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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-14 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3
The limitation “wherein the two electromagnetic pumps are substantially electrically isolated from each other” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain what “substantially isolated is”. It is not clear if the two electromagnetic pumps are isolated or not. Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4052043 A, Rheinlander et al.
Regarding claim 1
Rheinlander teaches a system [Fig. 1 and Col. 6], comprising:
two molten metal reservoirs (corresponding to two refining stage vessels a and b which are connected together in series, both for the flow of molten metal and for the flow of molten slag) [Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 26-42];
two electromagnetic pumps (the metal is transferred from the slag separator channel of the preceding refining stage vessel into the refining chamber of the subsequent stage vessel by a mechanical, electromagnetic, pneumatic or other power operated conveyor, for example, by an electromagnetic pump, as there are two stages, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to provide two pumps) [Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 18-26; see also Figs. 8-10, Col. 8, lines 22-31];
wherein each electromagnetic pump is in fluid connection with a nozzle and molten metal in one of the molten metal reservoirs (molten metal exits each refining stage through outlet 12a and outlet 12b, which communicate with the molten metal within the reservoirs) [Figs. 1 and 8-10, Col. 6, lines 10-67],
each electromagnetic pump forces molten metal through each nozzle (12a) to form a stream of molten metal (Molten metal flows from the slag separator channel 2a into the refining chamber 1b through the transfer system. Additionally, conveyor 6 transfers the molten metal between two refining stages) [Col. 3, lines 18-26 and Col. 8, lines 22-31], and the two streams of molten metal intersect (Rheinlander recognizes that intensive mixing of molten metal promotes metallurgical reactions and describes arrangements in which molten metal flow is intermixed. Therefore, orienting two known discharge streams to intersect would predictably increase interaction, turbulence and mixing between molten metal streams and thus further Rheinlander’s stated refining and mixing objectives) [Col. 2, lines 28-34]; and
a source of electricity that provides voltage and current to the intersecting streams (Rheinlander teaches the use of electromagnetic pumps for conveying conductive molten metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that an electromagnetic pump includes a source of electrical energy providing voltage and current to produce the required electromagnetic field used to act upon and propel the conductive molten metal.) [Col. 3, lines 14-21 and Col. 8, lines 22-31].
PNG
media_image1.png
238
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As further clarification regarding the system of Rheinlander comprising two electromagnetic pumps, Rheinlander teaches transferring molten metal from one refining stage vessel to the next using, for example, and electromagnetic pump [Col. 3, lines 18-26].
Because Rheinlander teaches two refining stage vessels connected in series, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an electromagnetic pump for each stage/transfer location to perform the disclosed transfer function, thereby permitting independent adjustment control of the molten metal flow associated with each reservoir. Rheinlander expressly recognizes that the liquid levels and rates of flow can be adjusted by controlling the throughput of the conveyor device [Col. 8, lines 27-35].
Regarding claim 2
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the current flows from one nozzle (12a/12b) through its corresponding stream of molten metal to the other intersecting stream of molten metal and to its corresponding nozzle (12b) [Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 14-21; Col. 8, lines 22-31].
Regarding claim 3
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the two electromagnetic pumps are substantially electrically isolated from each other [Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 18-26; Col. 8, lines 22-31].
Regarding claim 4
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, further comprising a molten metal return system to facilitate the return of molten metal from the streams of molten metal to the two molten metal reservoirs (corresponding to the recirculating flow of molten metal through the refining stage vessels, including outlet openings 12a and 12b, overflow weir 4, outlet gutter 13 and the refining chambers) [Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 25-66 and col. 7, lines 22-31].
Regarding claim 5
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the molten metal return system comprises a floor that directs the return of molten metal into the two molten metal reservoirs (individual refining stage vessels may be arranged so that the melt can circulate around them from one to the other and back again always flowing in the same sense) [Col. 2, lines 53-57].
Regarding claim 6
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the resistance for electrical conduction is higher through the return of molten metal than the intersecting streams of molten metal (the return path includes the disclosed transfer passages and refining stage structures, whereas the streams comprise continuous molten metal extending between the outlet openings) [Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 43-66].
It is noted that it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the return of molten metal is prevented from electrically shorting across the two molten metal reservoirs by a metal stream interrupter or splitter to interrupt the continuity of molten metal that would otherwise bridge the two reservoirs and provide a conductive path (corresponding to overflow weir 4 disposed between the two refining stage vessels, which interrupts the continuity of the returning molten metal flow between the reservoirs) [Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 43-66].
Regarding claim 8
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the splitter comprises an irregular surface such that the continuity of returning molten metal is broken (see overflow weir 4 including opposing edges adjacent each refining stage vessel, such that the continuity of the returning molten metal is broken) [Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 43-66].
Regarding claim 9
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the splitter comprises a hemisphere capping the intersection of the two reservoirs, wherein the dome or hemisphere comprises a cut back for each reservoir (see overflow weir 4 including opposing edges adjacent each refining stage vessel and extending across the junction between the molten metal flow paths) [Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 43-66].
Regarding claim 10
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the top of each of the molten metal reservoirs (a and b) comprises a ring plate or washer that serves as a lip over which returning molten metal flows (corresponding to drain tapping portions 10a and 10b) [Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 43-66].
Regarding claim 11
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the top of each of the molten metal reservoirs (a and b) comprises a circumferential groove wherein the washer is seated (corresponding to drain tapping portions 10a and 10b and their annular configuration at the top of each refining stage vessel) [Fig. 1, Col. 6, lines 43-66].
Regarding claim 12
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, further comprising a reservoir electrical isolator that electrically isolates each of the two molten metal reservoirs (corresponding to refractory structures separating the refining stage vessels and their associated molten metal flow paths) [Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 25-66].
Regarding claim 14
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, further comprising an inductively coupled heater in each of the two molten metal reservoirs (corresponding to induction heating coils associated with the refining stage vessels) [Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 22-34].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4052043 A, Rheinlander et al. as applied to claims 1-12 and 14 above, and further in view of US 5407000 A, Mercer, II et al. (hereinafter “Mercer”).
Regarding claim 13
Rheinlander teaches the system as set forth above, further comprising a molten metal equalization system (see col. 8, lines 27-35 wherein the electromagnetic pumps are controlled and the liquid levels and rates of flow can be adjusted).
Rheinlander does not teach molten metal level sensors, electromagnetic pump current controllers, and a controller that receives input from the molten metal level sensors and drives the electromagnetic pump current controllers to maintain molten metal levels in the two molten metal reservoirs.
Mercer teaches a system comprising a molten metal level sensor (72) configured to sense changes in the molten metal level, a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to receive signals from the molten metal sensor (72), and control of the electromagnetic pump by increasing or decreasing the power supplied to the pump in response to the sensed molten metal level, thereby maintaining the molten metal level [Col. 4, lines 12-30, Col. 11, lines 17-46 and Col. 13, lines 27-53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Rheinlander to comprise the molten metal sensors, electromagnetic pump controllers, and controller of Mercer for the purpose of maintaining the desired molten metal levels in each of the two molten metal reservoirs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights