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 Claim 9. Support for the amendment is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 14-15, 17-22, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/04/2025.
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.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 07/12/2023, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Bollenrath et al. EP 0347653 B1 are maintained and new rejections over Kimura et al. JP 2007182624 A have been made as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-9 and 11 are 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 “blade radius” in Claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “the radius of each blade or the length (radial dimension) from the outer surface of the shaft 200 to the outermost tip 101.3 of each blade 101 (see radii A and B in FIGS. 5A, 5B, and 7B)” See Instant Specification [0057], while the accepted meaning is the distance from the center of a circle or sphere to its circumference.
While the Specification attempts to redefine the term, the term “blade radius” remains indefinite because it is unclear how the non-circular blade can have a radius when the word “radial” is given its accepted meaning in Claim 7. Appropriate correction is required to define with clarity the length of the blade.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Bollenrath et al. EP 0347653 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Rauch ‘072 teaches 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 radius; and a disk (55) (meeting the limitation for a plate), (Abstract, Fig. 11).
Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach the ratio of blade height to the blade radius.
However, Bollenrath et al. ‘653 teaches a mixing system for the homogenous mixing of liquids featuring an impeller for agitating liquids (Abstract). Bollenrath et al. ‘653 teaches an impeller with a ratio of blade height to blade radius less than 1 [0005], 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 radius less than 1 in order to form a narrow stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid based on the teachings of Bollenrath et al. ‘653. The art of stirring blades is analogous art and one of ordinary skill would look to the art for suitable ratios of blade height to blade radius (radial extension) in order to form a narrow blade sufficient for mixing liquids. 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.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the plate (55’) comprises a width 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].
Regarding Claim 5, the impeller comprises a disk periphery (60) (meeting the limitation for a ring) extending around a perimeter of the impeller, wherein the ring is attached to an outermost edge of each of the plurality of blades [0048], (Fig. 7).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Bollenrath et al. EP 0347653 B1 as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 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 an approximately 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form extensions in an approximately 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 Bollenrath et al. EP 0347653 B1 as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 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 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 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Bollenrath et al. EP 0347653 B1 as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 above further in view of Byeong-du et al. WO 2019045419 A1
Regarding Claim 7, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 teaches offsetting the impeller (47) from the 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 at a distance from a block shaped guide member (meeting the limitation for a deflector block) so that the flow path and impeller are not too close to the furnace wall [0101]. Byeong-du et al. ‘419 does not expressly teach the distance in inches from the impeller.
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, 1” to 5” from a deflector block, 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Rauch ‘072 modified by Bollenrath et al. ‘653 and Byeong-du et al. ‘419 teaches the limitations set forth above.
As set forth above, Rauch ‘072 teaches a main furnace chamber (50) and detachable side well (10) at (Fig. 6),[0019-0020] but Rauch ‘072 does not detail the layout of a separate hearth and divider wall.
However, Byeong-du et al. ‘419 further teaches the furnace comprises a main hearth (10), a sidewell (20), and a divider wall separating the main hearth from the sidewell (32); and the block shaped guide member (25)(meeting the limitation for a deflector block) is attached to the divider wall (Fig. 3) [0102], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the impeller of Rauch ‘072 modified by Bollenrath et al. ‘653 in the furnace of Byeong-du et al. ‘419 in order to improve the melting efficiency based on the teachings of Byeong-du et al. ‘419 at [0127].
Regarding Claim 9, Rauch ‘072 modified by Bollenrath et al. ‘653 and Byeong-du et al. ‘419 teaches the limitations set forth above.
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).
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 arm of Rauch 072 in order to ease installation and positioning of the deflector block near the furnace 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.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the sidewell has an entrance port through which molten metal enters the sidewell and an exit port through which the molten metal exits the sidewell; and an area of the exit port is smaller than an area of the entrance port (Fig. 13) [0033, 0040], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kimura et al. JP 2007182624 A.
Regarding Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Rauch ‘072 teaches 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 radius; and a disk (55) (meeting the limitation for a plate), (Abstract, Fig. 11).
Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach the ratio of blade height to the blade radius.
However, Kimura et al. ‘624 teaches regulating the stability of desiliconization of hot metal by controlling the dimensions of the blades of a submerged impeller (Abstract). Kimura et al. ‘624 teaches the height of the impeller blade and width of the blade (meeting the limitation for blade radius) must satisfy a relation to the depth of the hot metal flowing in the hot metal flow path (Fig. 4). There exist many values satisfying the equations which overlap and encompass the instantly claimed range of approximately 0.3 to approximately 1. For example, the blade height and blade tip may have an equal value and the flow path may have a diameter that is twice the blade width (meeting the limitation for two times the blade radius), and the ratio of the width of the individual blade (meeting the limitation for blade radius) to the blade height may be 0.3, all while satisfying the formulae presented in claim 1 of Kimura et al. ‘624.
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 radius less than 1 in order to form a narrow stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid based on the teachings of Kimura et al. ‘624 e.g. at (Page 1, Translation, Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill would look to the art for suitable ratios of blade height to blade radius (radial extension) in order to form a narrow blade sufficient for mixing liquids. 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.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the plate (55’) comprises a width 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].
Regarding Claim 5, the impeller comprises a disk periphery (60) (meeting the limitation for a ring) extending around a perimeter of the impeller, wherein the ring is attached to an outermost edge of each of the plurality of blades [0048], (Fig. 7).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kimura et al. JP 2007182624 A as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 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 an approximately 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form extensions in an approximately 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 Kimura et al. JP 2007182624 A as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 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 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 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch US 20110074072 A1 in view of Kimura et al. JP 2007182624 A as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5 above further in view of Byeong-du et al. WO 2019045419 A1
Regarding Claim 7, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 teaches offsetting the impeller (47) from the 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 at a distance from a block shaped guide member (meeting the limitation for a deflector block) so that the flow path and impeller are not too close to the furnace wall [0101]. Byeong-du et al. ‘419 does not expressly teach the distance in inches from the impeller.
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, 1” to 5” from a deflector block, 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Rauch ‘072 modified by Kimura et al. ‘624 and Byeong-du et al. ‘419 teaches the limitations set forth above.
As set forth above, Rauch ‘072 teaches a main furnace chamber (50) and detachable side well (10) at (Fig. 6),[0019-0020] but Rauch ‘072 does not detail the layout of a separate hearth and divider wall.
However, Byeong-du et al. ‘419 further teaches the furnace comprises a main hearth (10), a sidewell (20), and a divider wall separating the main hearth from the sidewell (32); and the block shaped guide member (25)(meeting the limitation for a deflector block) is attached to the divider wall (Fig. 3) [0102], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the impeller of Rauch ‘072 modified by Kimura et al. ‘624 in the furnace of Byeong-du et al. ‘419 in order to improve the melting efficiency based on the teachings of Byeong-du et al. ‘419 at [0127].
Regarding Claim 9, Rauch ‘072 modified by Kimura et al. ‘624 and Byeong-du et al. ‘419 teaches the limitations set forth above.
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).
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 arm of Rauch 072 in order to ease installation and positioning of the deflector block near the furnace 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.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Rauch ‘072 teaches the limitations set forth above. Rauch ‘072 further teaches the sidewell has an entrance port through which molten metal enters the sidewell and an exit port through which the molten metal exits the sidewell; and an area of the exit port is smaller than an area of the entrance port (Fig. 13) [0033, 0040], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Rauch ‘072 nor Bollenrath et al. ‘653 teach or suggest an impeller having a ratio of blade height to blade radius of approximately 0.3 to 1. However, instantly claimed ratio of blade height to blade radius is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art. Applicant further argues regarding the ratio of blade height to blade radius, “The Office Action concedes that Rauch lacks such a feature and cites to Bollenrath to cure this deficiency.” This is not the case. Contrarily, the Office Action mailed 10/01/2025 states “Rauch ‘072 does not expressly teach the ratio of blade height to the blade radius” (emphasis added). Even though Rauch ‘072 is silent as to its impeller dimensions, 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 radius less than 1 in order to form a narrow stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid based on the teachings of Bollenrath et al. ‘653. Bollenrath et al. ‘653 teaches stirrer blades which rotate to mix liquids within a vessel [0010-0011], permitting rapid axial mixing [0006]. Additionally, Kimura et al. ‘624 teaches optimizing the dimensions of the blade radius and blade height within a scrap submergence device impeller in order to render stirring of molten metal efficient.
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 scrap submergence device, while Bollenrath et al. ‘653 and Kimura et al. ‘624 render 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 ratio of blade height to blade radius less than 1 in order to form a narrow stirring blade sufficient for the homogenous agitation of liquid See e.g., Bollenrath et al. ‘653 [0005] and Kimura et al. ‘624 (Page 1, Translation, Fig. 4).
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. 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 does not appear to differentiate the claims from the 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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