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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended, Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are as previously presented, and Claims 5, 9, and 10 are canceled.
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 1-4 ad 6-8 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.
In Claim 1, the relationship between the “steel ladle” and the “covered ladle” is not clear. Figure 1 from applicant’s drawing is represented below with annotations from page 4 of the specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on the specification and drawing, the “steel ladle” and “covered ladle” are not distinct components. The cover is on the steel ladle. There appears to be steps missing in this method claim if applicant intends to refer to the steel ladle uncovered and covered. In the specification on page 2, the specification states “a method for slag modification during end period casting in stale ladle having a cover” on page 2. The “cover-adding process” is exemplified in Examples 1 and 2, but it is not clear when the cover is added. Based on the claim as presented, there is no antecedent basis for any slag in “the covered ladle,” since the slag is only in the “steel ladle.” For purposes of examination, Claim 1 is interpreted as follows:
a steel ladle has a bottom blowing brick for gas, casting function, and a supply for carrier gas with modifier toward an outlet of the steel ladle
the steel ladle gets steel+slag mixture
perform steps based on if the slag is reducing or oxidizing
at some point during the process the steel ladle is covered
Correction is required.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: JP H06-63016 B2 (JP ‘016) teaches an inclusion reducing treatment agent containing 1-5 % by weight CaF2 and the remaining component being CaO for absorbing and floating inclusions in molten steel. The agent is carrier gas blown into the bath with an inert gas. Inclusions in the bath can be absorbed into the treatment agent (page 3). The slag is oxidizing (page 4). The addition of the inclusion reducing treatment agent prevents inclusion of the slag due to the vortex of injection flow in the casting stage that occurs when only the desulfurization treatment agent is added (page 5). FIG 6 shows a convention ladle refining apparatus where an inert gas is blown into the molten steel contained in the ladle. However, JP ‘016 states “the slag 4 on the bath surface is caught in the molten steel 5 and, conversely, inclusions in the bath increases. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain the effects of the present invention” (page 6). JP ‘016 does not suggest the claimed invention.
CN 1320708 A (CN ‘708) teaches preventing slag from flowing through a converter steel tapping hole (abstract) by preventing the vortex phenomenon from occurring when tapping (page 1). Gas is blown from the bottom of the converter near the tapping hole to suppress the eddy current (page 3). The slag is oxidizing (page 1). CN ‘708 does not teach a modifier that is a mixture of a recarburizer with one of lime, magnesium particle, and light calcined dolomite as claimed.
Seo et al (US 6,346,212 B1) teaches tapping steel from a converter to a ladle and the slag is deoxidized (column 4, line 59). A gas inlet plug can prevent occurrence of the vortex during slag free tapping (lines 55 and 560. Seo et al does not teach including a modifier that is a mixture of a recarburizer with one of lime, magnesium particle, and light calcined dolomite as claimed.
Regarding prior art cited in the previous office action mailed 04/20/2026, JP 2011-025111 A (JP ‘111) teaches discharging oxidized steel from a converter into a ladle and adding quick lime at the time of steel output (page 3). The slag in the ladle is solidified by the addition of MgO and is less likely to be entrained in the vortex (page 6). However, JP ‘111 does not suggest inhibiting the vortex in the ladle as claimed. KR 10-0237574 B1 teaches a final casting molten steel vortex prevention flux for suppressing the vortices generated during continuous casting comprising CaO and MgO (abstract) for a reducing slag but does not suggest calcined dolomite or magnesium particles or if the slag is reducing or oxidizing.
CN 112094986 A teaches an oxidizing slag in ladle A and a reducing slag in ladle B (pages 2 and 4). CN ‘986 does not suggest inhibiting vortex.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights