Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/776,063

DIRECT CURRENT ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 11, 2022
Examiner
LIANG, ANTHONY M
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Masercata OY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 659 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 20-22 and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/21/2025. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-IV share an inventive concept, as the claimed invention is directed to a product (a direct current electric arc furnace), a system comprising the product, and a method of using the product. This is not found persuasive because the claims are drawn to a method for extracting metal, a direct current electric arc furnace, a system, and a solid metal made by the method. Groups I-IV lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Note that Group IV recites a product-by-process limitation, which does not necessarily require that the product is made by the process of claim 1. Also, Groups I-III do not share the technical feature of a solid metal. Thus, there is no shared technical feature among Groups I-IV. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 9 and 16 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein a carbon content of the molten metal is equal to or less than 0.01 %,” which is indefinite, because there are no units stated for the percentage. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the limitation “wherein a carbon content of the molten metal is equal to or less than 0.01 %” is interpreted as wherein a carbon content of the molten metal is equal to or less than 0.01 wt.-%. Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the metal containing raw material has a moisture content between 0% and 25%,” which is indefinite, because the percentages lack units. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 is given the broadest reasonable such that the limitation “wherein the metal containing raw material has a moisture content between 0% and 25%” is interpreted as wherein the metal containing raw material has a moisture content between 0 wt.-% and 25 wt.-%. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations recited in claim 7 are already recited in the independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, 14 and 17 allowed. Claims 9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose the method for extracting metal as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Takashiba et al. (US 5,410,564), as cited in the IDS dated 6/26/2023, hereinafter “Takashiba,” teaches a method for extracting metal from metal-containing raw material in a batch process by using a direct current electric arc furnace having a single top electrode and a plurality of bottom electrodes, the method comprising the steps of adding the metal-containing raw material to the furnace, thereby obtaining a loaded bath, moving the top electrode on to the raw material, heating the loaded bath in a heating step by applying direct current through the top electrode to provide an arc to melt the raw material, thereby obtaining molten metal, and forming a solid metal from the molten metal (Abstract, Figs. 1-2, col 6 ln. 59 – col. 9 ln. 49). However, Takashiba fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein at least wherein the furnace has at least two top electrodes, wherein the at least two top electrodes comprise a first top electrode and a second top electrode, the first top electrode has a first speed, and the second top electrode has a second speed, and the method further comprises controlling the heating step by moving the first top electrode with the first speed differing from the second speed of the second top electrode. Thus, claim 1 distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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. /ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601038
NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, MOTOR CORE, AND PRODUCTION METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601037
STEEL HAVING HIGH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601039
FERRITIC STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584183
MOLTEN IRON DEPHOSPHORIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583032
METHOD FOR PREPARING A LOW-TEMPERATURE SINTERING SILVER PASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 659 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month