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 Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, it is suggested to replace “the plane passing through an axial center” with --the plane passing through an axial center of the immersion nozzle--. For consistency with figure 1.
In claim 1, line 11, it is suggested to replace “four discharge holes are formed in the discharge portion” with --four discharge holes are formed in the bottom portion of the discharge portion--. For consistency with figure 1.
In claim 1, at the end of line 16, it is suggested to replace “each of the regions” with -- each of the two regions--.
In claim 4, line 2, it is suggested to replace “in each of the regions” with -- in each of the two regions--.
In claim 5, line 2, it is suggested to replace “in each of the regions” with -- in each of the two regions--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 sets forth a condition in which when either one of the branch flow passages is closed, however in the specification, while the closing of either of the branch flow passages is mentioned in para [0038] and [0042] for example, the structure for closing said branch flow passages or any details about how said closing is done is not disclosed. Thus, the present specification does not include sufficient details to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the invention including how to close either of the branch flow passages. Also see MPEP 2161.01.
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 1-8 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 1 recites the limitation "four discharge holes are formed in the discharge portion" in line 11; and “two discharge holes are arranged side by side in a width direction in each of the regions in the bottom portion of the discharge portion” in lines 12-13, respectively. It is unclear from the way the two limitations are written if any structural relationship exists between the “four discharge holes” and the “two discharge holes”; or if they are different sets of discharge holes or if the “four discharge holes” are inclusive of the “the two discharge hole”. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite due to the ambiguity in interpretation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the discharge hole" at the beginning of line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the discharge hole" in the middle of line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “and when either one of the branch flow passages is closed, a relationship between a flow rate Qa of the molten steel to be discharged from the inner discharge hole disposed in a region where the branch flow passage is closed and a flow rate Qb of the molten steel to be discharged from the inner discharge hole disposed in a region in which the branch flow passage is not closed satisfies an equation (1) in line 27-32. It is unclear how either of the branch flow passages could be closed, since no structure for performing said closing is disclosed in the specification, or any specific direction given in the specification about how said closing is done, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation contains a conditional statement beginning with “when” followed by series of outcomes if the “when” statement occurs, however from the way the limitation is presented, it is unclear if closing of either of the branch flow passages does occur; thereby rendering the two equations 1 and 2, required to be satisfied appear null and void.
Therefore for Examination purposes, the following limitations are not given any substantial patentable weight in this instant office action: “and when either one of the branch flow passages is closed, a relationship between a flow rate Qa of the molten steel to be discharged from the inner discharge hole disposed in a region where the branch flow passage is closed and a flow rate Qb of the molten steel to be discharged from the inner discharge hole disposed in a region in which the branch flow passage is not closed satisfies an equation (1), and a relationship between a discharge flow rate Q.sub.out of the molten steel to be discharged from the outer discharge hole and a discharge flow rate Q.sub.in of the molten steel to be discharged from the inner discharge hole satisfies an equation (2); Qa / Qb >1 (1), and 0.1≤Q1n/Qout≤1 (2).
Claims 4 and 8, each recites these two limitations: (i) “an outer discharge angle α1, which is defined by an angle of a wall surface that forms the outer discharge hole” and (ii) “an inner discharge angle α2, which is defined by an angle of a wall surface that forms the inner discharge hole”. However, both the outer discharge hole and the inner discharged hole as seen in figure 3 for example are defined by multiple wall surfaces, furthermore, said claimed angles α1 and α2 are not shown in any of the figures of the drawing to point to the particular wall in each case, thereby making the claims appear vague and unclear. The claims are therefore deemed indefinite since their metes and bounds are unascertainable.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntosh (US Patent No. 7,757,747).
Regarding claim 1, McIntosh teaches an immersion nozzle (i.e., submerged nozzle (20), see figures 1 and 3, abstract and column 4, lines 60-67) for discharging molten steel supplied from a tundish into a mold for continuous casting of a slab (see abstract and column 4, line 60-column 5, line 20), the immersion nozzle (20) comprising a discharge portion (32, see figure 3 and column 5, lines 15-32) that supplies the molten steel to the mold (120,see abstract, column 2, lines 15-20, column 5, lines 50-60 and column 10, lines 26-35, and figures 11 and 12) wherein the immersion nozzle includes two regions divided by a plane in a thickness direction (i.e., the plane coplanar with the axial center or passing through an axial center of the submerged nozzle 20, see figure 3), the discharge portion includes: a bottom portion (see figures 3, 10 and 12-14 shows as such); and a side wall that extends in a height direction from an outer edge of the bottom portion (see figures 3, 10 and 12-14 shows as such), four discharge holes (i.e., outlet ports 34, 36, 38 and 39, see figure 3, 10 and 12-14 and column 5, lines 13-20) are formed in the discharge portion, two (i.e., outlet ports 34 and 39, see figure 3) of the four discharge holes are arranged side by side in a width direction in each of the regions in the bottom portion of the discharge portion (see figures 3, 10 and 12-14), the discharge portion includes: an internal barrier (i.e., equated to the flow divider 84, see figure 3 and column 9., lines 34-48) that is disposed at the center in the width direction and that distributes the molten steel supplied from the tundish to each of the regions (see figures 10-12); a branch flow passage (two secondary flows 102 & 104, see column 10, lines 14-25 and figure 10) through which a branch flow, which is the molten steel that has been distributed by the internal barrier (84, see figures 3 and 10), flows between the side wall of each of the regions and the internal barrier (see figures 10- 12, each shows as such).
McIntosh fails to teach a distribution block on a bottom portion side relative to the internal barrier, McIntosh, however teaches a distribution block (i.e., baffles 95 and 96, see figures 3 and 10 and column 9, lines 60-65 and column 10, lines 14-25) dispose below the leading edge (89, see figure 3) of the internal barrier (84, see figures 3) and displaced to the left and right respectively of the bottom portion side of the internal barrier (84, see figures 3) , that further distributes the branch flow that has passed through the branch flow passage to a distribution flow passage (see figures 10-12) in each of the regions to supply the branch flow to each of the discharge holes (i.e., outlet ports 34, 36, 38 and 39, see figure 3, 10 and 12-14). McIntosh differs from the instant claimed invention only by the position of the distribution block relative to the internal barrier; however because the arrangement of McIntosh achieves substantially the same results as claimed, for further distributing the branch flow that has passed through the branch flow passage to a distribution flow passage in each of the regions to supply the branch flow to each of the discharge holes; said difference between McIntosh and the instant claim would only constitutes rearrangement of part. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2144.04. VI.C. which pertains to obviousness of rearrangement of parts, similar to the instantly-claimed distribution block and that taught by McIntosh, the Court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 5-7 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: McIntosh differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest:
As in claim 2: a projection area of the internal barrier, when the immersion nozzle
is projected on a horizontal plane, is equal to or larger than a flow passage area of the
straight body portion.
As in claim 3: a surface of the internal barrier on a side that receives the molten steel supplied from the tundish includes a recessed portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukunaga et al. (US 10,799,942), Augustine ,III (US 5,227,078), Nomura et al. (US 7,905,432) and Tsukaguchi (US 2007/015884) are also cited in PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights