 28 above) and molded onto an edge of the head element (note combination, Ros Navarro, fig 4, paragraph [0024-0025], note that the seal may be a flat seal 43 together with a seal holder 40 that is made of injection-mold plastic, and that the seal holder 40 is fastened to the impact plate 16 and the layered seal 43, paragraph [0026], plastic seal holder prevents direct contact between the metallic part of the start-up head and the mold cavity, thus reducing mold wear).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouri as modified by Abe et al as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Grothe et al (US 4,719,960, cited in IDS filed 5/9/24).
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches a method for producing a metallic product by continuous casting, comprising: introducing the sealing system according to claim 27 into a mold of a continuous casting plant (Mouri, figure, abstract, continuous casting); and filling molten metal into the mold and causing the molten metal to undergo sufficient cooling by contact with the top side of the head element and the elevations provided there (col 3 lines 40-60, steel melt poured into mold cavity and solidifies on upper plate).
The combination is quiet to whether the method is carried out without using cooling scrap.
Grothe et al teaches a connection head for use with a dummy strip, mounted in a quick and simple manner, and that casting can be done without the use of cooling scrap (col 1 lines 60-68), as use of cooling scrap is cumbersome (col 1 lines 35-43) and introduces the risk of scratching the mold (col 1 lines 40-56).
In view of the teachings of Grothe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not use cooling scrap, as cooling scrap is not discussed as being used in Mouri and that Grothe teaches a similar apparatus (compare figures) and teaches that cooling scrap should not be used due to being cumbersome (Grothe, col 1 lines 35-43) and increase risk of scratching the mold (Grothe, col 1 lines 40-56).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouri as modified by Abe et al as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Cao et al (CN 111299530 A, cited in IDS filed 5/9/24).
Regarding claim 32, the combination is quiet to each elevation has a generally cross-shaped geometry in plan view, formed by intersecting rib-like wall portions extending upward from the top side of the head element so as to provide a maximized contact surface for bonding with molten steel.
Cao et al teaches a dummy bar head having a head body and a connection piece, where the connection piece is provided with upper rib plates used for being connected with the billet (abstract). After casting starts, molten steel enters a crystallizer and can be solidified with the upper rib plates to form the billet head (abstract). The purpose of a plurality of upper rib plates arranged at intervals is to cast the upper rib plates 21 together with one end of the billet, thereby increasing the pulling strength during ingot drawing and preventing the two from separating (paragraph [0037]). The rib plates are provided with at least one casting through hole to facilitate the molten steel to fully contact and condense with the upper rib plate (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the projections (17) of Mouri are formed as generally cross-shaped in plan view, as Cao et al teaches the cross-shaped upper rib plate shape is known and that the rib plates are designed so such that the molten steel can fully contact and condense with the upper rib plate (paragraph [0040]), thus increasing the pulling strength during ingot drawing (paragraph [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 33 in combination with the invention as claimed in independent claim 16. In particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the positive-locking connection (30) of independent claim 16 in combination with “wherein the adapter element (18) comprises through openings extending perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the adapter element (18) between the top side (20) and the bottom side (19), and wherein a lower end of each of the bolts (32) projects into one of the through openings and is secured in the respective through opening by a respective nut (33).”
The closest prior art of record, Mouri (US 5,456,307), discloses a sealing system (fig 1) for use with a dummy bar head, including a positive locking connection (screw bolts 19) by which the head element (12) and the adapter element (13) can be connected to one another. The screw bolts of Mouri differ from the claimed positive-locking connection as the claimed positive-locking connection requires a plurality of bolts that can be plugged through the through openings formed in the head element, have an elongated hole formed at a free end of each bolt for a wedge to be driven through and seated on the top side of the head element, and a lower end of each of the bolts projecting into one of the through openings that extend perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the adapter element and secured in the respective through opening by a respective nut. Mouri’s screw bolts (19) are plugged through the through openings formed in plate (12), but also pass through plate (13) to be screwed in groove counter-elements (20) slidably guided within grooves (9) of the lower part (7).
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mouri such that the bolt head at the top end is replaced with a wedge and slot configuration as taught in Abe et al while also modifying the lower end of Mouri’s bolt from being connected to groove counter-elements of lower part (7) to instead be secured by a nut at a longitudinal through opening of the adapter element (plate 13 of Mouri).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 16, that Mouri discloses a substantially different structure, describing that the sealing mat 14 as being superimposed between plates 12 and 13. Applicant argues that this structure is not the same as the claimed peripheral seal attached to an edge region of the head element.
The examiner disagrees. As noted in the rejection, the sealing mat is clamped between plates 12 and 13. Plate (12) is construed as the claimed head element. The sealing mat 14 abuts the mold side walls (2,3) at its peripheral edge, and is clamped to the bottom of plate (12) as shown in the figure of Mouri. Additionally note that Grothe et al (US 4,719,960, cited in IDS filed 5/9/24), cited above in the rejection of claim 30, as relevant prior art, as Groethe et al teaches a similar structure to Mouri, and further recognizes that that the gasket 11 could ring the lower end of plate 9 instead of being mounted as a mat (col 4 lines 40-68).
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 16, that Mouri does not teach a plurality of bolts attached to the top side of the adapter element. Applicant argues that Mouri’s screw bolts pass through both plates, and therefore are not attached thereto.
The examiner disagrees. Plates 12 and 13 are clamped together by the screw bolts, as discussed above. The plate 13, including its top side, is thus attached to the plate (12) and the bolts (19). The examiner recognizes the difference in structure, however, disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of the claim. Note that new claim 33 further describes the attachment, to be via a nut securing the lower end of the bolt in a through opening that extends perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the adapter element.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 16, that Mouri does not teach the claimed clamping structure formed by an elongated hole at or adjacent a free end of each bolt, through which a wedge can be driven. Applicant argues that Abe’s clamping bolt is fundamentally incompatible with Abe’s clamping bolt, as Abe’s bolts cannot be inserted through Mouri’s upper and lower plates, thereby requiring the bolt to be pre-mounted in the groove counter-elements 20 of Mouri, which would then no longer be displaceable within the grooves.
The examiner disagrees. It is not clear how pre-mounting the bolt in the groove counter-elements of 20 of Mouri would prevent the counter-elements from being displaceable within the grooves. Note that Mouri discloses in one embodiment that the upper plate is clamped to the lower plate by nuts 21 screwed on the screw bolts 19 (col 4 lines 1-7), thus already suggesting the bolt is pre-mounted to the groove counter-element, extends through plates 12,13, and then is secured by nuts 21. The combination with Abe et al would suggest that instead of using a nut to secure the bolt, the bolt can be provided with a slot and a wedge can be inserted into the slot, providing the clamping force.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 28, that the claim requires the peripheral seal is made from plastic, and that it would not have been obvious to modify Mouri’s refractory materials, such as asbestos, as the two materials are not known substitutes for one another. Applicant further argues that plastic would melt during the operation, thereby destroying the structural integrity between Mouri’s upper and lower plates.
The examiner disagrees, and notes that Ros Navarro describes a sealing system for a start-up head, and provides examples of using either plastic (paragraph [0008]) or asbestos (paragraph [0010]). Ros Navarro shows a further embodiment where both a flat seal made by a thermally resistant fabric (paragraph [0024]) and a plastic seal holder (paragraph [0025]) are used together for preventing direct contact between the metallic part of the start-up head and the mold cavity (paragraph [0026], fig 4). With regards to applicant’s argument that plastic would melt during operation, it is noted that Ros Navarro still discloses the use of plastic, and thus the substitution would not render the combination inoperable. Furthermore, note that Ros Navarro discloses that cooling scrap can be used (fig 1). It is additionally noted that Grothe et al, discussed above, teaches a similar structure to Mouri, and further recognizes that that the gasket 11 could ring the lower end of plate 9 instead of being mounted as a mat (col 4 lines 40-68).
Further note that Grothe et al is also relevant to claim 32, recognizes that the exact shape of projections 13 is not critical provided they make an effective mechanical connection between the casting and connection head (col 4 lines 40-68).
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735