DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 18 are amended. Claims 6 and 20 are cancelled.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments to paragraph [0023] of the instant specification.
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 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.
Claims 2-5 and 9-10 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/08/2025. Claims 2-5 and 10 have not been amended since that time, while the amendments to claim 9 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 7-8 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).
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.
Claim 19 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/08/2025. Claim 19 has not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 as amended allows for dross to be directed to different locations on the surface of the molten metal, where allegedly nothing in the cited prior art provides this teaching or suggestion (see pg. 7-8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, nothing in the cited prior art discloses directing dross to different locations on the surface of the molten metal, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, the instant claims only require that the scrap submergence device is capable of clockwise and counterclockwise rotation at variable speed, with no further requirements e.g., as to what function(s) must be performed as a result of the rotation in each direction.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that neither Henderson or Gilbert address the concept of controlling dross location within a chargewell based on chargewell shape, see pg. 7 of remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that nothing in Henderson or Gilbert teaches or suggests that dross management is a desirable feature or a feature that can be controlled through the interacting modes of operation and placement of a scrap submergence device as allegedly required by claims 7 and 8 (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), the Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejections of claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Areaux and in view of Sugiura.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Areaux provides no teaching that suggests modifying Henderson alone or in combination with Gilbert, the Examiner agrees. A motivation for modifying Henderson to arrive at the presently claimed invention is presently provided.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 18 as amended is patentable as Henderson in view of Gilbert, Muller, and Rauch does not teach a curved bridge wall (see pg. 9-10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While none of the cited prior art discloses a curved bridge wall, 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. While Applicant notes that, Muller teaches an instantaneous slag thickness measuring device, it is unclear how this teaching relates to the shape of the bridge wall.
Conclusion
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