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 .
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.
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 4-8, 11, and 13-15 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 4 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper discharge port" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “an upper end” is only recited in claim 2, and not claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “an upper end” is only recited in claim 2, and not claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Also note the repeated phrase “the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port” in line 6. The limitation should read as –an upper end of the upper discharge port--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper discharge port" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “an upper end” is only recited in claim 2, and not claim 3 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port" in line 6.
Note the repeated phrase “the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port” in line 6. The limitation should read as –the upper end of the upper discharge port--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “an upper end” is only recited in claim 2, and not claim 3 from which claim 14 depends.
Also note the repeated phrase “the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port” in line 6. The limitation should read as –an upper end of the upper discharge port--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port" in line 6.
Note the repeated phrase “the upper end of the upper end of the discharge port” in line 6. The limitation should read as –the upper end of the upper discharge port--.
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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al (JP 2019-063851 A, cited in IDS filed 9/20/24).
Regarding claim 1, Morita et al teaches an immersion nozzle for supplying molten steel from a storage container of the molten steel to a mold in a continuous casting machine for continuous casting of steel (fig 1A-2, paragraph [0017]),
characterized in that
an end of a main body of the immersion nozzle to be immersed into the molten steel in the mold is closed (fig 1A-2, paragraph [0017], bottomed cylindrical immersion nozzle),
a pair of discharge ports having a central axis as a symmetry axis is provided in each of an upper and lower position of the main body of the nozzle to be immersed in the molten steel (fig 1A-2, note the two pairs of ports, upper pair of ports 3 and lower pair of ports 4), and
an area of an opening portion of the lower discharge port is within 1.0 to 1.6 times, inclusive, of an area of an opening portion of the upper discharge port (paragraph [0017], see [1], opening area of the lower discharge hole is equal to or larger than the opening area of the upper discharge hole, the end point of the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Morita et al teaches wherein a ratio r/R of an inner diameter r to another inner diameter R is 0.6 or more but less than 1 .0, wherein r represents the inner diameter of the immersion nozzle from an upper end of the upper discharge port to an bottom end of the immersion nozzle, while R represents the inner diameter of the immersion nozzle up to the upper end of the upper discharge port within a flow path in the immersion nozzle (paragraph [0017], see [2], ratio of r/R is 0.80 or more and 0.95 or less, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Morita et al teaches wherein discharge directions of the upper discharge port and the lower discharge port are arranged at an angle θ within 10° in a top plan view (figs 1A-2, note that the upper and lower discharge ports both face the short wall (paragraph [0022]), thus an angle θ of 0° and falling within the claimed range of within 10° (fig 1B)).
Claim(s) 4-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al as applied to claims 1-3 and 9 above, and further in view of Matsui et al (JP 2015-085370 A, cited in IDS filed 9/20/24).
Regarding claims 4 and 10-12, Morita et al teaches a mold for continuous casting (paragraph [0001], mold) having the immersion nozzle according to claims 1-3 and 9 above (see immersion nozzle above), but is quiet to the mold is configured to have an index K which is represented by the following equation (1) and affects a variation of a molten surface is within a range of 0.09 to 0.14:
K2=(L2+W2/4)/TP2......(1),
wherein L is a distance [m] from a meniscus to the upper end of the upper discharge port of the immersion nozzle, W is a distance [m] between short sides of the mold at the position of the meniscus, and TP is a molten steel passing mass [t/min].
Matsui et al teaches a method of continuous casting wide slabs (paragraph [0001]) having high-throughput while controlling the flow of molten steel in a mold using electromagnetic force, thereby obtaining high-quality slabs with fewer defects due to non-metallic inclusions, minute bubbles, and mold flux inclusion (paragraph [0008]). Matsui et al teaches solving the problems in the prior art by optimizing a ratio of R/Q (paragraph [0009], amount of inert gas to molten steel throughput) when casting under high efficiency conditions with a throughput of 6.0 to 7.5 ton/min and a casting width of 1850 mm or more, setting the molten steel discharge angle and immersion depth of the immersion nozzle, as well as the strength of the upper and lower DC magnetic fields and AC moving magnetic fields (paragraph [0009]). Matsui et al teaches the preferable immersion depth of 180 mm or more and less than 300 mm (paragraph [0027], corresponding to the claimed L distance from meniscus to upper end of upper discharge port), a casting width of 1850 mm or more (paragraph [0014], corresponding to width of cast slab which corresponds to width W of mold), and a throughput of 6.0 to 7.50 tons/min (paragraph [0015], corresponding to the claimed TP molten steel passing mass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita et al to include the teachings of Matsui et al, such as the preferred ratio of R/Q, the throughput of molten steel, the casting width, and the immersion depth, as Matsui et al teaches overcoming the prior art problems to obtain high-quality slabs with fewer defects due to non-metallic inclusions, minute bubbles, and mold flux inclusion (paragraph [0008]).
Note that the value of Matsui et al’s preferred immersion depth, casting width, and throughput, would result in a K index that overlaps the claimed range. For example, the immersion depth L = 0.180 m, W = 1.850 m, and TP = 7.5 t/min.
K2 = ((0.180)2 + (1.850)2/4) / (7.5)2 = 0.0158, thus K = 0.126, which falls within the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Morita et al teaches comprising an electromagnetic stirring apparatus having a direct current coil (paragraph [0042], note that one of the DC magnetic field generator is on the back of the mold above the upper discharge hole) and an alternating current coil capable of applying a superposed magnetic field of direct current magnetic field and alternating magnetic field to the molten steel in the mold (paragraph [0043], AC magnetic field generator on the back of the mold for swirling the molten steel at the meniscus), outside a long side of the mold positioned above the discharge ports of the immersion nozzle (paragraph [0042-0043], on the back of the mold, DC above the discharge, AC by the meniscus), and an electromagnetic braking apparatus having a direct current coil capable of applying a direct current magnetic field to the molten steel in the mold, outside a long side of the mold positioned below the discharge ports of the immersion nozzle (paragraph [0042], note the second stage of the DC magnetic field generator, below the lower discharge hole, allows for deceleration of the meniscus flow).
Regarding claims 6 and 13-15, Morita et al teaches a continuous casting method (paragraph [0001], mold) using the immersion nozzle according to claims 1-3 and 9 (see combinations above), but is quiet to wherein an index K of molten surface variation represented by the following equation (1) is adjusted to be within a range of 0.09 to 0.14:
K2=(L2+W2/4)/TP2......(1),
wherein L is a distance [m] from a meniscus to the upper end of the upper discharge port of the immersion nozzle, W is a distance [m] between short sides of the mold at the position of the meniscus, and TP is a molten steel passing mass [t/min].
Matsui et al teaches a method of continuous casting wide slabs (paragraph [0001]) having high-throughput while controlling the flow of molten steel in a mold using electromagnetic force, thereby obtaining high-quality slabs with fewer defects due to non-metallic inclusions, minute bubbles, and mold flux inclusion (paragraph [0008]). Matsui et al teaches solving the problems in the prior art by optimizing a ratio of R/Q (paragraph [0009], amount of inert gas to molten steel throughput) when casting under high efficiency conditions with a throughput of 6.0 to 7.5 ton/min and a casting width of 1850 mm or more, setting the molten steel discharge angle and immersion depth of the immersion nozzle, as well as the strength of the upper and lower DC magnetic fields and AC moving magnetic fields (paragraph [0009]). Matsui et al teaches the preferable immersion depth of 180 mm or more and less than 300 mm (paragraph [0027], corresponding to the claimed L distance from meniscus to upper end of upper discharge port), a casting width of 1850 mm or more (paragraph [0014], corresponding to width of cast slab which corresponds to width W of mold), and a throughput of 6.0 to 7.50 tons/min (paragraph [0015], corresponding to the claimed TP molten steel passing mass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita et al to include the teachings of Matsui et al, such as the preferred ratio of R/Q, the throughput of molten steel, the casting width, and the immersion depth, as Matsui et al teaches overcoming the prior art problems to obtain high-quality slabs with fewer defects due to non-metallic inclusions, minute bubbles, and mold flux inclusion (paragraph [0008]).
Note that the value of Matsui et al’s preferred immersion depth, casting width, and throughput, would result in a K index that overlaps the claimed range. For example, the immersion depth L = 0.180 m, W = 1.850 m, and TP = 7.5 t/min.
K2 = ((0.180)2 + (1.850)2/4) / (7.5)2 = 0.0158, thus K = 0.126, which falls within the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Morita et al teaches comprising applying a magnetic field obtaining by superposing an alternating magnetic field (Morita, paragraph [0043], AC magnetic field generator on the back of the mold for swirling the molten steel at the meniscus) on a direct current magnetic field (paragraph [0042], note that one of the DC magnetic field generator is on the back of the mold above the upper discharge hole) to the molten steel in the mold positioned above the discharge ports of the immersion nozzle immersed in the molten steel in the mold (paragraph [0042-0043], on the back of the mold, DC above the discharge, AC by the meniscus) and applying a direct current magnetic field to the molten steel in the mold positioned below the discharge ports (paragraph [0042], note the second stage of the DC magnetic field generator, below the lower discharge hole, allows for deceleration of the meniscus flow).
Morita et al is quiet to the flux density of the alternating field to be within a range of 0.03 to 0.1 T and the flux density of the direct current magnetic fields to be within a range of 0.1 to 0.8 T.
Matsui et al teaches setting the strength of the upper and lower DC magnetic fields and the strength of the upper AC moving magnetic field to an optimal range (paragraph [0009]), where the upper AC field strength is 0.07 to 0.09 T, the strength of the upper DC field is 0.25 to 0.32 T, and the strength of the lower DC field is 0.35 to 0.40 T (paragraph [0010]). Matsui et al teaches that when the strength of the upper DC field is less than 0.25 T, the damping effect on upward flow is insufficient, whereas if the strength exceeds 0.32T the cleaning effect decreases (paragraph [0022]). Matsui et al teaches that when the strength of the lower DC magnetic field is less than 0.35 T, the damping effect is insufficient, whereas if the strength exceeds 0.40 T, the cleaning effect decreases (paragraph [0022]). Matsui et al also teaches that when the AC field strength is less than 0.07 T, the swirling flow is easily interfered, whereas if the strength exceeds 0.09, the swirling force is too strong (paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita et al such that the DC and AC magnetic fields have flux densities within the claimed range, as Matsui et al teaches optimum flux densities to so as to have sufficient damping effect, cleaning effect, stability, and swirl force (paragraph [0022-0023]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
"[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). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches comprising flowing an Ar gas from a tundish upper nozzle while controlling a ratio QAr/TP of an Ar gas flow rate QAr [NL/min] to a molten steel passing mass TP [t/min] within 2.0 to 5.0 inclusive (Matsui et al, paragraph [0009], optimizes the ratio R/Q of the amount of inert gas to the steel throughput, paragraph [0018], (15-Q)/3.75 ≤ R/Q ≤ (16.5-Q)/3.75, where Q can be up to 7.5 t/min (substituting Q in the above equation yields 2.0 ≤R/Q ≤ 2.4), paragraph [0047-0048] in JP document, see tables 4-5, where R/Q is between 2.1 to 2.7, falling within the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saito et al (US 4,949,778) teaches an immersion nozzle with upper and lower discharge ports, the upper discharge port is approximately equal to that of the lower discharge part (col 3 lines 40-60), and that the sectional area of the lower passage is not more than 0.9 to the section area of the upper passage (col 3 lines 40-60). A top plan view (sectional view fig 4c) shows the discharge directions to be aligned and thus at an angle of 0° from one another.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights