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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/868861 filed November 25, 2024. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 8, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The metering unit in claim 1
The longitudinal, transverse and elevation translation mechanisms in claim 1
The transverse dispensing mechanism in claim 5
The robot translation mechanism in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification indicates these limitations correspond to the following:
The metering unit corresponds to an Archimedes’ screw (par. 27)
The longitudinal translation mechanism corresponds to a tubular portion such as a telescoping tube (par. 34)
The transverse translation mechanism corresponds to rails, carriage and wheels (par. 35)
The elevation translation mechanism is not given explicit corresponding structure, but paragraphs 122-124 and figures 1-12 suggest it is a set of opposing rails and grippers movable on the rails
The transverse dispensing mechanism corresponds to rails and movable wheels (par. 90, figure 23)
The robot translation mechanism corresponds to a wheeled carriage on rails on a part of the frame (par. 147, figure 13)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6, 9-10 and 14 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 6 depends in the preamble from claim 4, but in one of the options within the claim also depends from claim 5. Both claims 4 and 5 are dependent solely from claim 1, such that one claim cannot depend from both claims 4 and 5 separately in US practice, and this renders the scope of claim 6 indefinite as it is not clear which claim between claims 4 and 5 that claim 6 is dependent from.
Claims 9, 10 and 14 all recite “preferable” limitations, which render the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear when the term “preferably” is introduced, as it is not clear if these limitations are required or optional. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, all of the “preferable” limitations will be considered to be optional.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami et al. (JP H06145743, attached translation used for citation) in view of Daussan et al. (US 4,908,234).
Regarding claim 1: Anami et al. discloses an apparatus for coating a refractory gutter, the apparatus including an overall frame structure defining a passage having a longitudinal length longer than the gutter (7), a width wider than the gutter (7) and a height taller than the gutter (7), further including a hopper (18/4) which is a tank configured to store the coating material, with an outlet connected to a bifurcated chute (9) which is a metering unit that conveys a defined amount of material to the outlet of the chutes (9), a formwork (2) which is a plunger configured to fit into the cavity of the gutter (7) leaving a gap between the formwork (2) and the walls and floor of the gutter (7) corresponding to a desired thickness of the coating, a carriage (5) provided along rails for translating the hopper (18/4) in a longitudinal direction over a distance greater than or equal to the gutter (7), the chutes (9) located above the gutter (7), a formwork attaching/detaching mechanism (3) which is an elevation mechanism that moves the formwork (2) into and out of the cavity of the gutter (7) in a vertical direction (pages 4-5, figures 1-4).
Anami et al. fails to explicitly disclose a transverse translation mechanism which moves the gutter (7) in a direction along the transverse axis intersecting the longitudinal axis, but does teach that the gutter (7) is moved to a transverse location next to and separate from the location where it is beneath the formwork (2) (page 5, figure 4), such that some kind of translation mechanism is required.
Furthermore, while Anami et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the gutter (7) is a tundish or that the refractory material is a dry particulate material, these limitations are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use of the installation and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02, 2114-2115. In the instant case, the gutter (7) could be used as a tundish, or could be replaced with a tundish, and the refractory material is capable of being a dry particulate material, and in fact likely is meant to be a dry particulate material, which justifies the use of a vibrator.
Anami et al. also fails to explicitly disclose a dispensing unit with a dispensing head coupled to the dispensing outlet from the bifurcated chute (9). However, Daussan et al. discloses a similar tundish (1) coating installation having a hopper (2) which distributes dry particulate material into a tubular member (5) having a spiral conveyor (4) which meters the material via a screw (44) mixer (43) to a pipe system (10) and then to a robot (30) which is a dispensing unit provided on tracks (32, 33) and has a lance (11) which is a dispensing head with an outlet nozzle (26) for spraying the particulate material onto the inner cavity surface of the tundish (1) (col. 4 lines 19+, col. 5 lines 1-58, figures 1, 3 and 4-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a material distribution system and dispenser like that of Daussan et al. for the apparatus of Anami et al. because Daussen et al. teaches that this helps fix problems associated with the weight of the refractory material and size of the applicators, overall provides a more uniform coverage of refractory material, and affords greater flexibility for different coating compositions and homogeneity (col. 1 lines 46+, col. 2 lines 1-19, col. 3 lines 17-40).
Regarding claim 2: Anami et al. fails to explicitly disclose a controller which controls the overall process, but does explicitly state that the apparatus is meant to function remotely and automatically, which requires some type of controller to operate the metering and translation functions (pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 3: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the metering device includes a driven screw (44) which fits the definition of an Archimedes’ screw (Daussan et al. col. 5 lines 59+, col. 6 lines 1-8, figure 5).
Regarding claim 4: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the robot (30) is stored on tracks (32, 33) either of which can be considered a rack (Daussan et al. figure 4).
Regarding claim 5: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the robot (30) is provided on a transverse track (32) allowing it to translate along the transverse direction over a span larger than the transverse width of the tundish (1) (Daussan et al. col. 5 lines 52-58, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the lance (11) can be considered a wall dispensing head with the outlet nozzle (26) being an opening which clearly does not exceed the gap width, as it is much smaller than the coating formed in the gap as seen in figure 4 of Daussan et al.
Regarding claim 8: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the pipe system (10) is shown to be flexible and extendible as the robot (30) is capable of moving longitudinally along the track (32) such that the pipe system (10) is a tubular portion with a length that can be varied along an extension direction which has a vertical component (see Daussan et al. figure 4).
Regarding claim 9: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the lance (11) itself can be considered the dispenser, which the robot (30) is releasably coupled to, as Daussan et al. teaches that the lance (11) can alternatively be held by an operator, and shows a coupling element at the location where the pipe system (10) meets the lance (11) (Daussan et al. col. 5 lines 37-58, figure 4). The limitations regarding selecting another dispensing unit and removing it from a rack or storing it on a rack are all considered to be optional limitations.
Regarding claim 10: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the robot (30) is provided on rails (32, 33) for translating it along the longitudinal and transverse directions (Daussan et al. col. 5 lines 37-58, figure 4).
Regarding claim 12: Anami et al. discloses that the formwork (2) is aligned with the gutter relative to the gutter by a core attachment/detachment device which fits the description of a male/female connection element (page 3) and also teaches that mechanism (3) aligns the formwork (2) while setting a height relative to the bottom of the gutter (7), which ensures the gaps between the gutter (7) and the formwork (2) are aligned correctly (page 5).
Regarding claim 14: Anami et al. does not disclose exactly how the gutter (7) is moved transversely, such that it fails to explicitly disclose that the transverse translation mechanism includes two rails and a carriage mounted on bearings or wheels. However, Anami et al. does teach a different transverse third rail (14) which includes a pair of rails, and teaches that the gutter (7) is moved by way of a gutter trolley (1) which is a carriage having wheels (pages 4-5, figures 1-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dual rail arrangement like that of the third rail (14) to move the gutter (7) trolley (1) and therefore the gutter (7) in the transverse direction, because Anami et al. shows that this transverse dual rail arrangement is well-known for moving large objects transversely and simple substitution of functional equivalents (i.e., equivalent to a generic movement mechanism Anami et al. implies moves the gutter (7)) is not considered to be a patentable advance, and further using a known element or technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 16: Anami et al. teaches that the formwork (2) is placed by the mechanism (3) into the cavity of the gutter (7) such that it fills a gap between itself and the floor of the gutter (7) as well as between itself and the periphery of the gutter (7) (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 17: Anami et al. teaches that the hopper (4/18) is moved along with the chutes (9) when moving along the first rail (8) by way of the carriage (5) (see figures 1-4), and when combining the apparatus with that of Daussan et al. it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try either keeping this arrangement because trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e., keep it on the rail (8) or separate it from the rail (8)) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 18: Anami et al. discloses that the hopper (4/18) includes more than one bifurcated chute (9) for pouring into both sides of the formwork (2) simultaneously, which can be considered multiple different dispensing heads (page 4). In the combination with Daussan et al., it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention try using multiple lances (11) or nozzles because Anami et al. teaches that this allows both gaps on either side of the formwork (2) to be treated simultaneously (page 4) and because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the combined device above in which the nozzle outlet (26) of the lance (11) is able to be oriented by way of the robot (30) arms (35, 37) (see Daussan et al. figure 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami et al. and Daussan et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 above and further in view of Haider et al. (US 2019/0070617).
Regarding claim 6: Anami et al. and Daussan et al. disclose the above combination in which the lance (11) has a nozzle outlet (26) which is moved in either longitudinal or transverse swaths by moving the robot (30) holding the lance (11) along the tracks (32, 33) (see Daussan et al. figure 4), but Anami et al. and Daussan et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the nozzle outlet (26) is an elongated slit having a length of at least 50% a width of the floor.
However, Haider et al. discloses a similar refractory repair apparatus for treating things like ladles (par. 8), which uses a nozzle having a second end (14) outlet shaped like an elongated slit in order to dispense the refractory material is a wide, spray fan, in which the exact width of the slit can be 2-10x wider than the inlet end (12) in order to spray each surface in one pass, but can also be adjusted based on desired characteristics such that it is a result effective variable (pars. 19, 56-58, 82, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wide slit nozzle- with a length of at least 50% of the floor of the tundish- like that of Haider et al. for the outlet end of the lance (11) of Anami et al. and Daussan et al. because Haider et al. teaches that this allows for an easier and more uniform spray operation (par. 18), and because Haider et al. teaches that the exact size and cross section of the outlet is a result effective variable (pars. 56-58), and routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami et al. and Daussan et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 above and further in view of Connors, Jr (US 5,482,248 hereafter referred to as Connors).
Regarding claim 13: Anami et al. discloses a drying burner (17) in a separate area held by the third rail (14) for heating and drying the coating, and therefore fails to explicitly teach that the formwork (2) comprises heating elements. However, Connors discloses a similar apparatus for treating ladles or other refractory vessels having a mold with inner walls (19) sitting within the cavity and including a perforated gas pipe (45) which can be considered heating elements used to heat and dry the coating compound while the mold is in place (col. 4 lines 3-13, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gas pipe like that of Connors as part of the formwork (2) system of Anami et al. because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and Connors shows that this is functionally equivalent to separately heating the material and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/15/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights