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 06/15/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-19 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 18-19 are examined herein. Claim(s) 12-17 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1 and 18-19 is/are amended. Claim(s) 6, 9, and 20 is/are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“adjacent the” in line 12 should read “adjacent to the”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are 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 1 recites “(ii) with the molten metal pump on and the rotor turning counterclockwise dross congregates on a surface of the molten metal pool adjacent the bridge wall” in lines 10-12. The instant specification discloses “with a J50 pump off and a scrap submergence device turning clockwise, dross is encouraged to submerge at the scrap submergence device location. Turning now to FIG. 3B, when the J50 pump is turned on, dross is encouraged to spread evenly on the molten metal surface.” at [0050] of the instant specification (i.e., either solely with the pump on, or when the pump is on and the scrap submergence device continues to turn clockwise, dross is spread evenly on the molten metal surface). The instant specification, however, does not disclose the molten metal pump being on and the rotor being turned counterclockwise, let alone dross congregating on a surface under such conditions, 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.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
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 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al. (US 20170241713 A1, cited in Office Action dated 09/08/2025) in view of Gilbert et al. (US 5310412 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/08/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches a system (Title, abstract) for use in conjunction with a furnace 120 having therein a molten metal pool (Fig. 1, [0040]). Henderson teaches metal chips are introduced into the molten metal pool for melting [0040]. Henderson teaches the system comprising a sidewell including a pump well 140 and a charge well 160 (Fig. 1, [0040]). Henderson teaches the pump well 201 including a molten metal pump 200 (Fig. 2, [0041]), and the charge well including a scrap submergence device [0008, 0014-0015, 0068]. Henderson teaches said pump well and said charge well being in fluid communication via an opening in the wall between the pump well 140 and charge well 160 (i.e., the via a passage in a bridge wall that divides the pump well from the charge well) [0040].
Henderson does not teach wherein said scrap submergence device is capable of clockwise and counterclockwise rotation.
Henderson teaches an apparatus to facilitate the submergence of the scrap metal below the surface of the molten metal bath may be that of Gilbert (US 5310412 A), which is incorporated by reference into Henderson, where Figure 15 of Henderson is identical to Fig. 3 of Gilbert. Gilbert teaches mixing apparatus 10 (i.e., a scrap submergence device) comprised of an impeller 56 (i.e., a rotor) on shaft 54 (Fig. 3), which permits rotation in either direction (Col. 7 lines 55-56, Fig. 3), thus the device is capable of clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. Gilbert teaches the impeller should be rotated in the range of 50-300 revolutions per minute (i.e., at variable speed) (Col. 7 lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the scrap submergence device of Gilbert as the scrap submergence device in Henderson, as Henderson directly teaches using the scrap submergence device of Gilbert.
Henderson does not teach said bridge wall defining a curved end wall of the charge well. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in shape absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As in the instant case Henderson only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claims recite the bridge wall is a curved end wall, while Henderson teaches a straight end wall (e.g. Fig. 2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have formed the end wall to be curved instead, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Henderson in view of Gilbert does not teach wherein the scrap submergence device has an adjustable depth (i.e., movable); however, it has long been held that making a component movable adjustable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) A and D. As making the scrap submergence device able to adjust its depth does not relate to a new or unexpected result, Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches a scrap submergence device as claimed.
Henderson in view of Gilbert does not teach wherein with the molten metal pump off and the rotor turning clockwise dross is submerged, or wherein with the molten metal pump on and the rotor turning counterclockwise dross congregates on a surface of the molten metal pool adjacent to the bridge wall, however as claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, dross being submerged or congregating on the surface from operating the pump and rotor comprise manners of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, Henderson in view of Gilbert reads on claim 1 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 2, Henderson teaches wherein the molten metal pump 200 comprises an impeller (i.e., pump 200 is a centrifugal pump) (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Henderson teaches the scrap submergence device may comprise a baffle plate (claims 10 and 19). Henderson does not teach the baffle to be positioned between the scrap submerging device and an outlet of the sidewell, however it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Henderson differs from claim 3 in that it is silent to where the baffle is positioned, rather than specifying it is positioned between the scrap submerging device and an outlet of the sidewall, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have rearranged the baffle to be at the claimed position, as doing so would not be expected to interfere with the operation of the device.
Henderson does not teach wherein the baffle is a height adjustable baffle, however, it has long been held that making a component portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) A. As making the baffle height adjustable (i.e., movable) does not relate to a new or unexpected result, Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches or suggests claim 3 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert teaches a conveyor 46 which conveys particles 48 of scrap (i.e., a scrap feed mechanism) (Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 44-48).
Regarding claim 5, Henderson teaches including a flux injector (i.e., a flux feed mechanism) [0014-0015].
Regarding claim 10, Henderson does not wherein the curved end wall comprises a semi-circle. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in shape absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As in the instant case Henderson only differs from claim 10 in that the instant claims recite the curved end wall comprises a semi-circle, while Henderson teaches a straight end wall (e.g. Fig. 2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have formed the end wall to be curved instead, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Gilbert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Areaux (US 5853454 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/08/2025).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, does not teach wherein said scrap submergence device is horizontally repositionable or mounted to a rail system.
Areaux teaches a gravity feed apparatus for charging metal-melting furnaces (Title), where the feed apparatus (analogous to a scrap submergence device) feeds metal chips or scraps into a charge well (Abstract), below a dross layer in the melt of the furnace (Col. 3 lines 7-15), therefore Henderson and Areaux are analogous to the instant application as both comprise scrap submergence devices configured to feed scrap to a charge well. Areaux teaches wherein the scrap submergence device 50 is hung from a dolly D which is mounted on axles with wheels mounted on a rail system 62E (Col. 9 lines 14-18), which moves left and right (i.e., the scrap submergence device is horizontally repositionable) (Col. 9 lines 50-52). Areaux teaches the dolly allows the scrap submergence device to be moved in and out of position relative to the furnace (Col. 9 lines 50-51, 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have hung the scrap submergence device from a dolly mounted on axles on a rail system as taught by Areaux to the system of Henderson as doing so would have allowed for the scrap submergence device to be moved in and out of position relative to the furnace, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to enable removal of the submergence device when scrap is not being added to the furnace and for easier maintenance of the device. As Henderson in view of Areaux teaches making the scrap submergence device horizontally movable, and Henderson teaches the scrap submergence device to comprise the rotor (Henderson: Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 49-57), Henderson in view of Areaux suggests the rotor being repositionable in a crosswise direction of the charge well, as by horizontally repositioning the scrap submergence apparatus as a whole, the rotor is intrinsically repositioned in a crosswise direction of the charge well.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Gilbert as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20120260773 A1, cited in Office Action dated 02/13/2026).
Regarding claim 8, Henderson in view of Gilbert does not teach wherein the rotor is repositionable in a crosswise direction of the charge well.
Sugiura teaches an operation method for mechanically stirring chrome-containing molten iron (Title), where molten iron is stirred by an impeller 2 (i.e., a rotor) on a shaft 10 in a refining vessel (analogous to a charge well of a furnace) (Abstract, Fig. 4, [0027]), thus Henderson and Sugiura are both analogous to the instant application as both are directed to systems used in conjunction with a furnace having a molten metal pool including a scrap submergence device with a rotor on a shaft. Sugiura teaches the stirring mode of the rotor 2 is switched between a concentric stirring of the molten iron where the rotation axis of the rotor is centered in the central axis of the vessel, and an eccentric stirring of the molten iron in a state where the rotor 2 rotates on a rotation axis 41 decentered from the central axis 40, which shifts an eddy core 50 to the opposite side of the central axis 40 (Fig. 4, [0015-0016, 0033]), where moving the rotation axis of the rotor relative to the central axis comprises repositioning the rotor in a crosswise direction of the charge well. Sugiura teaches switching the operation results in an eroded part of the axial rod to be coated with hard adhesion material, thereby self-repairing [0036], which enables control over the amount of material adhered to the shaft 10 of the rotor 2 [0036]. Sugiura teaches eccentric stirring increases the stirring efficiency and the revolutions per minute may be reduced [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor of Henderson to be horizontally repositionable in a crosswise direction as taught by Sugiura as doing so would increase the stirring efficiency of the rotor and enable control over the amount of material adhering to the shaft of the rotor.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Gilbert, Muller et al. (US 5781008 A, cited in Office Action dated 09/08/2025), and Rauch et al. (US 20040107799 A1, cited in Office Action dated 09/08/2025).
Regarding claim 18, Henderson teaches a system (Title, abstract) for use in conjunction with a furnace 120 having therein a molten metal pool (Fig. 1, [0040]). Henderson teaches metal chips are introduced into the molten metal pool for melting [0040]. Henderson teaches the system comprising a sidewell including a pump well 140 and a charge well 160 (Fig. 1, [0040]). Henderson teaches the pump well 201 including a molten metal pump 200 (Fig. 2, [0041]), and the charge well including a scrap submergence device [0008, 0014-0015, 0068]. Henderson teaches said pump well and said charge well being in fluid communication via an opening in the wall between the pump well 140 and charge well 160 (i.e., the via a passage in a bridge wall that divides the pump well from the charge well) [0040].
Henderson does not teach wherein said scrap submergence device is capable of clockwise and counterclockwise rotation.
Henderson teaches an apparatus to facilitate the submergence of the scrap metal below the surface of the molten metal bath may be that of Gilbert (US 5310412 A), which is incorporated by reference into Henderson, where Figure 15 of Henderson is identical to Fig. 3 of Gilbert. Gilbert teaches a mixing apparatus 10 (i.e., scrap submergence device) comprises an impeller 56 (Fig. 3), which permits rotation in either direction (Col. 7 lines 55-56, Fig. 3), thus the device is capable of clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. Gilbert teaches the impeller should be rotated in the range of 50-300 revolutions per minute (i.e., at variable speed) (Col. 7 lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the scrap submergence device of Gilbert as the scrap submergence device in Henderson, as Henderson directly teaches using the scrap submergence device of Gilbert.
Henderson in view of Gilbert does not teach at least one sensor configured for determining dross depth on a surface of a pool of molten metal within the charge well.
Muller teaches an instantaneous slag thickness measuring device (i.e., a sensor configured for determining dross depth on a surface of a pool of molten metal) (Title), which permits measurement of the thickness of slag without the need of additional equipment (Abstract).
Rauch teaches an apparatus for melting a metal (Title), where solid metal is introduced by submerging them in a melting chamber 4 (analogous to a charge well) of the apparatus (Fig. 1-2, [0034]), thus Rauch and Henderson are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to apparatuses comprising scrap submergence devices in a charging well. Rauch teaches a controller 26 receiving data from a level sensor 32 [0042], which automatically adjusts the operation of a pump 18 based on said data [0025, 0042]. Rauch teaches pump 18 assists in melting the solids submerged (i.e. in adding material to the charge well) [0022-0023], thus the pump 18 is analogous to part of a scrap submergence device, and Rauch comprises a system for automatically performing a scrap submergence operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a sensor configured for determining the dross depth on the surface of a pool of molten metal as taught by Muller to adjust operation of a scrap submergence device as taught by Rauch, as doing so would automatically control the rate of melting scrap added to the reactor.
Henderson does not teach said bridge wall defining a curved end wall of the charge well. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in shape absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As in the instant case Henderson only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claims recite the bridge wall is a curved end wall, while Henderson teaches a straight end wall (e.g. Fig. 2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have formed the end wall to be curved instead, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Henderson does not teach wherein the scrap submergence device is capable of rotation optionally at adjustable depth, however, as such is considered optional by the claim, Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches or suggests claim 1 in its entirety.
Henderson does not teach said bridge wall defining a curved end wall of the charge well. It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in shape absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As in the instant case Henderson only differs from claim 18 in that the instant claims recite the bridge wall is a curved end wall, while Henderson teaches a straight end wall (e.g. Fig. 2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have formed the end wall to be curved instead, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Henderson in view of Gilbert, Muller, and Rauch does not teach wherein the scrap submergence device has an adjustable depth (i.e., is movable); however, it has long been held that making a component movable adjustable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) A and D. As making the scrap submergence device able to adjust its depth does not relate to a new or unexpected result, Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches or suggests claim 18 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 19, Henderson does not teach wherein the scrap submergence device is each of vertically, horizontally and longitudinally adjustable, however it has long been held that making a component portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) A. As making the scrap submergence device at least one of vertically, horizontally and longitudinally adjustable (i.e., movable) does not relate to a new or unexpected result, Henderson in view of others teaches or suggests claim 19 in its entirety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Gilbert impeller is rigidly secured, and therefore Henderson in view of Gilbert cannot teach or suggest a scrap submergence device capable of operation “at adjustable depth” as claimed (see pg. 6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees
While as Applicant notes, Gilbert teaches a rigidly secured impeller (analogous to the scrap submergence device claimed), it has long been held that making a component movable adjustable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) A and D. As making the scrap submergence device able to adjust its depth does not relate to a new or unexpected result, Henderson in view of Gilbert teaches or suggests claims 1 and 18 in their entirety.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed features of Applicant’s invention provide a significant advantage over the prior art associated with the combination of the adjustable scrap submergence device and curved bridge wall (see pg. 7 of remarks), the Examiner notes that nothing in the instant specification or filed remarks distinctly points out the alleged advantage over the prior art or how they derive from the adjustable scrap submergence device or curved bridge wall, and therefore is not convincing, instead the presently filed remarks appear at most with respect to the use of an adjustable scrap submergence device and curved bridge wall, to correlate the rotation of the scrap submergence device to relate to dross being submerged, spread, or congregated.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to control the location of dross within the charge well (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), such control derives from operation of the apparatus rather than comprising a structural limitation of the apparatus itself, and therefore is not afforded patentable weight as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
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
Prosecution Insights