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 .
Claim Status
A preliminary amendment, filed 6/4/2024, is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are canceled; claims 10-20 are newly added. Claims 10-20 are currently pending.
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 10-20 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first chamber" in line 11 and “said support 6” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 11-19 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first chamber" in line 8 and “said support 6” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troster (US 2012/0174406) in view of Bansal (WO 2020012221A1)(corresponding US 20210222954 is cited for convenience), Shimizu (JPS60215718A)(machine translation provided), and Palzer (US 20210140008).
With respect to Claims 10 and 20, Troster teaches a method for heating a semi-finished steel part, such as a plate (deemed equivalent to slab), the method comprising a fluidized bed comprising a chamber and optionally separate retort (internal chamber), wherein the fluidized bed may be configured to suit the geometry of the part and contains solid fill material particles, and comprises providing fluidizing gas to fluidize the fill material particles through an inlet (i.e. gas injector), providing the semi-finished steel part into the fluidized bed, heating the semi-finished part in fluidized bed, and removing the semi-finished steel part. (para. 18-30, 42-45). The reference teaches that the method has the advantages of heating the part with good heat transfer between the fluidized bed and the metal part, homogeneous heating and temperature distribution, and the ability to finely tailor the temperature and heating protocol within the fluidized bed chamber. (para. 23, 29).
With respect to the limitation drawn to a support, Troster teaches a “semi-finished product…is placed in the fluidized bed W and heated” and teaches wherein the geometry of the fluidized bed may be configured specifically for the part. Accordingly, the reference is deemed to teach a support for supporting the semi-finished steel part within the fluidized bed chamber. In other words, Troster teaches a method wherein the semi-finished part is contained with the chamber and therefore, is necessarily supported. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, carrying out the invention of Troster, to configure the geometry of the fluidized bed to fit and support the part being heated, in order to obtain the desired efficient and uniform heating.
Thus, Troster teaches a method of heating a semi-finished steel product, the product being, for example, a slab, the method comprising heating (“pre-heating”) in a pre-heating device having a chamber containing solid particles, a support able to support the semi-finished steel product, and a gas injector, the pre-heating step comprising injecting gas into the chamber (first chamber) so as to form a fluidized bed, heating the fluidized bed, putting the semi-finished steel product into the fluidized bed such that the semi-finished steel product is supported by the support and such that the fluidized bed is able to transfer heat to said semi-finished steel product, and taking out the semi-finished steel product when it reaches a desired temperature.
With respect to the temperature of the semi-finished product when it is removed from the fluidized bed, Troster teaches that the method may comprise a wide range of temperatures, such as heating below the AC1 temperature up to heating above the AC3 temperature. (para. 23, 50, 56). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for steel compositions, said temperatures encompass and/or overlap the instantly claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Troster is silent as to where the fluidized bed comprises a heat exchanger and subsequent processing steps of heating and hot rolling.
Bansal teaches a method of capturing heat from a steel part in a fluidized bed comprising a heat exchanger. (para. 2, 6-9). Specifically, the reference teaches a method comprising a fluidized bed having a chamber, solid particles, gas injection, and a support for supporting a metal slab or plate, wherein a heated metal part is provided in the fluidized bed chamber and the part is cooled allowing for heat from the part to be captured/recovered by the heat exchanger and a transport medium within the heat exchanger provides the captured heat to another location. (para. 10-28, 47, 51-53).
Shimizu teaches a method of pre-heating a steel billet for hot rolling, the method comprising using heat from a cooling step of cooling a hot rolled steel part to be used to pre-heat a separate steel part that is to be hot rolled. (pgs. 1-2 of translation). Thus, Shimizu provides clear motivation to capture and reuse the heat from one cooling steel part to pre-heat a subsequent steel part for subsequent processing, in particular, pre-heating for a subsequent hot rolling step. Shimizu further teaches that the pre-heated steel billet is then provided into a furnace for additional heating and hot rolled. (pg. 1-2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Troster to capture heat from a cooling steel part to provide preheating of the semi-finished steel product, as taught by Shimizu, in order pre-heat the semi-finished steel product while reducing energy use/waste. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the method of Troster in view of Bansal by providing a heat exchanger in the fluidized bed, as taught by Bansal, in order to transfer heat from a separate heating/cooling process. That is, Bansal teaches providing a heat exchanger in a fluidized bed to capture heat from a cooling steel part. It would have been equally obvious to use such a heat exchanger to heat the steel part using heated transfer fluid obtained from a cooling steel part in fluid connection with the heat exchanger (e.g. in a second fluidized bed/chamber comprising a heat exchanger). Thus, Bansal provides known means of carrying out a method of recycling heat energy taught by Shimizu applied to the beneficial heating and cooling properties of a fluidized bed as recognized by Troster.
Troster is drawn to a pre-heating a semifinished product and thus, recognized that such parts may/will be subjected to additional processing. (see above). Shimizu teaches pre-heating a steel product for subsequent heating in a furnace and hot rolling. (see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Troster in view of Bansal and Shimizu to subject a pre-heated semi-finished steel product to additional processing steps of heating in a furnace and hot rolling, in order to obtain a finished steel part with desired structure and properties.
Shimizu is silent as to a specific heating temperature in the furnace heating step of claim 10 and is silent as to a low temperature rolling step as in claim 20.
Palzer teaches a method of making a steel product, the method comprising heating a steel semi-finished slab to a temperature of 1050-1250°C, then performing a step of hot rolling, wherein before the heating and hot rolling, an optional step comprising pre-heating the semi-finished steel slab from a temperature of 60°C to below the Ac3 temperature, preferably 60-450°C, then rolling (deemed “cold” rolling at these temperatures) is performed. (para. 22-37). Thus, Palzer teaches methods comprising heating and hot rolling at a temperature overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of claim 10 as well as a method comprising pre-heating and cold/warm rolling, overlapping the ranges of claim 20.
With respect to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Troster in view of Bansal and Shimizu comprising furnace heating and hot rolling, to select a known heating temperature for hot rolling a steel slab, such as 1050-1250°C, as taught by Palzer, in order to successfully carry out a hot rolling step to obtain a steel product with desired structure and properties and without damage to the steel product. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Additionally, with respect to claim 20, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Troster in view of Bansal and Shimizu comprising pre-heating a steel slab, to perform such pre-heating to a temperature of 60-450°C then performing cold/warm rolling, as taught by Palzer, in order to obtain a steel product and/or intermediate product with desired structure and properties and suitable for subsequent processing. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 11, Troster teaches wherein the fluidized bed may be fluidized by injecting a gas or gas mixture, optionally an inert gas (para. 16); but is silent as to specifically air as a gas/gas mixture.
Bansal teaches wherein the gas injected in the fluidized bed chamber is air. (para. 9, 21-24, 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Troster in view of Bansal, Shimizu, and Palzer, to inject air into the fluidized bed to fluidize the solid particles, as taught by Bansal, in order to reduce costs by eliminating the use of inert gas, in particular, when heating an oxidation-resistance steel product.
With respect to Claim 12, Troster teaches wherein solid particles are fluidized, but is silent as to a specific fluidizing “regime.”
Bansal teaches operating a fluidized bed wherein solid particles of the fluidized bed are in a bubbling regime, resulting in good solid particle circulation and homogeneous temperature of the fluidized bed. (para. 9, 21-24, 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Troster in view of Bansal, Shimizu, and Palzer, to operate a fluidized bed in a known fluidizing regime for the solid particles such as a bubbling regime, as taught by Bansal, in order to efficiently and/or effectively transfer heat to the semi-finished steel product. In other words, as Bansal teaches operating the fluidized bed in a bubbling regime in order to obtain good solid particle circulation and homogeneous temperature (para. 48), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a bubbling regime for the method modified Troster in order to more uniformly pre-heat the semi-finished steel product.
With respect to Claims 13-17, Troster in view of Bansal, Shimizu, and Palzer teach heating a fluidized bed and a steel product therein to a temperature overlapping the respectively claimed ranges of claims 13-17. (see rejection of claims 10 and 20 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portiosn of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 18 and 19, Troster in view of Bansal, Shimizu, and Palzer teach heating the steel product and fluidized bed to a temperature overlapping the claimed range. (see rejection of claims 10 and 20 above). Bansal further teaches wherein the transfer fluid in the heat exchanger is configured to phase change between 400 and 800 C to allow for desired heat transfer or may be pressurized water that turns to steam under the heating conditions. (para. 52-53). In view of the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the transfer medium in the heat exchanger within the respective heating (and cooling) temperature ranges taught by the prior art, in order to allow for the capture and recycling of heat to pre-heat the semi-finished steel part. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portiosn of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7494554, drawn to a method of heat treating a metal part with a fluidized bed, but teaching away from rolling the part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights