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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 5, 2024, May 29, 2025 and July 17, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadao et al. (JP 2014-215113 translation provided) as cited by the applicant, in view of Gudmundsson et al. (WO2020/239239).
In regards to claim 1, Tadao discloses an emission spectroscopic analysis method for an element in a metal material (abstract), the method comprising: repeatedly causing spark discharge between a metal material and an electrode facing the metal material to cause excitation emission (page 2, ⁋ 5 “a spark discharge is generated many times between a metal sample and an electrode facing the metal sample”); spectrally dispersing the excitation emission (page 2, ⁋ 5 “the emitted light is disperse); and measuring an emission intensity IM of a matrix element of the metal material and an emission intensity Isb of the element contained in the metal material in order to obtain a ratio Isb/IM of the emission intensity Isb to the emission intensity IM, (page 2, ⁋ 4). Tadao is silent to the element being Antimony (Sb) or that the spark discharge is performed at a discharge energy of less than 0.10 J, although it is disclosed that the spark discharge can be at .10J (page 2, ⁋ 6).
Gudmundsson, in the same field of endeavor as Tadao of identifying elements in metal using plasma spectroscopy (abstract and page 1, lines 4-10), discloses that determining Sb in metal is important in the metal production industry and that it can be identified using plasma spectroscopy (page 1, 29-35, pages 10-11, lines 31-35 and 1-2). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Tadao’s method to identify the ratio of Sb in a metal, in order to allow it to be used to control metal production. The combination is silent to the spark discharge being performed at a discharge energy of less than 0.10 J. However, it is noted that Tadao discloses the spark discharge energy can be at .10J (page 2, ⁋ 6)
Further, it is noted that the discharge energy is a result effective variable, because it affects both the signal of the element of interest and any noise in the signal received by the spectrometer. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try implement Tadao’s method such that the spark discharge is performed at a discharge energy of less than 0.10 J in order to yield the predictable result of finding the optimum range that allows the best measurement of the concentration of Sb. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 2, the combination is silent to performing the spark discharge at an energy of .07J or less. However, it is noted that Tadao discloses the spark discharge energy can be at .10J (page 2, ⁋ 6)
Further, it is noted that the discharge energy is a result effective variable, because it affects both the signal of the element of interest and any noise in the signal received by the spectrometer. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try implement Tadao’s method such that the spark discharge is performed at a discharge energy of less than 0.07 J in order to yield the predictable result of finding the optimum range that allows the best measurement of the concentration of Sb. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 3, the combination discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. The combination is silent to the emission intensity being measured after a delay time. However, the examiner takes official notice that this is very well-known in the art of plasma spectroscopy, and done in order to allow the plasma to stabilize or to allow the detection time be synchronized to when a particular element of interest has the strongest signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the combination the step of having the emission intensity be measure after a delay time, as this is well-known in the art to do, and in order to allow the plasma to stabilize or to allow the detection time be synchronized to when a particular element of interest has the strongest signal.
In regards to claim 4, it is noted that the delay time would be a result effective variable, because it affects both the signal of the element of interest and any noise in the signal that would be received by the spectrometer. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to implement Tadao’s method such that the delay time is longer than or equal to a time period in which the emission intensity of Sb for each spark discharge decreases to 60% of a maximum value in order to yield the predictable result of finding the optimum range that allows the best measurement of the concentration of Sb. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claims 5, and 7-9, the combination discloses a method for measuring an Sb concentration (as discussed above) in molten steel during refining, the method comprising: collecting a part of molten steel during refining to prepare an analysis sample (Tadao page 2, ⁋ 2 “Therefore in the steel industry where samples are taken from molten steel and the components of the molten steel are often adjusted based on the analysis values”), measuring an emission intensity IM of a matrix element of the analysis sample and an emission intensity Isb of the Sb contained in the metal material in order to obtain a ratio Isb/IM of the emission intensity Isb to the emission intensity IM, (Tadao page 2, ⁋ 4 and as discussed above), wherein the emission spectroscopic analysis method is the emission spectroscopic analysis method for Sb in a metal material of claim 1-4 (as discussed above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, and 10-12 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.
In regards to claims 6 and 10-12, the prior art neither teaches or renders obvious a method for manufacturing a semi-finished steel material, the method comprising: obtaining an Sb concentration in molten steel during refining by using the method for measuring an Sb concentration in molten steel during refining according to claims 5, and 7-9; determining an amount of Sb to be added to the molten steel during refining based on the obtained Sb concentration; and adding Sb to the molten steel during refining based on the determined amount of Sb to be added, whereby a semi-finished steel material is manufactured.
The closest prior art, Tadao (JP 2014-215113 translation provided) appears to disclose measuring the element of a metal sample in a solid state, and seems to teach away from measuring the element in a liquid state (see page 2, ⁋ 2).
Gudmundsson (WO2020/239239) does disclose measuring an element of a metal sample in a molten state (abstract). However, the device is directed to LIBS and does not use an electrode facing the metal cause the spark discharge.
Yukio (JP 2014-020839), cited in the ISR (translation provided) appears to also disclose measuring the element of a metal sample in a solid state (page 1, “Technical Field” – “The present invention relates to a segregation evaluation method and segregation evaluation apparatus by emission spectroscopic analysis for evaluating the internal quality of a steel material, particularly a continuous cast slab of steel or a thick steel plate”).
Therefore, it appears that using the method described in the claims for molten steel is novel.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record is Fraser et al. (US 6034768).
Fraser discloses an emission spectroscopic analysis method for an element in metal, wherein the spark discharge is performed at a discharge energy of more than .10J.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights