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 § 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al (JP 2019-63851 A, cited in IDS filed 9/20/24) in view of Saito et al (US 4,949,778).
Regarding claim 1, Morita et al teaches an immersion nozzle for continuous casting which has a shape of a cylinder with a bottom (fig 1A-2) and through which molten steel is poured into a mold for continuous casting (fig 1A-2), wherein:
the immersion nozzle has, at a portion to be immersed in the molten steel inside the mold for continuous casting, two or more pairs of discharge ports that are axially symmetrical with respect to an axial center of the immersion nozzle (fig 1A, see pair of upper discharge ports 3 and pair of lower discharge ports 4);
in a molten steel flow passage inside a straight body part of the immersion nozzle, an inside diameter in a range from an upper end of an upper discharge port to a bottom of the immersion nozzle is equal to or smaller than that at other portions (fig 1A-2, see inner diameter r, from the upper discharge port to the bottom, which is smaller than inner diameter R, at other portions such as at portion 5);
when a one-side opening part area of the upper discharge port is S3 and a one-side opening part area of the lower discharge port is S4 (fig 1A-2, limitation is labelling the upper and lower discharge ports 3, 4),
a discharge angle of each of the discharge ports is within a range of +20° to -50°, with an upward direction based on a horizontal plane being positive (paragraph [0017], +15° to -50°, falls within the claimed range); and
the discharge angle of the discharge port on a vertically lower side is vertically downward (fig 1A, 2) within a range of 20° to 55° based on the discharge angle of the discharge port on a vertically upper side (paragraph [0017], difference between the lower and upper discharge hole is 20° or more and 55° or less).
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).
Morita et al further discloses a ratio of the inner diameters (r/R) to be within a range of 0.80 to 0.95 (paragraph [0017], see [2]), as well as the opening area of the lower discharge port (corresponding to S4) being equal to or larger than the upper discharge port (corresponding to S3) (paragraph [0017], see [1]).
However, Morita et al is quiet to a ratio of a straight-body-part internal cross-sectional area (S1) in a range from an upper end of the immersion nozzle to the upper end of the upper discharge port to a total one-side opening part area (S3 + S4) of the discharge ports is within a range of 0.30 to 0.50, a ratio of a straight-body-part internal cross-sectional area (S2) in a range from the upper end of the upper discharge port to the bottom of the immersion nozzle to the total one-side opening part area (S3 + S4) of the discharge ports is within a range of 0.10 to 0.40, and the straight-body-part internal cross-sectional areas (S1,S2) of the immersion nozzle and the one-side opening areas (S3, S4) of the discharge ports meets a relationship 0.20 ≤ (S2/S4) ≤ (S1/S3) ≤ 1.0.
Saito et al teaches an immersion nozzle for continuous casting (abstract) having an upper passage portion (14) and a lower passage portion (15) having a sectional area smaller than that of passage (14) (col 4 lines 18-26). Saito et al teaches two discharge ports (12, 13) arranged above and below the portion (15) (fig 4A-4C), where the sectional area of the lower discharge port is made larger than that of the upper discharge port (col 4 lines 1-16). Saito et al further recognizes a relationship between the total sectional area of the discharge ports with respect to the sectional area of the steel passage (col 4 lines 1-16). Figure 7 shows the ratios of the lower passage to the upper passage, the ratios of the upper port to the upper port and lower port, and the correlation between the molten steel passages and the discharge ports (fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the ratio of the molten steel passages to the discharge ports, to the claimed ranges, as Saito et al teaches that of a stable discharge, and preventing the discharging rate of steel from being too large, with a corresponding large downflow, which would deeply penetrate into the mold (col 4 lines 1-20), making it difficult to prevent the catching of non-metallic inclusions (col 2 lines 30-45).
"[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 2, the combination teaches wherein two of the discharge ports with a vertical positional relationship face different directions in the horizontal plane (Morita, figure 1, note the direction of the lower left discharge port and the upper right discharge port, these ports have a vertical positional relationship and face opposite directions), and at least one pair of the discharge ports faces a direction parallel to a long-side surface of the mold (Morita, paragraph [0022], one or more pairs of discharge holes facing each other on the left and right short sides, paragraph [0021], rectangular mold, thus parallel to long side surface).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches a steel continuous casting method (Morita, paragraph [0001], injecting molten steel into a mold during continuous casting of steel), wherein:
the immersion nozzle for continuous casting according to claim 1 is used (see combination above);
a mold powder is added to a surface of molten steel inside a mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], adding mold powder to the meniscus); and
molten steel inside a tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an inert gas is blown into molten steel flowing down the molten steel flow passage of the immersion nozzle (Morita, paragraph [0017], injecting molten steel in the tundish into the mold via the immersion nozzle while blowing an inert gas).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while a direct-current static magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold, on an upper side of a discharge port located at a vertically uppermost part and on a lower side of a discharge port located at a vertically lowermost part of the immersion nozzle, from a direct- current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [4], wherein a DC static magnetic field is applied from a DC magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold, above the uppermost discharge hole and below the lowermost discharge hole).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an alternating-current moving magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold from an alternating-current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [5], alternating magnetic field is applied to the steel in the mold from an alternating magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches a steel continuous casting method (Morita, paragraph [0001], injecting molten steel into a mold during continuous casting of steel), wherein:
the immersion nozzle for continuous casting according to claim 2 is used (see combination above);
a mold powder is added to a surface of molten steel inside a mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], adding mold powder to the meniscus); and
molten steel inside a tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an inert gas is blown into molten steel flowing down the molten steel flow passage of the immersion nozzle (Morita, paragraph [0017], injecting molten steel in the tundish into the mold via the immersion nozzle while blowing an inert gas).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while a direct-current static magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold, on an upper side of a discharge port located at a vertically uppermost part and on a lower side of a discharge port located at a vertically lowermost part of the immersion nozzle, from a direct- current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [4], wherein a DC static magnetic field is applied from a DC magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold, above the uppermost discharge hole and below the lowermost discharge hole).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an alternating-current moving magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold from an alternating-current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [5], alternating magnetic field is applied to the steel in the mold from an alternating magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold).
Claim(s) 2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al as modified by Saito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al (EP 332889 A1, cited in IDS filed 1/22/25).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches at least one pair of the discharge ports faces a direction parallel to a long-side surface of the mold (Morita, paragraph [0022], one or more pairs of discharge holes facing each other on the left and right short sides, paragraph [0021], rectangular mold, thus parallel to long side surface).
However, the combination is quiet to wherein two of the discharge ports separated vertically and on the same side face different directions in the horizontal plane.
Matsui et al teaches an immersion nozzle where the discharge direction is inclined when viewed from above (fig 3, paragraph [0019]). Matsui et al teaches that a high quality slab with less surface defects can be obtained by setting an inclination angle in addition to controlling the behavior of the discharge flows (paragraph [0021]). When the inclination angle is less than θ-6, an appropriate flow velocity cannot be achieved, whereas when the inclination angle is greater than θ+10, the discharge flow directly contacts portions of the solidifying shell along the long sides, and the risk of breakout increases (paragraph [0022]).
In view of the teachings of Matsui et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that one pair of the discharge ports has an inclination, thus facing different directions, as Matsui et al teaches by setting an inclination angle, a high quality slab with less surface defects can be obtained.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches a steel continuous casting method (Morita, paragraph [0001], injecting molten steel into a mold during continuous casting of steel), wherein:
the immersion nozzle for continuous casting according to claim 2 is used (see combination above);
a mold powder is added to a surface of molten steel inside a mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], adding mold powder to the meniscus); and
molten steel inside a tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an inert gas is blown into molten steel flowing down the molten steel flow passage of the immersion nozzle (Morita, paragraph [0017], injecting molten steel in the tundish into the mold via the immersion nozzle while blowing an inert gas).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while a direct-current static magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold, on an upper side of a discharge port located at a vertically uppermost part and on a lower side of a discharge port located at a vertically lowermost part of the immersion nozzle, from a direct- current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [4], wherein a DC static magnetic field is applied from a DC magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold, above the uppermost discharge hole and below the lowermost discharge hole).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination teaches wherein the molten steel inside the tundish is poured into the mold through the immersion nozzle, while an alternating-current moving magnetic field is applied to the molten steel inside the mold from an alternating-current magnetic field generation device installed on a back surface of the mold for continuous casting (Morita, paragraph [0017], see [5], alternating magnetic field is applied to the steel in the mold from an alternating magnetic field generator installed on the back of the mold).
Conclusion
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