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 .
The response filed 5/11/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-18 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the response filed 5/11/26, the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1,3,5-8,10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698).
EP 0334007 teaches a method for forming a protective barrier on a furnace electrode comprising providing electrode cooling water salts which are soluble in water and after evaporation of the solvent at elevated temperatures form closed films which are resistant to oxidation as used in the water cooling of the electrode sheath and mixing an antioxidant additive with the electrode cooling water to form cooling oxidant impermeable films. The aqueous solution of a film-forming salt, especially monoaluminum phosphate, as used in the water cooling of the electrode sheath; spraying at least a surface of the furnace electrode disposed adjacent a furnace with the cooling liquid, thereby cooling the furnace electrode the aqueous solution of at least one glassy film forming at elevated temperature is sprayed onto the lateral surface underneath the contact jaws as used in the water cooling of the electrode sheath and forming a protective antioxidative barrier on the furnace electrode, the protective antioxidative barrier comprising the antioxidant additive which has been deposited and/or precipitated on the furnace electrode from the cooling liquid. The aqueous solution of a film-forming salt, especially monoaluminum phosphate is sprayed onto the outer surface of the electrodes during their use in electric arc furnaces and coating the shell surface with an oxidation-resistant protective layer (see entire reference and claims 1-3 of translation).
EP 0334007 fails to teach the steps of determining water chemistry, selecting the antioxidant added based on the determined water chemistry and combining the water and antioxidant additive to be sprayed onto the electrode.
Hare et al. (3,806,698) teaches an operating heating device whereby passing cooling water including an additive is used to prevent corrosion in the device. The water is tested and then an amount of nucleating agent (claimed antioxidant) is added for coating electrodes and protecting them. Hence the providing the cooling water, determining the cooling water chemistry, i.e. tested, selecting and combining the additive as the additive is added and therefore combined. A coating is formed, and furnace electrodes are known to be used above 700C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EP 0334007 process by performing the steps of providing cooling water, determining cooling water chemistry and combining the antioxidant as evidenced by Hare et al. (3,806,698) with the expectation of protecting the electrode with the coating on the outer surface of the electrode.
Regarding claim 3, EP 0334007 teaches evaporation of the solvent of the coating during subsequent heating or coating a heated electrode.
Regarding claim 5, EP 0334007 teaches coating of the electrode at high temperatures which would produce a molten coating to provide flowing of the coating on the surface of the electrode for protection thereof.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, EP 0334007 teaches the same or similar antioxidant materials and hence would be expected to have the claimed melting point of 1000C or 2400C.
Regarding claim 8, Hare et al. (3,806,698) teaches adding the additive to produce a final water chemistry for coating a protective on the electrode and this would be applied by spraying.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, EP 0334007 teaches as the additive phosphates, borates and silicate salts which would be inclusive of polyphosphates.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, EP 0334007 teaches the antioxidant to be added to the water solution at 300-500g/m2 which would be equal to 300-500mg/L.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, EP 0334007 teaches the same or similar antioxidant materials and hence would be expected to have the claimed solubility in water of 100mg/L to 1 g/L.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, EP 0334007 teaches the same or similar antioxidant materials and hence would be expected to have the claimed hardness.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) further in combination with Chiu (4,726,995).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) are incorporated here.
EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) fails to teach the claimed antioxidant to be calcium based.
Chiu (4,726,995) teaches oxidation retarded graphite or carbon electrodes for electric arc furnace whereby the oxidation retardant can be a calcium salt such as calcium bromide as well as chloride salts being preferred which would include calcium chloride (abstract and col. 3, lines 14-20) as well as a transition metals such as iron phosphates (col. 3, lines 47-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) to have utilized a calcium chloride or iron phosphate as the anti-oxidative component as evidenced by Chiu (4,726,995) with the expectation of achieving similar success with known equivalent oxidative materials.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) in combination with Persson (4,575,856).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) are incorporated here.
EP 0334007 fails to teach spraying the electrode above the furnace and then moving the electrode from outside the furnace to inside the furnace during the service of melting raw materials.
Persson (4,575,856) teaches a baking electrode for an electric arc furnace whereby the electrode is consumed and moved downward into the furnace to control the electrical conditions of the furnace (col. 1, lines 29-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EP 0334007 in combination with Hare et al. (3,806,698) furnace electrode to be moved into the furnace as it is being consumed as evidenced by Persson (4,575,856) with the expectation of achieving control of the electrical conditions of the furnace.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Hare et al. (3,806,698) discloses the nucleating agent is based upon the heat flux capacity of the water and not the “chemistry”.
The Examiner disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, the water is tested and an amount of nucleating agent is determined based upon the testing to produce the desired results. The term “chemistry” is broad enough to include a characteristic of the water such as heat flux and hence would be suggestive of other “water chemistries” to test and based upon the testing add a component to produce the desired result including the claimed protection of the electrode which both references are directed toward.
Applicant argued Hare et al. (3,806,698) is a different type of system and electrode than that of EP 0334007.
The Examiner agrees in part. While the type of system and electrode may be different, Hare et al. (3,806,698) is relied upon for teaching testing water and based upon that testing combining an additive to the water to produce the desired result and not for the particular system or electrode utilized as that is provided by the primary reference.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights