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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1-6 and 9. Applicant cancelled claims 7-8 and 10-26. Applicant added claims 27-35. Support for the amendments and new claims is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2022, 06/06/2023, 12/06/2023, 08/05/2024, 10/07/2024, 01/10/2025, 04/16/2025, 06/10/2025, 08/29/2025, 10/07/2025, and 12/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 31 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “aperture” in Claim 31 is used by the claim to mean a hole, while the accepted meaning is an opening of light, or photolithographic space. Applicant recites “Each blade skeleton 101.1 may include at least one hole 103 such that the material of the outer coating flows through the at least one hole 103…” See Instant Specification [0051]. While the terms aperture and hole are used interchangeably in certain scenarios, in this instance, they raise an issue of clarity as to the origin of any hole. Appropriate correction is required to define with clarity the presence of any hole within the claimed impeller.
Claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
831
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
383
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 Rauch ‘072 Instant Fig. 5C
Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Rauch ‘072 teaches a melting furnace system comprising a scrap submergence device for mixing molten metal in a furnace, the scrap submergence device comprising a cross beam (86) (meeting the limitation for an upper structure), a shaft (44’) extending down from the cross beam (meeting the limitation for the upper structure, and an impeller at a lower end of the shaft, the impeller (40) comprising a plurality of vanes (58) (meeting the limitation for blades), each of the plurality of vanes (meeting the limitation for blades) having a blade height and a blade length; and a disk (55) (meeting the limitation for a plate), (Abstract, Fig. 11). Rauch ‘072 teaches a cross beam (86) (meeting the limitation for the upper structure) (Fig. 12) wherein the upper end of the shaft is removably coupled to the upper structure and the shaft extends vertically down from a lower end of a drive apparatus, the cross beam being configured to raise and lower upper parts of the drive apparatus (Fig. 12), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for being configured to position the impeller in and out of a side well of the furnace [0013, 0020, 0046-0055].
Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach the ratio of blade height to the blade length.
However, Kar et al. ‘966 teaches an impeller designed to direct solids suspended in a slurry downwards as opposed to pushing them off to the sides (Abstract). Kar et al. ‘966 teaches an impeller with a ratio of blade height to blade radius from 0.05 to 0.75 (claim 24), overlapping the instantly claimed range of approximately 0.3 to approximately 1. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the vanes of Rauch ‘072 to have a ratio of blade height to blade length from 0.3 to 0.75 in order to form a rectangular stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid downwards towards the bottom of the submergence tank based on the teachings of Kar et al. ‘966 (Abstract).
Scrap submergence systems were known at the time of filing. Melting furnace systems were known at the time of filing. The impeller and turbine are centuries-old innovations known for creating vortexes within solids, liquids, and gases. Impeller blades having a height and length formed to push molten metal downward were known at the time of filing. The art of mixing and stirring impellers is analogous art and one of ordinary skill would look to the art for suitable ratios of blade height to blade length (radial extension from the impeller shaft) in order to form a rectangular blade sufficient for pushing down molten liquid in a scrap submergence tank. Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Applicant’s original disclosure only supports that the location of the impeller can affect “the size of the vortex (which affects submergence efficiency such that scrap should be pulled downward…” [0041]. Additionally, the presence of a plate at the base of the impeller which provides strength and increases the naturally occurring gravitational effect (See e.g. Instant Specification) [0049]. Though the drawings are not to scale, the impeller of Rauch ‘072 appears to be the same or a very similar impeller to the one instantly claimed with a long shaft and rectangular blades at its base. Kar et al. ‘966 teaches forming the aforementioned ratio in an impeller blade in order to push liquid downwards, providing sufficient motivation for persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modified the impeller of Rauch ‘072 with the dimension teachings of Kar et al. ‘966. The melting furnace system of Rauch ‘072 modified with the dimensions taught in Kar et al. ‘966 meets the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the plate (55’) comprises a diameter that is less than a total diameter of the plurality of vanes (58’) (meeting the limitation for blades) and a lower surface of the plate is aligned with a lower surface of each of the plurality of blades (Fig. 11), [0050]. A circle defined by radially outermost edges of the purity of blades comprises a total diameter of the impeller (Fig. 11), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the impeller comprises a disk periphery (60) (meeting the limitation for a ring) extending around a perimeter of the impeller, wherein the ring intersects an outermost radial edge of each blade of the plurality of blades [0048], (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claims 27-29, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the plate (55’) is attached to lower edges of the plurality of vanes (58’) (meeting the limitation for blades), comprises a circular disk shape, and extends to an outermost radial edge of each of the plurality of vanes (58’) (meeting the limitation for blades) (Fig. 7) [0050], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 each vane of the plurality of vanes (58’) (meeting the limitation for blades), comprises a central plane, and the central planes are parallel to the axis of the shaft (Fig. 11) [0050], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 above further in view of Wang US 20130136617 A1.
Regarding Claims 3-4, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches at least one of the plurality of vanes (58’) (meeting the limitation for blades) comprises a tangentially contoured outermost edge on a leading face and a tangentially contoured upper surface (Fig. 11).
But Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach a radial extension extending in a tangential direction from an outermost edge on a leading face or an upper extension extending in an approximately tangential direction from an upper edge on a leading face of the at least one of the plurality of blades.
However, Wang ‘617 teaches at [0045-0047]a mixing impeller for agitating liquids comprising extensions in an approximately tangential direction from both an outermost edge on a leading face of the impeller vanes and from an upper edge on a leading face of at least one of the plurality of vanes (meeting the limitation for blades) formed to enhance mixing ability of the impeller. Further, Wang ‘617 expressly teaches its vanes are so designed and shaped to promote downward movement of liquid and centrifugal forces [0037-0039].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form extensions in a tangential direction from an outermost edge on a leading face or from an upper edge on a leading face of the blades of Rauch ‘072 in order to increase the efficiency of mixing and enhance the downward motion of liquid based on the teachings of Wang ‘617 at [0037-0039], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 above further in view of Waite et al. EP 0347108 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 teaches a shaft with a coupling but does not expressly teach a shoulder.
However, Waite et al. ‘108 teaches a melting furnace system with a scrap submergence device having a shaft with a shoulder beneath its coupling in order to support the coupling and prevent metal bypass at (Page 6, Lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a shoulder with a larger outer dimension than a remainder of the shaft beneath the coupling in order to support the coupling and prevent metal bypass based on the teachings of Waite et al. at [0042].
Claims 9 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 above further in view of Byeong-du et al. WO 2019045419 A1
Regarding Claims 9 and 35, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches a main furnace chamber (50) and sidewell (10) at (Fig. 6),[0019-0020] wherein molten metal is configured to circulate between the main hearth and the sidewell [0013-0016].
Rauch ‘072 teaches offsetting the impeller (47) from the sidewell wall (27) in (Fig. 6) but does not expressly teach the inclusion of a deflector block.
However, Byeong-du et al. ‘419 teaches offsetting the impeller of a melting furnace system scrap submergence device at a distance from a block shaped guide member (meeting the limitation for a deflector block) capable of being positioned within the sidewell so that the flow path and impeller are not too close to the furnace wall [0101].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to optimize the offset of the impeller of Rauch ‘072, with the inclusion of a deflector block placed at a distance that clears the neighboring wall, in order to improve control of the flow of molten metal and guide the molten metal into a mixing region based on the teachings of Byeong-du et al. ‘419 at [0014]. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Rauch ‘072 teaches housing (92) (meeting the limitation for an arm) extending down from the cross beam (86) (meeting the limitation for the upper structure) (Fig. 12).
Byeong-du et al. ‘419 further teaches the scrap submergence device comprises a detachable guide member having a block shape (25)(meeting the limitation for a deflector block)(Fig. 3), the shape and configuration of which may be designed such that it comports with either the wall or impeller [0100-0104].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to attach the detachable guide member having a block shape (meeting the limitation for a deflector block) taught in Byeong-du et al. ‘419 to the housing (arm) of Rauch ‘072 in order to ease installation and positioning of the deflector block near the sidewell wall, meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 above further in view of Yoshino et al. JP 2003328990 A.
Regarding Claims 30 and 31, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 contemplates the incorporation of a well-known refractory coating for recuing corrosion within its melting furnace at [0021, 0056] but does not expressly teach the impeller comprises a coating.
However, Yoshino et al. ‘990 teaches a pump for molten metal submergence wherein the impeller is coated with a corrosion resistant ceramic film (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to coat the entire impeller of Rauch ‘072 with a ceramic coating in order to protect the impeller from direct contact with molten metal and resist corrosion based on the teachings of Yoshino et al. ‘990 at [0004]. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the impeller of Rauch ‘072 comprises central openings (56) (meeting the limitation for at least one aperture)(Fig. 7). Therefore, the impeller of Rauch ‘072 modified with the wear coating of Yoshino et al. ‘990 meets the limitations of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to increase the lifetime of the melting service system of Rauch ‘072 to provide a wear coating to the impeller which is in contact with molten metal.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kar et al. US 20040145966 A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 5, 27-29, and 32 above further in view of Cooper US 20080230966 A1.
Regarding Claims 33 and 34, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach the length and height of its plurality of vanes (58) (meeting the limitation for blades)(Fig. 11).
However, Cooper ‘966 teaches a scrap submergence melter impeller wherein each blade has a height of at least 6 inches (claim 20) and extends outwardly from the hub (has a length) of at least 10 inches (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to resize the impeller blade of Rauch ‘072 to fit within a large melting furnace system or withstand the movement of greater amounts of molten metal while still being submerged in molten metal. “[M]ere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
The teachings of Cooper ‘966 of “at least 10 inches” of blade height and “at least 6 inches” of blade length overlap the instantly claimed ranges of greater than 10 inches and at least 10 inches respectively. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Rauch ‘072 by forming larger blades for processing larger amounts of molten metal based on the teachings of Cooper ‘966 at [0008]. Such change constitutes a simple rescaling of the known impeller utilized within known melting furnace systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Rauch ‘072 does not teach or suggest an impeller having a ratio of blade height to blade radius of approximately 0.3 to 1. However, as established above, the impeller of Rauch ‘072 appears to be the same or a very similar impeller as instantly claimed with a long shaft and rectangular blades at its base. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the vanes of Rauch ‘072 to have a ratio of blade height to blade length from 0.3 to 0.75 in order to form a rectangular stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid downwards towards the bottom of the submergence tank based on the teachings of Kar et al. ‘966 (Abstract). See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Prior art references need not teach or suggest every claim limitation. See MPEP 2141. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Rauch ‘072 suggests the structure of the claimed melting furnace system, while Kar et al. ‘966 renders obvious the ratio of the blade height to the blade radius. As addressed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the vanes of Rauch ‘072 to have a specific ratio of blade height to blade radius less in order to form a narrow stirring blade sufficient for engendering a downward vortex. As established above, there is no specific outcome attributed to the claimed ratio in the original disclosure. Applicant’s original disclosure only supports that the location of the impeller can affect “the size of the vortex (which affects submergence efficiency such that scrap should be pulled downward…” [0041]. Additionally, the presence of a plate at the base of the impeller which provides strength and increases the naturally occurring gravitational effect (See e.g. Instant Specification) [0049].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MEPE 2144.04 IV. There is no actual, tangible, or patentable difference apparent from the scrap submergence device taught by Rauch ‘072 and the claimed device. The claim language drawn to a specific ratio of blade height to blade radius do not appear to create a patentable distinction over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Absar, Saheem, Sai Amrutha Venkatesh Ganduri, and Hongseok Choi. "Study of the geometrical effects of impeller on the flow field in hybrid mixing process for manufacturing nanocomposites." Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019): 177-185. Teaches mechanical stirring and flow regime is impacted by impeller dimension and type.
EP 0347653 B1 teaches a mixing system for homogeneous rapid axial mixing of liquids with different densities.
JP 2007182624 A teaches a desiliconization blade overlapping in dimension ratio to the instant claims.
CA 1072829 A teaches a process for coting metal articles including turbine blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights