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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2025, 9/12/2025, and 5/18/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is comprised of “2024P00076US” and “1” on the sheet of abstract. Note that abstract should be in narrative form and limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objection
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “the individual wires” to -- the at least two individual wires--.
Claim 2: please amend “the individual wires” to -- the at least two individual wires--; “the range of” to – [[the]] a range of--.
Claim 4: please amend “the mass” to – [[the]] a mass--; “the range of” to – [[the]] a range of--.
Claim 8: please amend “the ratio of the diameter” to – [[the]] a ratio of [[the]] a diameter--; “the diameter of the individual wires is in the range” to – [[the]] a diameter of the at least two individual wires is in [[the]] a range--.
Claim 9: please amend “the at least one sensing element” to – the
Claim 10: please amend “the combined net density ” to – [[the]] a combined net density --; the density of the metal body” to – [[the]] a density of the metal body-- .
Claim 12: please amend “the density of the signal line” to – [[the]] a density of the signal line --; “the combined net density” to – [[the]] a combined net density-- .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the inner diameter”, “the carrier tube”, and “the outer diameter”, which lack antecedent basis. It is unclear if the carrier tube is the same as or different than the carrier element. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-14 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-8, claims 7-8 recite “the active region”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scopes of claims 7-8 are indefinite.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dams et al. (US20070173117A1), and in view of Nakajima et al. (JPH0674927A, English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Dams teaches a measuring probe (a drop-in probe as shown in Fig.4 [para. 0019]) for a molten metal (An apparatus is provided for the determination of at least one parameter of a molten metal or a slag layer lying on top of the molten metal. The apparatus has a carrier tube, a measuring head arranged on one end of the carrier tube with a body fixed in the carrier tube [abstract]; thus the disclosed drop-in probe is configured to perform the intended use), comprising
a sensor unit ( a sensor carrier 4, on whose outer end [the immersion end] an oxygen sensor 5, a temperature sensor 6, and the so-called bath contact 7 are arranged [para. 0022; Fig. 4]) adapted to determine at least one parameter of the molten metal (for the determination of at least one parameter of a molten metal or a slag layer lying on top of the molten metal [abstract], thus the disclosed sensor unit is configured to perform the claimed function),
wherein the sensor unit comprises
a sensing element (an oxygen sensor 5 and a temperature sensor 6 [para. 0022; Fig. 4]), and
a metal body (the body of the drop-in sensors 21 is made of stee [para. 0029]; The internal construction of the drop-in sensor 21 with the sensors corresponds essentially to the construction of the measuring head [para. 0026]), at least partly surrounding the sensing element (see Fig.4);
a signal line comprising at least two individual wires connected to the sensor unit (signal lines 22 connected to the sensor unit as shown in Fig.4).
Fig.4 does not show a carrier element, wherein the inner diameter of the carrier tube is between 7 to 20 times the outer diameter of the individual wires.
Fig.1 shows the apparatus further comprises a carrier element (lance 1), and the signal lines 16 pass through the carrier element/tube to connect a power source and/or an analysis device 17 [para. 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe by providing a carrier element such that the signal line passes through the carrier element/tube to connect a power source and/or an analysis device, since it would allow the signal lines arranged within the carrier element for connecting external power source and/or analysis device [para. 0007, 0023].
Dams is silent to wherein the inner diameter of the carrier tube is between 7 to 20 times the outer diameter of the individual wires.
Nakajima teaches a probe for measuring bubble characteristics in a high-temperature bath (claim 1) comprising a signal line (two platinum wires 6 with a diameter of 0.3 mm in Fig.1A [para. 0025]) passing through a carrier element (alumina tube 4 with an out diameter of 6.0 mm in Fig.1A [para. 0025]). Fig.1A shows two alumina tubes 3 with outer diameter of 2.0 mm are arranged within the alumina tube 4 [para. 0025]. Thus, the inner diameter of the alumina tube 4 is at least 4.0 mm to accommodate the two alumina tubes 3 with outer diameter of 2.0 mm. Thus, Nakajima teaches wherein the inner diameter of the carrier tube is at least 4.0 mm, and the outer diameter of the individual wires is 0.3 mm, yielding a ratio between the inner diameter of the carrier tube and the outer diameter of the individual wires is at least 4/0.3=13.33, overlapping with the claimed range of 7 to 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner diameter of the carrier element/tube and/or the outer diameter of the individual wires of the signal line such that the inner diameter of the carrier tube is at least 13.33 times the outer diameter of the individual wires since Nakajima specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the ratio between the inner diameter of the carrier tube and the outer diameter of the individual wires for a probe in a high-temperature bath. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams is silent to wherein the individual wires have an outer diameter in the range of 0.2 to 3 mm.
As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Nakajima teaches wherein the individual wires have an outer diameter is 0.3 mm [para. 0025]; falling within the claimed range of 0.2 to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to have selected and utilized an individual signal wire with an outer diameter of 0.3 mm, as taught by Nakajima, since Nakajima specifically teaches the suitable outer diameter of the individual signal wire for a probe in a high-temperature bath.
Regarding claim 3, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the signal line passes through the carrier element.
in Fig.4 Dams does not teach wherein the signal line is wound up within the carrier element.
But in Figs.5-6 Dams teaches wherein the signal line is wound up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the signal line to wound up the signal line within the carrier element, since Dams teaches the suitable alternative shape of the signal line as shown in Figs. 5-6.
Regarding claim 4, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the mass of the sensor unit is in the range of 80 to 500 g.
Dams further teaches the measuring head can carry additional sensors, for example oxygen sensors, optical sensors, or temperature sensors, which can be connected to an electronic analysis device in a conventional manner via the contact piece [para. 0014]. Since the mass of the sensor unit increases with the increase in the number of additional sensors, the mass of the sensor unit affects the number of sensors installed in the sensor unit, thus is a result effective variable.
As the number of sensors installed on the sensor unit is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the mass of the sensor unit, the precise mass of the sensor unit would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass of the sensor unit in the range of 80 to 500 g cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of sensors installed on the sensor unit and accordingly the mass of the sensor unit to provide the desired number of sensors and accordingly the desired mass of the sensor unit. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises more than one sensing element (an oxygen sensor 5 and a temperature sensor 6 in Fig.4 [para. 0022]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams is silent to wherein the active region of the sensing element has a diameter of less than 2.5 mm.
Nakajima teaches the probe section 2 comprises two LaCrO3 rods each with a diameter of 0.3 mm [para. 0025]. Thus, Nakajima teaches wherein an active region of the sensing element has a diameter of 0.3 mm, falling within the claimed range of less than 2.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing element in modified Dams to further comprises two LaCrO3 rods each having a diameter of 0.3 mm, as taught by Nakajima, since it would allow to measure bubble characteristics in a high-temperature bath (claim 1 in Nakajima). The modified sensing element comprises an active region having a diameter of less than 2.5 mm.
Regarding claim 8, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams is silent to wherein the ratio of the diameter of the active region of the sensing element and the diameter of the individual wires is in the range of 1-1 to 1-4.
Nakajima teaches the probe section 2 comprises two LaCrO3 rods each with a diameter of 0.3 mm, and the individual wires (platinum wires 6) having an outer diameter of 0.3 mm [para. 0025]. Thus, Nakajima teaches wherein a ratio of a diameter of an active region of the sensing element (diameter of each LaCrO3 rod in the probe section 2 is 0.3 mm) and the diameter of the individual wires (diameter of each Pt wire 6 is 0.3 mm) is 1-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing element in modified Dams to further comprises two LaCrO3 rods each having a diameter of 0.3 mm, and further modify the signal line by using individual wires having a diameter of 0.3 mm connecting the sensing element to power source and/or analysis device, as taught by Nakajima, since it would allow to measure bubble characteristics in a high-temperature bath (claim 1 in Nakajima), and Nakajima specifically teaches the suitable outer diameter of the individual signal wire for a probe in a high-temperature bath ([para. 0025 ] and claim 1). With the above modifications, a ratio of a diameter of an active region of the sensing element (diameter of each LaCrO3 rod is 0.3 mm) and a diameter of the individual wires (diameter of the signal wire is 0.3 mm) is 1-1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and “wherein the at least one sensing element has a response time below 5 s” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, since the prior art does disclose measuring probe comprising substantially the same elements or components as that of the applicant, as evidenced by the rejection of claim 1 above, it is contended that the sensing element of the prior art is capable of providing the same response time.
Regarding claim 10, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body is at least 80% of the density of the metal body.
Dams further teaches the measuring head can carry additional sensors, for example oxygen sensors, optical sensors, or temperature sensors, which can be connected to an electronic analysis device in a conventional manner via the contact piece [para. 0014]. Since the mass and volume and accordingly the density of the sensing element depends on the number and/or types of sensors carried by the sensing element, the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body also depend on the number and/or types of sensors installed in the measuring probe, thus the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body is a result effective variable.
As the number and types of sensors installed on the sensor unit are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body, the precise combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body being at least 80% of the density of the metal body cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number and/or types of sensors installed on the sensor unit and accordingly the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body to provide the desired number and/or types of sensors and accordingly the desired combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body is smaller than 25% of the largest total cross-sectional area of the metal body.
Fig.4 in Dams shows that the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body depends on the number and/or types of sensors installed on the measuring probe. Dams further teaches the measuring head can carry additional sensors, for example oxygen sensors, optical sensors, or temperature sensors, which can be connected to an electronic analysis device in a conventional manner via the contact piece [para. 0014]. Since the volume of the sensing element depend on the number and/or types of sensors installed on the sensing element, the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body, which is not occupied by the sensors within the metal body 21, depends on the number and/or types of sensors installed on the sensing element, thus the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body is a result effective variable.
As the number and/or types of sensors installed within the metal body are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body, the precise largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body being smaller than 25% of the largest total cross-sectional area of the metal body cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number and/or types of sensors installed within the metal body and accordingly the largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body to provide the desired number and/or types of sensors and accordingly the desired largest cross-sectional area of a central void space of the metal body. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the density of the signal line is not higher than 50% of the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body.
Dams further teaches the measuring head can carry additional sensors, for example oxygen sensors, optical sensors, or temperature sensors, which can be connected to an electronic analysis device in a conventional manner via the contact piece [para. 0014]. Since the mass and volume and accordingly the density of the sensing element depends on the number and/or types of sensors carried by the sensing element, the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body also depend on the number and/or types of sensors installed in the measuring probe. Furthermore, the more sensors are installed, the more individual wires for connecting the sensors to analysis device are needed. Thus, the density of the signal line also depends on the number of sensors installed in the measuring probe. Thus, the density of the signal line and the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body are result effective variables.
As the number and/or types of sensors installed on the sensor unit are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body and/or the density of the signal line, the precise combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body and the precise density of the signal line would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed density of the signal line being not higher than 50% of the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body
cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number and/or types of sensors install on the sensor unit and accordingly the combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body and the density of the signal line to provide the desired number and/or types of sensors and accordingly the desired combined net density of the sensing element and the metal body and the desired density of the signal line. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises a steering element (wire connection 10 in Fig.4 [para. 0023]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dams teaches a method for measuring at least one parameter of a molten metal or slag with the measuring probe according to claim 1 (An apparatus is provided for the determination of at least one parameter of a molten metal or a slag layer lying on top of the molten metal [abstract in Dams]; modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dams and Nakajima, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Turner et al. (US20160209341A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dams teaches the measuring probe according to claim 1, and Dams teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises an oxygen sensor 5 and a temperature sensor 6 in Fig.4 [para. 0022].
Dams is silent to wherein the temperature sensor 6 comprises a thermocouple and/or the oxygen sensor comprise an electrochemical cell.
Turner teaches a drop-in probe for determining phase changes by thermal analysis of a sample of a molten metal (abstract), wherein the probe comprises a first thermocouple assembly 23 positioned to measure the liquidus temperature of the solidifying metal contained in the sample chamber 25 and a first thermocouple assembly housing 27 which supports the first thermocouple assembly 23. More particularly, a first thermocouple junction 9 of the first thermocouple element 23 projects from the first thermocouple assembly housing 27 and into an interior of the sample chamber 25 for measurement of the sample's solidification temperature [para. 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor in modified Dams to a temperature sensor comprising a thermocouple, as taught by Turner, since Turner teaches a suitable alternative temperature sensor comprising a thermocouple to measure temperature of a molten metal ([para. 0031] and abstract).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Brissonneau (US20210396707A1) teaches an oxygen potentiometric probe for measuring oxygen concentration in a liquid metal. Takahashi et al. (JP2004294131A) teaches a probe for measuring oxygen concentration in a molten metal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights