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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden as the apparatus would not be used to practice another and materially different process, but a substantially similar process. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed is capable of performing another and materially different process, as described in the Office Action mailed 10/29/25. Note that the apparatus is not required to flex in the vertical direction corresponding with changes in one of a thickness and height of the molten metal in the moving mold cavity, only that it is capable of altering the height.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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: “mechanism for imparting a default force between the lower dam block portion and the upper dam block portion that pushes the lower dam block portion and the upper dam block portion apart from each other” in claim 5.
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.
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 § 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artz (US 4,510,990, cited in IDS filed 3/06/25).
Regarding claim 1, Artz teaches a continuous metal casting apparatus (abstract, fig 4c), comprising:
opposing rotating casting surfaces (fig 4c, casting belts 2) forming a moving mold casting region therebetween that defines a moving mold cavity (figs 2a-4c, casting cross section 1), the moving mold casting region having an upstream mold region (left side of fig 2c) and a downstream mold region (right side of fig 2c, see arrow 27); and
a vertically flexible edge containment device (figs 2a-4c, dam blocks 34) to confine the molten metal in the moving mold cavity as the molten metal solidifies (figs 2a-4c, dam blocks 34 confine the molten metal to cavity 1), wherein the vertically flexible edge containment device is configured to flex in a vertical direction relative to a flow of the molten metal in the moving mold cavity (fig 4a-4c show a height reduction, col 6 lines 15-25), wherein the flex in the vertical direction of the vertically flexible edge containment device varies as a function of a length that the molten metal in the moving mold cavity (fig 4c, note height decreases along direction 27).
Note that Artz et al is not explicit to a molten metal injector to introduce molten metal into an entrance end of the moving mold cavity.
However, a molten metal injector is implied in Artz et al, as Artz et al teaches casting between a pair of endless belts and shows a casting direction 27 (fig 4c) (the molten metal would have to come from some device).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to include a molten metal injector, so as to introduce the molten metal into the cavity between the belts for casting.
Regarding claim 2, Artz et al teaches wherein the vertically flexible edge containment device comprises a web of material extending between the upstream mold region and the downstream mold region that is configured to vary in height as the molten metal travels from the upstream mold region to the downstream mold region (figs 2a-2b, 3a-4b, belts 2).
Regarding claim 3, Artz et al teaches wherein the vertically flexible edge containment device comprises an endless loop of material that moves along with the opposing rotating casting surfaces, wherein the endless loop of material is configured to vary in height between the upstream mold region and the downstream mold region, the height variation in the endless loop of material corresponding with the length that the molten metal in the moving mold cavity is from the molten metal injector (figs 2a-2b, 3a-4b, belts 2, see fig 4c showing the height variation of the space between the belts corresponding to length of molten metal in the cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Artz et al teaches wherein the vertically flexible edge containment device comprises an endless edge dam formed of edge dam blocks that revolve in a preselected path with the opposing rotating casting surfaces about the moving mold cavity (figs , col 5 line 60 - col 6 line 10, dam blocks 34 combined into endless articulated walls, figs 2a-4c).
Regarding claim 5, Artz et al teaches wherein each edge dam block comprises a lower dam block portion (figs 3a-4b, lower wedge 12); an upper dam block portion (figs 3a-4b, upper wedge 11) seated on the lower dam block portion; and a mechanism for imparting a default force between the lower dam block portion and the upper dam block portion that pushes the lower dam block portion and the upper dam block portion apart from each other (invokes 112 (f), the disclosed structure in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0076], is a spring, note that the setting bolt 18 of Artz et al is construed as equivalent structure as it performs the same function of pushing the lower dam block and thereby reducing the space between the casting belts (col 6 lines 10-25)).
Regarding claim 6, Artz et al teaches wherein the lower dam block portion comprises a lower main body that extends from a cast side to a non-cast side (fig 3a-4b, lower wedge 12) and an upward protruding region that extends upward from the lower main body at the cast side (fig 3a-4b, note upper portion of lower wedge 12 at cast side), the upward protruding region and the lower main body each having a surface that slopes downward from the cast side towards the non-cast side (figs 3a-4b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 7-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Artz et al (US 4,510,990, cited in IDS filed 3/6/25), fails to teach or suggest the invention of claims 7-14.
Artz et al teaches a continuous casting apparatus including a pair of endless casting belts and a pair of endless articulated mold walls disposed between the belts (abstract), where the spacing between the articulated mold walls between the belts is greater upstream than downstream (abstract), where at least one of the faces of each dam block is adjustable in height (abstract). Artz et al teaches in one embodiment (figs 3a-3b) a dam block comprising an upper wedge member (11) and a lower wedge member (12), where displacement of bolt (18) to the right (fig 3a) shifts wedge member (12), which results in a reduction of space between the casting belts (col 6 lines 10-60). Artz et al teaches a sloping surface between the upper and lower wedge member (figs 3a-4b).
However, Artz et al fails to teach the features of dependent claim 7, “wherein the upper dam block portion comprises an upper main body that extends from the non-cast side to the cast side and a shelf region that expands out from the upper main body towards the cast side, the upper main body and the shelf region each having a lower surface that slopes upward from the non-cast side to the cast side, wherein the upward sloping lower surface of the shelf region sits on the downward sloping surface of the upward protruding region and the upward sloping lower surface of the upper main body sits on the downward sloping surface of the lower main body.” Artz et al also fails to teach the features of dependent claim 8. Although Artz et al teaches the displacement of bolt (18) to shift wedge member (12), Artz et al fails to teach a compressor that counteracts the default force between the lower dam block portion and the upper dam block.
With regards to independent claim 11, Artz et al teaches an embodiment in which a spring is used (figs 5a-5b), but fails to teach the “spring situated to impart a force into the upper dam block portion while the edge dam block is moving through the upstream mold region, the imparted force pushing the upper dam block portion laterally towards a non-cast side opposing a cast side, reducing full height of the edge dam block to a compressed height as the edge dam block travels through the downstream mold region.”
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