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 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 17 and 18 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 17 currently depends from non-existent claim 23. It is unclear as to which system claim 17 should include. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this limitation as “the skin dam system of claim 13”. As claim 18 depends directly from claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose et al. (US 4,724,896; hereinafter “Rose”; listed in the IDS filed 12 August 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Rose teaches a method of controlling vertical folds during casting, the method comprising:
determining a fold control parameter (shape of skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6) of a skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4) of a casting system (see Figs. 1-4); and
introducing molten metal (molten metal 2, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-63) into a mold cavity of a casting mold (mold interior 8 of casting mold 4, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-65) of the casting system and forming a molten sump (see Fig. 1) while controlling the skim dam to have the fold control parameter (see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6).
Regarding claim 3, Rose teaches wherein the fold control parameter comprises a skim dam submergence depth (see 4:59-5:8 and Fig. 1), and wherein controlling the skim dam comprises controlling the skim dam to be at a predetermined submergence depth within the molten sump (see 4:59-5:8 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Rose teaches wherein controlling the skim dam to be at the predetermined submergence depth further comprises centering the skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 3 and 4) relative to a spout (feeder tube 3, see Figs. 3 and 4; 3:49-63) of the casting system for introducing the molten metal into the mold cavity (see Figs. 1-4 and 3:49-63).
Regarding claim 6, Rose teaches wherein the fold control parameter comprises a skim dam shape (see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6), and wherein controlling the skim dam comprises controlling the skim dam to be a predetermined shape (see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6).
Regarding claim 7, Rose teaches wherein the predetermined shape comprises at least one of:
a first rectangle having a first length and a first width;
a bulged rectangle having a second length and a second width (see Figs. 1-3; 5:45-54);
an hour glass rectangle having a third length and a third width; or
a second rectangle having a fourth length and a fourth width, wherein the fourth length is less than the first length and the fourth width is less than the first width.
Regarding claim 8, Rose teaches wherein the fold control parameter is a first fold control parameter of the skim dam (see 4:59-5:8 and Fig. 1), wherein the first fold control parameter comprises a skim dam submergence depth (see 4:59-5:8 and Fig. 1), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a second fold control parameter of the skim dam (see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6), and wherein the second fold control parameter comprises a skim dam shape (see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6).
Regarding claim 9, Rose teaches wherein the fold control parameter is a first fold control parameter of the casting system (skim dam submergence depth, see 4:59-5:8 and Fig. 1), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a second fold control parameter of the casting system (skim dam shape, see Figs. 1-4; 5:45-6:6).
Regarding claim 12, Rose teaches wherein the method comprises controlling vertical folds during DC casting (see3:40-4:58).
Regarding claim 13, Rose teaches a skim dam system for a casting system, the skim dam system comprising:
a skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4; 4:50-60); and
a control system configured to selectively control a skim dam submergence depth of the skim dam in a molten sump (plurality of support rods, see 5:67-6:6).
Regarding claim 17, Rose teaches a DC casting system (see 3:40-4:58) comprising: the skim dam system of claim 13 (see 112(b) rejection for claim 13 above); and
a casting mold (casting mold 4, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-63) for receiving molten metal in the molten sump, wherein the skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4) is positionable within the casting mold (casting mold 4, see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for receiving molten metal in the molten sump, wherein the skim dam is positionable within the casting 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. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., molten metal), as per MPEP §2115.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose (US 4,724,896; listed in the IDS filed 12 August 2024).
Regarding claim 4, Rose is silent to wherein the predetermined submergence depth is from 0 mm to 15 mm, inclusive. However, Rose does teach that its skim dam 20 is suspended between 19 to 32 mm into upper molten surface 15 (see 4:59-5:8). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosco (US 3,614,978).
Regarding claim 2, Rose teaches wherein the skim dam is a first skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4; 4:50-60), the mold cavity is a first mold cavity (casting mold 4 with mold interior 8, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-65), the molten sump is a first molten sump (see Fig. 1), and the casting mold is a first casting mold (casting mold 4 with mold interior 8, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-65).
Though Rose is silent to specifically teaching introducing molten metal into a second mold cavity of a second casting mold of the casting system and forming a second molten sump, this is merely a duplication of introducing molten metal into the first mold cavity of the first casting mold of the casting system and forming a first molten sump, and the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Rose is silent to wherein the method further comprises controlling the second skim dam in parallel with the first skim dam.
Kosco teaches computer controlled continuous casting of materials from the molten to the solid state. The computer keeps tracks of the position of the moving cast strand of each of a plurality of casting lines from the time it emerges from the mold and, in response to position of the strand, controls various elements at the proper time along the casting line, such as coolant flow, pinch rolls, straightening roller, dummy bar head separation, table or conveyor rolls, and slab cutting machine. The computer keeps track of the slab cutting machine and the position of its cutting elements, and controls the cutting operation in synchronism with movement of the strand. Also in response to position of the moving strand, the computer at appropriate times begins to monitor and compare against stored references such conditions as coolant and strand temperatures, coolant flow rates, pinch roll drive current, and pinch roll pressure. The computer also performs a pre-pour diagnostic checkup on various elements of the casting line to determine if a malfunction exists. Additionally as the casting progresses, the computer gathers and outputs information as a function of position and time with respect to each strand. The computer controls a plurality of casting lines in "parallel" by suitable multiplexing (see abstract).
In view of Kosco’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 method Rose to include wherein the method further comprises controlling the second skim dam in parallel with the first skim dam because it is known to use a single controller to automate a plurality of casting lines. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the second skim dam in parallel with the first skim dam in order to inhibit the formation of vertical folds and oxide releases (Rose: see abstract) on the casting in each of the first and second molds.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0174647; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 10, Rose is silent to wherein the second fold control parameter comprises at least one of a calcium level in the molten metal, an ingot head level within the mold cavity, a casting speed, or a titanium carbide level in the molten metal.
Park teaches that if the content of calcium (Ca) is excessively low or high, inclusions having a desired shape may not be formed, and thus surface defects may increase (see [0012]). Thus, the calcium level in the molten metal is a result effective variable.
In view of Park’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 method of Rose to include wherein the second fold control parameter comprises at least one of a calcium level in the molten metal, as taught by Park, because if the content of calcium is excessively low or high, inclusions having a desired shape may not be formed, and thus surface defects may increase (see [0012]). Therefore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum range of calcium by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 11, Rose is silent to wherein controlling the second fold control parameter comprises controlling a calcium level to be 70 - 110 ppm, inclusive.
Park teaches that if the content of calcium (Ca) is excessively low or high, inclusions having a desired shape may not be formed, and thus surface defects may increase (see [0012]). Thus, the calcium level in the molten metal is a result effective variable.
In view of Park’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 method of Rose to include controlling a calcium level, as taught by Park, because if the content of calcium is excessively low or high, inclusions having a desired shape may not be formed, and thus surface defects may increase (see [0012]). Therefore, with regard to the specifically claimed calcium level to be 70 – 110 ppm, inclusive, it is not inventive to discover the optimum range of calcium by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kollberg et al. (US 2006/0162895; hereinafter “Kollberg”).
Regarding claim 18, Rose is silent to a sensor configured to detect a position of the skim dam, wherein the control system is configured to control the skim dam submergence depth of the skim dam based on the detected position from the sensor.
Kollberg teaches a control system comprises detection means such as inductive, optic, radioactive or thermal sensors to measure a process variable, a control unit to evaluate the data from the detection means and means to automatically vary at least one process parameter such as the casting speed, noble gas flow rate, or magnetic field strength of electromagnetic means, such as an EMBR or stirring apparatus, slab width, immersion depth of a submerged entry nozzle, or an angle of the submerged entry nozzle, in order to optimize the casting conditions (see [0016]).
In view of Kollberg’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 method of Rose to include a sensor configured to detect a position of the skim dam, wherein the control system is configured to control the skim dam submergence depth of the skim dam based on the detected position from the sensor, as taught by Kollberg, because it allows for automated optimizing of casting conditions and would allow for automated depth adjustments of the skim dam based on its detected depth.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose (US 4,724,896; listed in the IDS filed 12 August 2024), in view of Kosco (US 3,614,978).
Regarding claim 19, Rose teaches a casting system comprising:
a skim dam (skim dam 20, see Figs. 1-4; 4:50-60) positioned within a molten sump of a mold cavity (casting mold 4 with mold interior 8, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-65), and a casting mold (casting mold 4 with mold interior 8, see Figs. 1-4; 3:49-65).
Rose is silent to a plurality of casting molds for receiving molten metal, a plurality of skim dams, wherein each skim dam is positionable within a corresponding casting mold. However, this is merely a duplication of the first skim dam positioned within the cavity of the first casting mold, and the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Rose is silent to a control system configured to jointly control a skim dam submergence depth of each skim dam in a molten sump in the corresponding casting mold.
Kosco teaches computer controlled continuous casting of materials from the molten to the solid state. The computer keeps tracks of the position of the moving cast strand of each of a plurality of casting lines from the time it emerges from the mold and, in response to position of the strand, controls various elements at the proper time along the casting line, such as coolant flow, pinch rolls, straightening roller, dummy bar head separation, table or conveyor rolls, and slab cutting machine. The computer keeps track of the slab cutting machine and the position of its cutting elements, and controls the cutting operation in synchronism with movement of the strand. Also in response to position of the moving strand, the computer at appropriate times begins to monitor and compare against stored references such conditions as coolant and strand temperatures, coolant flow rates, pinch roll drive current, and pinch roll pressure. The computer also performs a pre-pour diagnostic checkup on various elements of the casting line to determine if a malfunction exists. Additionally, as the casting progresses, the computer gathers and outputs information as a function of position and time with respect to each strand. The computer controls a plurality of casting lines in "parallel" by suitable multiplexing (see abstract).
In view of Kosco’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 method Rose to include wherein the method further comprises a control system configured to jointly control a skim dam submergence depth of each skim dam in a molten sump in the corresponding casting mold because it is known to use a single controller to automate a plurality of casting lines. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include wherein the control system is configured to jointly control a skim dam submergence depth of each skim dam in a molten sump in the corresponding casting mold in order to inhibit the formation of vertical folds and oxide releases (Rose: see abstract) on the casting in each of the first and second molds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim 14: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach: wherein the control system comprises:
a rotating arm rotatable about an axis;
a controller configured to rotate the rotating arm about the axis;
a support arm extending from the rotating arm, wherein the support arm is fixed relative to the rotating arm and rotatable with the rotating arm about the axis; and
a connecting arm connecting the support arm and the skim dam,
wherein rotation of the rotating arm positions the skim dam relative to the rotating arm.
Claims 15 and 16: Depend directly from claim 14.
Claim 20: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the control system comprises:
a controller;
a rotating arm;
a plurality of support arms extending from the rotating arm; and
a plurality of connecting arms, each connecting arm connected to a corresponding support arm and a corresponding skim dam,
wherein rotation of the rotating arm positions the plurality of skim dams relative to the rotating arm.
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 28 September 2025
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735