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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5,10-11,14-18 and 28-35 are pending in this application, of which claims 3-5, 10-11, and 28-35 are examined herein. Claims 1-2 and 14-18 are withdrawn. Claim 3 is amended. Claims 6-9, 12-13, and 19-27 are cancelled. Claims 28-35 are new.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) to claims 3-5, 10-11, 19-22, and 24-27 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 3 and the cancellation of claims 19-22 and 24-27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 recites “the transfer cutout” in lien 2, however the instant specification does not disclose a “transfer cutout”, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 33 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the transfer cutout" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “transfer cutout” in line 2. The limitation is indefinite, as there is no disclosure in the instant claims or specification of a transfer cutout, making unclear what the top surface cutout comprises.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 3-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper ‘524 (US 20130299524 A1, cited in IDS filed 03/07/2022) in view of Cooper ‘427 (US 20130292427 A1, cited in IDS filed 03/07/2022), Thut (US 6019576 A, cited in Office Action dated 08/28/2024), and Gehrm (US 3255702 A, cited in IDS filed 03/07/2022).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper ‘524 teaches a transfer chamber (i.e., transfer device) [0022], where a launder is optional [0079], Cooper ‘524 thus teaching a transfer device that does not have an attached launder. Cooper ‘524 teaches the transfer device is configured to have a molten metal pump 100 positioned at least partially in it (Fig. 3, [0056-0058]), wherein the transfer device comprises a transfer conduit 50 configured to receive a rotor shaft 118 and a rotor 500 of the molten metal pump (Fig. 3, [0056-0057]). Cooper ‘524 teaches the transfer chamber includes a transfer conduit 54 inside of the transfer device [0056], wherein the transfer conduit has a first section 54C with a first cross-sectional area and a second section 54A above the first section [0056], and wherein the second section has a second cross-sectional area greater than the first cross-sectional area (Fig. 3, claim 22). Cooper ‘524 teaches the first section 54C is configured to receive a rotor of the molten metal pump [0059], and teaches an open top in communication with the transfer conduit 54 (Fig. 3). Cooper ‘524 further teaches an outer surface (sides 3 and 4) (Fig. 3), and a rectangular outlet 14 formed in a first side wherein the rectangular outlet is in communication with the transfer conduit 54 (Fig. 3, [0053, 0059]). Cooper ‘524 teaches the outlet is configured to receive an end of a launder (Fig. 20-21, [0079], claim 47).
Cooper ‘524 does not teach wherein the rectangular outlet is formed in an extension protruding from an upper section of the first side.
Cooper ‘427 teaches a vessel transfer insert and system for removing molten metal from a vessel (Title, Abstract), where the system includes a pump and a refractory casing that houses the pump (Abstract), therefore Cooper ‘427 and Cooper ‘524 are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to as both are directed to systems for transferring molten metal. Cooper ‘427 teaches an extension 250 protruding from an upper section of a first side ([0061], Fig. 5, 9-11). Cooper ‘427 teaches in the preferred embodiment, the wall including the outlet has an extension formed therein, and the rectangular outlet is at the end of the extension (i.e., a rectangular outlet formed in an extension) (Fig. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, [0051, 0061]). Cooper ‘427 teaches the outlet 250 comprises a flat first side surface parallel to a flat second side surface (i.e., the inner left and right sides of the outlet 250), and a flat bottom surface connecting to each of the flat first side surface and flat second side surface (i.e., the bottom on the inner side of the outlet 250) (Fig. 11). Cooper ‘427 teaches wherein the rectangular outlet comprises a layer of insulating concrete 270’ disposed between a steel outer shell 252’ and a layer of cast refractory concrete 272’ (Fig. 11, [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rectangular outlet in an extension as taught by Cooper ‘427 in the device of Cooper ‘524, as Cooper ‘427 teaches the use of an extension comprising the outlet to comprise a preferred embodiment. Doing so would have been further obvious, as one of ordinary skill would recognize that moving the outlet of the pump to an extension extending further away from the pump would allow larger and more cumbersome subsequent process equipment to receive the molten metal stream from the molten metal pump.
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in the shape of a device and that the recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device does not comprise a patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Therefore, in the instant case while Cooper ‘427 does not teach the bottom connected at a right angle to the first and second sides of the outlet, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the modified the connection to be at a right angle as claimed, as the change would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device.
Cooper ‘524 teaches the transfer device may be constructed as a separate structure built outside the vessel [0055], but does not specifically state that the transfer device is a free-standing, transportable transfer device that is not part of or connected to a vessel.
Thut teaches a pump for pumping molten metal, where the pump includes an impeller (i.e., rotor); thus, Thut and Cooper ‘524 are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to systems comprising molten metal transfer units which move molten metal with a pump and a rotor. Thut teaches the pump is removable and can be raised or lowered from the vessel with a hook and cables (abstract, Col. 2 lines 17-18, Col. 4 lines 41-46). As the pump is hoisted in and out of the vessel and is not attached to the vessel, the pump of Thut is a free-standing transportable transfer device that is not part of or connected to a vessel, in accord with the present claim. Thut teaches the pump comprises a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a third side, and a fourth side opposite the third side (ex. Fig. 2), and that the outlet 2 is flush with an outer surface of the transfer device (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the transfer chamber (including the motor, shaft, rotor, and outlet) of Cooper ‘524 removable as taught by Thut, as doing so would make the pump of Cooper ‘524 portable and separable, which are well known to be advantageous features; see MPEP 2144.04 (V) A and C. As Cooper teaches the transfer device is suitable for any vessel [0053], and Thut suggests modifying such a device to become movable from the vessel, the prior art therefore suggests a transfer device configured to be moved to and positioned inside of different vessels.
Cooper ‘524 does not teach an enclosed bottom or a first side that includes an inlet.
Gehrm teaches a hot liquid metal pump for circulating molten metal (Col. 1 lines 7-12), where the pump uses an impeller (i.e., a rotor) to pump the molten metal (Column 3, lines 53-59); thus Cooper ‘524 and Gehrm are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to systems comprising molten metal transfer units which move molten metal with a pump and a rotor. Gehrm teaches the pump comprises an impeller housing 12 (analogous to a transfer device) (Col. 3 lines 25-28), where openings for the admission of liquid to be pumped into the impeller housing may be provided in the bottom, or the top of the housing with the impeller installed in reverse relation; or the openings may be in the side of the housing, irrespective of the arrangement of the impeller (Col. 2 lines 52-57).
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose; see MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Thut only differs from claim 3 in that the inlet of Thut is located at the bottom of the transfer device, while Gehrm teaches an inlet may be placed equally on the bottom or any of the sides of the transfer device, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have moved the inlet of Thut to one of the sides of the transfer device as taught by Gehrm. As the inlet is the only opening in the bottom of the transfer device of Thut, moving the inlet to one of the sides of the transfer device would result in an enclosed bottom and a first side that includes an inlet configured to be in communication with a vessel cavity of a vessel in which the transfer device is positioned and a transfer conduit.
Claims 4-5 and 10 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/19/2025. Claims 4-5 and 10 have not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper ‘524 in view of Cooper ‘427, Thut, and Gehrm as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Cooper ‘482 (US 20140263482 A1, cited in IDS filed 03/07/2022).
Claim 11 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/19/2025. Claim 11 has not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper ‘524 in view of Cooper ‘427 Thut and Gehrm.
Regarding claim 28, Cooper ‘524 teaches a transfer chamber (i.e., transfer device) [0022], where a launder is optional [0079], Cooper ‘524 thus teaching a transfer device that does not have an attached launder. Cooper ‘524 teaches the transfer device is configured to have a molten metal pump 100 positioned at least partially in it (Fig. 3, [0056-0058]). Cooper ‘524 teaches a bottom surface underneath opening 70 (Fig. 5, [0059]), and a top surface of walls 52 (i.e., a top surface opposite to the bottom surface) (Fig. 3-5), wherein the transfer device is enclosed except for an inlet and an outlet ([0056], Fig. 3, 5), wherein the outlet 14 is formed as a cutout in the top surface and a front of the transfer device (i.e., a planar first surface) (Fig. 1-2). Cooper ‘524 teaches a transfer conduit 50 configured to receive a rotor shaft 118 and a rotor 500 of the molten metal pump (Fig. 3, [0056-0057]). Cooper ‘524 teaches wherein the transfer conduit 50 extends from the inlet 70 to the outlet 14 (Fig. 3, [0053, 0056]), wherein the inlet 70 is configured to be in communication with a vessel cavity of a vessel 2 in which the transfer device is positioned (Fig. 1, [0056]), and wherein the outlet 14 is configured to receive an end of a launder of any dimension or shape (such as e.g., a rectangular frame) (Abstract, [0018]). Cooper ‘524 teaches wherein the outlet 14 comprises a left side of the interior of the outlet (i.e., a flat first side surface) parallel to a right side of the interior of the outlet (i.e., a flat second side surface), (Fig. 1-2) and a flat bottom surface connecting to each of the flat first side surface and the flat second side surface (Fig. 1).
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in the shape of a device and that the recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device does not comprise a patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Therefore, in the instant case while Cooper ‘524 does not teach the bottom connected at a right angle to the first and second sides of the outlet, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the modified the connection to be at a right angle as claimed, as the change would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device.
Cooper ‘524 teaches the transfer device may be constructed as a separate structure built outside the vessel [0055], but does not specifically state that the transfer device is a free-standing, transportable transfer device that is not part of or connected to a vessel.
Thut teaches a pump for pumping molten metal, where the pump includes an impeller (i.e., rotor); thus, Thut and Cooper ‘524 are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to systems comprising molten metal transfer units which move molten metal with a pump and a rotor. Thut teaches the pump is removable and can be raised or lowered from the vessel with a hook and cables (abstract, Col. 2 lines 17-18, Col. 4 lines 41-46). As the pump is hoisted in and out of the vessel and is not attached to the vessel, the pump of Thut is a free-standing transportable transfer device that is not part of or connected to a vessel, in accord with the present claim. Thut teaches the pump comprises a front planar surface with the outlet 44 (i.e., a first surface), a rear planar side opposite and parallel to the right side (i.e., a second surface), and right and left planar sides relative to the outlet 44, which are opposite and parallel to each other (i.e., third and fourth surfaces)(ex. Fig. 1-2). Thut teaches that the outlet 44 is flush with an outer surface of the transfer device (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the transfer device (including the motor, shaft, rotor, and outlet) of Cooper ‘524 removable by using a transfer device comprising walls independent of a vessel structure as taught by Thut, as doing so would make the pump of Cooper ‘524 portable and separable, which are well known to be advantageous features (See MPEP 2144.04 (V) A and C). As Cooper teaches the transfer device is suitable for any vessel [0053], and Thut suggests modifying such a device to become movable from the vessel, the prior art therefore suggests a transfer device configured to be moved to and positioned inside of different vessels.
Cooper ‘524 does not teach an enclosed bottom or a first side that includes an inlet.
Gehrm teaches a hot liquid metal pump for circulating molten metal (Col. 1 lines 7-12), where the pump uses an impeller (i.e., a rotor) to pump the molten metal (Column 3, lines 53-59); thus Cooper ‘524 and Gehrm are analogous to the claimed invention as both are directed to systems comprising molten metal transfer units which move molten metal with a pump and a rotor. Gehrm teaches the pump comprises an impeller housing 12 (analogous to a transfer device) (Col. 3 lines 25-28), where openings for the admission of liquid to be pumped into the impeller housing may be provided in the bottom, or the top of the housing with the impeller installed in reverse relation; or the openings may be in the side of the housing, irrespective of the arrangement of the impeller (i.e., wherein the inlet is an opening in one or more of the planar first side, the planar second side, the planar third side, and the planar fourth side) (Col. 2 lines 52-57).
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose; see MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Thut only differs from claim 3 in that the inlet of Thut is located at the bottom of the transfer device, while Gehrm teaches an inlet may be placed equally on the bottom or any of the sides of the transfer device, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have moved the inlet of Thut to one of the sides of the transfer device as taught by Gehrm. As the inlet is the only opening in the bottom of the transfer device of Thut, moving the inlet to one of the sides of the transfer device would result in an enclosed bottom and a first side that includes an inlet configured to be in communication with a vessel cavity of a vessel in which the transfer device is positioned and a transfer conduit.
Regarding claim 29, Cooper ‘524 teaches wherein the transfer conduit 50 has a first section 54 C with a first cross-sectional area, and a second section 54 B above the first section (Fig. 3), wherein the second section has a second cross-sectional area that is greater than the first cross-sectional area (Claim 22, Fig. 3, 5). Cooper ‘524 teaches wherein the first section 54 C is configured to receive a rotor of the molten metal pump (Fig. 3, [0059]).
Regarding claim 30, Cooper ‘524 teaches wherein the uptake section 54 of transfer conduit 50 has a circular cross section (i.e., a cross-section of the transfer conduit in a horizontal plane is circular) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, Cooper ’524 teaches wherein the uptake section 54 to be open (i.e., a top surface cutout) (Fig. 4-5) and to be circular (i.e., comprises an arc of a circle of the cross-section of the transfer conduit 50) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 32-33, Cooper ‘524 in view of Thut and Gehrm does not teach wherein a cross-section of the transfer conduit in a horizontal plane is rectangular or wherein the top surface cutout comprises the rectangular cross-section of the transfer cutout, however it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in the shape of a device and that the recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device does not comprise a patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). As in the instant case, Cooper ‘524 only differs from claims 32 and 33 in that the instant claims recite the apparatus has transfer conduit and top surface with a rectangular cross section in the horizontal plane, while Cooper ‘524 recites a transfer conduit and top surface with a circular cross-section (Cooper: ‘524: Fig. 4-5), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the modified the cross-section of the transfer conduit and top surface cutout (as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 33 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) above), as the change would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 34, Cooper ‘524 in view of Thut and Gehrm does not teach wherein a width of the outlet is 1/32”-1/2” greater than the width of the launder, however it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in the shape of a device and that the recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device does not comprise a patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). As in the instant case, Cooper ‘524 in view of others only differs from claim 34 in that the instant claims recites the width of the outlet is 1/32”-1/2” greater than that of the launder, while Cooper ‘524 in view of others is silent to the width of the outlet compared to the launder, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the modified the width of the outlet to be of the claimed dimensions, as the change would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 35, Cooper ‘524 teaches the launder may have a slope between 0 and 10° [0083], and that the launder may be as long as 100’ in length [0018], thus the height of the outlet may be between 211“ and 0” less than the height of the launder. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cooper ‘524 and Cooper ‘427 fail to provide sufficient detail and seems to show outlets with rounded edges (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner notes that while Cooper ‘524 and ‘427 do not provide such a teaching, it has long been held that it is obvious to make changes in the shape of a device, therefore it would have been obvious to have modified the connection of the bottom and first and second surfaces to be at a right angle as claimed, as the change would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cooper ’524 does not teach a “free-standing, transportable transfer device that is not part of or connected to a vessel” (see pg. 9 of remarks), the Examiner notes that claim 28 is taught by Cooper ‘524 in view of Thut, which suggests making the transfer device free-standing and transportable as noted above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cooper ‘524 does not teach the outlet as a cutout in a planar first side (see pg. 9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cooper ‘524 teaches the outlet 14 to be at a “front” of the transfer device 50 (Fig. 1, 4), where the front comprises a plane (Fig. 1), therefore Cooper ‘524 teaches the outlet being a cutout in a planar first side as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733