DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 21 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 1 and 3-18 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 August 2026 has been entered.
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.
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, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitner et al. (WO 2014/206761 A2; hereinafter “Leitner”; listed in the IDS filed 21 June 2024; using previously attached English machine translation), in view of Holzer et al. (WO 2009/144127 A1; hereinafter “Holzer”; using previously attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Leitner teaches a mold (mold 1, see Fig. 5; [0113]) for a continuous casting installation, the mold comprising:
a first oscillation drive (oscillation drive 7, see Fig. 8; [0121]-[0129]);
a second oscillation drive (mere duplication of parts (i.e., duplicating the oscillation drive 7) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B))
a movably mounted frame (combination of mold frame 6 and loose side 14, see Fig. 5; [0123], [0136]) with a first subframe (frame 6, see Fig. 5) and a second subframe which is spaced apart from the first subframe (loose side 14, see Fig. 5),
a first broad-side insert which is arranged on a side of the first subframe facing the second subframe (broad side plate 3b attached to frame 6, see Fig. 5),
a second broad-side insert which is arranged on a side of the second subframe facing the first subframe (broad side plate 3a attached to loose side 14, see Fig. 5),
narrow sides which are arranged between the two broad-side inserts (narrow side plates 2, see Fig. 5; [0117]), which lies against the two broad-side inserts (see Fig. 5),
a clamping device which is designed to exert, on the subframes, a clamping force acting between the subframes (clamping unit 15; see [0124]-[0125]),
wherein a respective spring band assembly which guides the subframe is arranged on each subframe on opposite sides in a horizontal width direction (H) (second elastic element 8 designed as a spring band, see Fig. 8; see [0123]), which is oriented along the first and second broad sides and transverse to the narrow sides (second elastic element 8 designed as a spring band, see Fig. 8; see [0123]),
wherein each narrow-side copper plate has two end faces which each lie against a broad-side insert (see Figs. 5-8) and have a lubrication reducing the friction with the broad-side insert (sliding surfaces made of sintered metal, see [0124]),
wherein the first oscillation drive (oscillation drive 7, see Fig. 8; [0121]-[0129]) is coupled to the first subframe (mold frame 6, see [0121]-[0129]) and the second oscillation drive is coupled to the second subframe (mere duplication of parts (i.e., duplicating the oscillation drive 7 and applying it to the loose side 14 to enable horizontal oscillation H on the broad side 3b associated with loose side 14) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)).
Leitner is silent to a first longitudinal frame, a second longitudinal frame, wherein each narrow side has a narrow-side copper plate, which lies against the two broad-side inserts, and wherein the first oscillation drive is arranged on the first longitudinal frame of the mold on a side of the first subframe facing away from the second subframe, and the second oscillation drive is arranged on a second longitudinal frame of the mold, on the side of the second subframe facing away from the first subframe, wherein the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame extend longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H).
Holzer teaches a mold wherein each narrow side has a narrow-side copper plate, which lies against the two broad-side inserts (see [0018]-[0020], [0040], and [0053]). Furthermore, Holzer teaches a first longitudinal frame (support plate 17 of module 1a, see Fig. 2; [0042]) and a second longitudinal frame (support plate 17 of module 1b, see Fig. 2; [0042]). Holzer teaches that these frames support respective oscillation drives (see [0043]). Furthermore, Holzer teaches wherein the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame extend longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H) (support plates 17 are rectangular shaped (see Fig. 2) so the narrower dimension extends longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H)).
In view of Holzer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mold of Leitner to include wherein each narrow side has a narrow-side copper plate, which lies against the two broad-side inserts, as taught by Holzer, because it is a known material used for the narrow sides. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mold of Leitner to include a first longitudinal frame, a second longitudinal frame, and wherein the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame extend along the horizontal width direction (H), as taught by Holzer, because it is a known means to support oscillation drives associated with the mold.
The combination of Leitner and Holzer is silent to specifically teaching wherein the first oscillation drive is arranged on the first longitudinal frame of the mold on a side of the first subframe facing away from the second subframe and wherein the second oscillation drive is arranged on a side of the second subframe of the mold on a side of the first subframe facing away from the first subframe. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular placement of the oscillation drive is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., oscillate the first subframe and the second subframe relative to the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame in the horizontal width direction (H) and counter to the horizontal width direction (H) relative to the narrow sides), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Leitner and Holzer teaches wherein broad-side foot rollers are arranged on an underside of each longitudinal frame, roller axles of which in each case run in the width direction (H) (foot rollers 16, see Fig. 6; [0133]-[0134])
Regarding the functional language (e.g., and which are designed for guiding a metal casting strand emerging from the mold), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Leitner and Holzer teaches wherein the first broad-side insert has a support plate (Holzer: one of cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]) arranged on the first subframe (Holzer: supporting wall 4c holding the one of cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]) and a broad-side copper plate arranged on the support plate (Holzer: copper plate 4a on the one of cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]), and the second broad-side insert has a support plate (Holzer: the other of the cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]) arranged on the second subframe (Holzer: supporting wall 4c holding the other of the cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]) and a broad-side copper plate arranged on the support plate (Holzer: copper plate 4a on the other of the cassette walls 4b, see Fig. 5; [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Leitner and Holzer teaches wherein the clamping device has two clamping units (Leitner: clamping device 15, see Fig. 7; [0124] and [0136]) which are arranged on the frame on opposite sides in the width direction (H) (Leitner: see Fig. 7).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., and are designed to exert, on the subframes, a respective clamping force acting between the subframes), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Leitner and Holzer teaches wherein each clamping unit has a hydraulic cylinder (Leitner: see [0124] and [0136]).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for producing the clamping force), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 13, all of its limitations have been addressed above in the rejection for claim 1 except wherein the first oscillation drive has a hydraulic cylinder (Leitner: oscillation drive 7 which acts as a hydraulic cylinder 9, see Fig. 8; [0121]-[0129]) and the second oscillation drive has a hydraulic cylinder (Leitner: as the second oscillation drive is a duplicate of the first oscillation drive, it must also act as a hydraulic cylinder).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leitner and Holzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von Wyl et al. (US 5,771,957; hereinafter “Von Wyl”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Leitner and Holzer is silent to wherein the mold includes two compensators for each of the first subframe and the second subframe.
Von Wyl teaches two compensators 13 are provided to compensate for cooling of each wide-side plate (see Fig. 1; 2:33-60).
In view of Von Wyl’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Leitner and Holzer to include wherein the mold includes two compensators for each of the first subframe and the second subframe, as taught by Von Wyl, because it allows for cooling of the wide-side plates.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., through which cooling water can be supplied to the subframe and cooling water can be dissipated from the subframe and horizontal movements of the subframe can be compensated for), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leitner and Holzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langner (US 6,041,848).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Leitner and Holzer is silent to wherein the clamping units each have a pivoting unit.
Langner teaches a clamping unit 98, which are coupled to ball bushings 100 and are designed to accommodate pivotal movements of the mold walls 74a-74d on the pivot axes extending normal to the major faces 91, 92 of the mold walls 74a-74d (see 5:65-6:11). This permits changes in taper of the mold walls (see abstract).
In view of Langner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mold of the combination of Leitner and Holzer to include wherein the clamping units each have a pivoting unit, as taught by Langner, because it permits changes in taper of the mold walls.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., allowing movements of the subframes in the horizontal width direction at least temporarily in a different direction), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leitner and Holzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grove (US 5,279,354).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the combination of Leitner and Holzer is silent to wherein the clamping force is set by a control and/or regulating device.
Grove teaches in order to maintain the narrow walls in a fixed position during slab casting and to prevent leakage of molten metal from the mold, a clamping force is exerted on the narrow walls 16 and 18 between wide walls 12 and 14 through the use of a side wall clamping mechanism 32. This mechanism, which is illustrated in FIG. 1, includes a gear motor 34 coupled to a screw jack 36 which drives a jack stem 38. A spring assembly 40 is provided for biasing wide mold wall 12 against narrow mold walls 16 and 18. A load cell 42 is mounted on jack stem 38 between spring assembly 40 and backup plate 22 of mold wall 12. The motor 34 and jack screw 36 drive jack stem 38 back and forth so as to vary the degree of compression of spring 40. Load cell 42 measures the force exerted on backup plate, 22 and 24 and provides an output signal proportional thereto to regulate the degree of clamping force exerted by wide walls 12 and 14 on narrow walls 16 and 18, allowing for control of the clamping force by regulation of motor 34 (see 4:6-34).
In view of Grove’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mold of the combination of Leitner and Holzer to include wherein the clamping force is set by a control and/or regulating device, as taught by Grove, because it allows for control of the clamping force by regulation of the clamping device, such as a motor, through a load cell.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., in such a way that a contact pressure between each narrow side and the broad-side copper plates in contact therewith is set in such a way that the contact pressure immediately before the start of the oscillation and during the oscillation, by the oscillation drive, has a value of between 0 and 1 N/mm2 (see claim 12) or has a value of between 0 and 0.5 N/mm2 (see claim 18)), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 14-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein each end face of each narrow side copper plate has grooves in which a lubricant as the lubrication can be supplied, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
Claims 5, 14, and 15: Depend either directly or indirectly from claim 4.
Claim 6: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein at least one narrow-side copper plate has a rounding or a chamfer at edges thereof which are in contact with the broad-side copper plates and are substantially at a right angle to the horizontal width direction (H), wherein the rounding has a radius of between 0.1 mm and 3 mm, and the chamfer has a dimension of between 0.1 mm and 3 mm, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6.
Claims 16 and 17: Depend directly from claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to amended claim 1, that the prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame extend longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H). Applicant argues that Leitner does not disclose first and second longitudinal frames, and Holzer shows that plates 17 extend in a direction transverse to the direction of the elongation of the wide plates 4 and thus would extend longitudinally in a direction transverse to the width direction H.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The combination of Leitner and Holzer teaches wherein the first longitudinal frame and the second longitudinal frame extend longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H) (Holzer: support plates 17 are rectangular shaped (see Fig. 2) so the narrower dimension extends longitudinally along the horizontal width direction (H)). The use of “longitudinally” does not specifically require the longer axis of the plate 17 extend along the horizontal width direction (H) as it appears the Applicant is arguing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 4 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights