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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 5 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the at least one gasket between the rim and the furnace chamber (see claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
In claim 14, how can there be at least one gasket between the rim and the furnace chamber when the rim and furnace chamber are not in direct contact with each other?
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, 5-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 2002/0179276), in view of VanderJagt (US 6,358,468).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a casting furnace (see Fig. 1) for low pressure casting comprising a furnace chamber (interior of holding vessel 10, see Fig. 1; [0023]) and an insert (molten metal injector 14, see Fig. 1; [0023]) for receiving a melt, said insert (molten metal injector 14, see Fig. 1; [0023]) at least partially disposed within the furnace chamber (interior of holding vessel 10, see Fig. 1; [0023]) such that a portion of the insert is in contact with the melt (see Fig. 1), the insert including a valve (valve 42, see Fig. 1; [0027]) for controlling a flow of melt from the furnace into the insert, a riser (fill tube 30, see Fig. 1; [0025]) for feeding melt from the insert into a mold, and a channel (combination of pressurization source 38 and a pressure controller 40, see Fig. 1; [0026]) for supplying and/or discharging gas into and out of the insert.
Meyer is silent to wherein the valve is comprising an elongated body defining a passage and a post disposed in said passage, said post including a top end wider than said passage and a bottom end wider than said passage.
VanderJagt teaches a valve (see Figs. 1A-1D) comprised of an elongated body defining a passage (clearance 10 between the necked down region of stopper rod 6 and inlet orifice 11, see Figs. 1A-1D; 2:50-59) and a post (stopper rod 6, see Figs. 1A-1D; 2:50-59) disposed in said passage (see Figs. 1A-1D), said post including a top end wider than said passage (end at the top of necked down region distal from spherical shaped end 6a of stopper 6, see Figs. 1A-1D) and a bottom end wider than said passage (spherical shaped end 6a, see Figs. 1A-1D).
In view of VanderJagt’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 casting furnace of Meyer to include wherein the valve is comprised an elongated body defining a passage and a post disposed in said passage, said post including a top end wider than said passage and a bottom end wider than said passage, as taught by VanderJagt, because it is a known structure for a valve, and the substitution of a known element (the valve structure of Meyer) for another known structure (the valve structure of VanderJagt) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for receiving a melt, for controlling a flow of melt from the furnace into the insert, for feeding melt from the insert into a mold, for supplying and/or discharging gas into and out of the insert), 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, as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt teaches wherein the top end (end at the top of necked down region distal from spherical shaped end 6a of stopper 6, see Figs. 1A-1D) includes a distal end wider than the elongated body (see Figs. 1A-1D).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to wherein the top end includes a curved surface shaped to mate with a curved surface defining an entrance to the passage. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the configuration of the claimed surface of the top end and the corresponding mating shape defining an entrance to the passage is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt teaches wherein the elongated body includes a groove (VanderJagt: see Figs. 1A-1D) configured to receive cement.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., configured to receive cement), 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., cement), as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to wherein the valve is comprised of a ceramic material. However, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt does teach a refractory or ceramic pump vessel or body 1, see Figs. 1A-1D; 2:15-19) that can be submerged in molten metal. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would find it obvious to also form the valve of a ceramic material in order for it to withstand being submerged in molten metal.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt teaches wherein the post (VanderJagt: stopper rod 6, see Figs. 1A-1D; 2:50-59) is at least 10% longer than the elongated body (clearance 10 between the necked down region of stopper rod 6 and inlet orifice 11, see Figs. 1A-1D; 2:50-59).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to wherein the top end has a greater molten metal contacting surface area than the bottom end. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the configuration of wherein the top end has a greater molten metal contacting surface area than the bottom end is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to wherein the elongated body includes a conical outer surface. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the configuration of wherein the elongated body includes a conical outer surface is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt teaches wherein the riser (Meyer: fill tube 30, see Fig. 2; [0025]) is a cylindrical body including an integral ridge (Meyer: see Fig. 2) disposed between a first and second end (Meyer: see Fig. 2). The combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to the ridge having rounded corners at an interface with the cylindrical body. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the configuration of the ridge having rounded corners at an interface with the cylindrical body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Meyer, VanderJagt, and Tamura is silent to at least one gasket between the rim and the furnace chamber. However, it is the Examiner’s position that gaskets are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include at least one gasket where necessary in order to improve the seal between the surfaces.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 5,728,348; hereinafter “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to a metallic frame enclosing a refractory disc forming a lid.
Tamura teaches a metallic frame (peripheral metal frame 4, see Figs. 1-2; 2:62-67) enclosing a refractory disc (the cover 1 between the lance hole 3 and the peripheral metal frame 4 is lined with at least one refractory; 2:62-67) forming a lid for a ladle (see Figs. 1-2). Tamura teaches that this provides for a ladle cover that exhibits excellent durability against thermal spalling due to thermal heating cycles. Thus, the ladle cover will have a longer life (See 2:1-4).
In view of Tamura’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 furnace of the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt to include a metallic frame enclosing a refractory disc forming a lid, as taught by Tamura, because it provides for a ladle cover that exhibits excellent durability against thermal spalling due to thermal heating cycles, which results in a longer lifetime for the cover.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beals (US 2020/0094315) and Su et al. (CN 111872366 A; hereinafter “Su”; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to wherein the insert comprises a rim extending from a cup-shaped body, and wherein the lower most intersection between the rim and the cup-shaped body is a curved surface,
and wherein a bottom wall of the cup-shaped body includes a curved surface at an intersection of a side-wall of the cup-shaped body and the bottom wall.
Beals teaches an insert (dosing unit 110, see Fig. 1; [0018]) which comprises a rim extending from a cup-shaped body (see Fig. 1).
In view of Beals’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the insert of the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt to include wherein the insert comprises a rim extending from a cup-shaped body, as taught by Beals, because it is a known shape used for the insert of a furnace and can be used to help hold the insert in position (see Fig. 1). Though the combination of Meyer, VanderJagt, and Beals is silent to wherein the lower most intersection between the rim and the cup-shaped body is a curved surface, absent persuasive evidence, the particular shape of the intersection between the rim and the cup-shaped body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
The combination of Meyer, VanderJagt, and Beals is silent to wherein a bottom wall of the cup-shaped body includes a curved surface at an intersection of a side-wall of the cup-shaped body and the bottom wall
Su teaches wherein a bottom wall of a tundish body 1 includes a slag retaining dam 4 intersecting a side-wall of the body and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2 and [0032]).
In view of Su’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 Meyer, VanderJagt, and Beals to include wherein a bottom wall of the cup-shaped body includes a wall surface at an intersection of a side-wall of the cup-shaped body and the bottom wall, as taught by Su, because it can be used as a slag retaining dam. Though the combination of Meyer, VanderJagt, Beals, and Su is silent to wherein the wall is a curved surface, absent persuasive evidence, the particular shape of the intersection between the rim and the cup-shaped body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2010/0108285; hereinafter “Mizuno”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to including at least one probe extending through a lid to monitor a depth of the melt, said probe being in communication with a controller which manages the supplying and/or discharging the gas.
Mizuno teaches at least one probe extending through a lid (level sensor 9, 14, and 15 in cover 6, see Fig. 1; [0016]-[0018[) to monitor a depth of the melt (see [0018]-[0021]), said probe being in communication with a controller which manages the supplying and/or discharging the gas (see [0021] - when the level sensor 15 senses the predetermined level of the molten metal in the pressurizing room 2, the pressure for supplying inert gas through the hole for supplying inert gas 10 is controlled to be reduced. Though Mizuno is silent to specifically teaching a controller here, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious or inherent to include a controller to automate the reduction as taught by Mizuno).
In view of Mizuno’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 furnace of the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt to include at least one probe extending through a lid to monitor a depth of the melt, said probe being in communication with a controller which manages the supplying and/or discharging the gas, as taught by Mizuno, because the probe helps to detect the level of melt and automatically reduce the supply of inert gas once the melt reaches a specific level.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kennedy (US 2018/0245852).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Meyer and VanderJagt is silent to the casting furnace further including an immersion heater.
Kennedy teaches that electric immersion holding furnaces 10 typically have electric heating elements placed in immersion tubes 50. The immersion tubes 50 typically extend through the holding chamber 55 any may contact the molten metal 51 in the holding chamber 55. Operators can adjust the heat output of the electric heating elements and thereby regulate the temperature in the electric immersion holding furnace 10 to control the metal's consistency prior to casting (see [0064]).
In view of Kennedy’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 Meyer and VanderJagt to include an immersion heater, as taught by Kennedy, because it helps to regulate the temperature in the electric immersion holding furnace 10 to control the metal's consistency prior to casting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 15-17 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 4: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the bottom end comprises a removeable pin passing through a hole in the post.
Claim 11: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
a trough joined to the riser, said trough including a cylindrical depending first end, a cylindrical depending second end, and a open top intermediate section extending between the depending first and second ends.
Claim 15: Depends directly from claim 11.
Claim 16: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the frame includes a first ring above the rim and a second ring below the rim, said rings being coupled by at least one fastener.
Claim 17: Depends directly from claim 16.
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 7 March 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735