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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 25, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued June 8, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Morando (US 5,650,120) on claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 13 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Morando teaches an apparatus comprised of a pumping conduit (18) which is a transport conduit that has an inlet opening (20) and an outlet opening (22). Molten metal is passed from the inlet opening (20) and leaves through outlet opening (22). The outlet opening (22) has a diameter of 3.5 inches and is in communication with the inlet opening (20). The apparatus also includes legs (24, 26) either of which can be considered a gas delivery conduit in communication with a gas source (56) that delivers gas to the pumping conduit (18) through opening means (44) which forms a gas port. The internal diameter of the legs (24, 26) is 1.75 inches which is “sized proportionally” to the outlet opening (22), and can be considered to “control” the diameter of the opening means (44) due to being connected to it, and since the internal diameter of the pumping conduit (18) is 3.5 inches, the ratio of the diameter of the legs (24, 26) to the pumping conduit (18) is 0.5 (col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 3, lines 1-14; lines 39-67).
Regarding claim 2: Morando discloses the above apparatus, in which the ratio of the diameter of the legs (24, 26) to the pumping conduit (18) is 0.5, which is between 0.5 and 1 (col. 2, line 67; col. 3, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 4: Morando discloses the above apparatus, in which a hollow cross member (36) is provided with the gas opening means (44) which can be considered a connecting portion that connects the legs and can be considered to define the separation between the inlet opening (20) and outlet opening (22) sections (see figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 5: Morando shows that the inlet opening (20) and outlet opening (22) are disposed on opposite sides of the cross member (36) which can be considered the connecting portion (see figure 5).
Regarding claims 7-8: Morando teaches that the pumping conduit (18) diameter is 3.5 inches (col. 3 lines 11-14) and is consistent from inlet (20) to outlet (22) such that their two diameters are the same (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 13: Morando discloses the above apparatus in which the legs (24, 26) are connected to a gas source (56) supplying nitrogen which is an inert gas (col. 3 lines 51+).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Morando as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 13 above on claim 3 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 3: Morando discloses the above apparatus but fails to explicitly disclose that any part of the gas delivery mechanism has a diameter equal to that of the pumping conduit (18). However, Morando does teach that the size of the internal diameter of the pumping conduit (18) can vary depending on the amount of material being flown through it (col. 3 lines 11-26) such that this diameter is a result effective variable, and the ratio of diameters naturally follows.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the diameter of the pumping conduit (18) to arrive at a diameter equal to the legs (24, 26) because routine optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215), and because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Morando as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8 and 13 above and further in view of Morando (6,051,183, hereafter referred to as Morando 2) on claims 6, 9 and 12 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 6: Morando teaches the above apparatus which has an S-shaped conduit, not a J or U shaped conduit. However, Morando 2 teaches a similar apparatus having a dross removal apparatus having a conduit (26) shaped like a U, including the inlet, outlet and portion which connects to the gas pump (34) which would correspond to the connecting portion (col. 3 lines 48+; col. 4 lines 1-28, figures 4-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the S-shaped pumping conduit of Morando with the U-shaped conduit of Morando 2 because Morando 2 teaches that the U shape assists in improved dross removal or dilution without the potential for blockage caused by the S shaped pipe (col. 2 lines 14-26).
Regarding claims 9 and 12: Morando and Morando 2 teach the above combination, in which Morando 2 further discloses that the gas supply system includes a supply conduit which supplies gas from a compressed gas tank (40)- which is the gas source- to a regulator (86) which is a neck that adjusts the pressure of the gas either upwardly or downwardly, and supplies that adjusted pressure gas to the body of the pump (34) which corresponds to the gas delivery conduit (col. 4 lines 29-63, figure 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar gas supply system to that of Morando 2 for the apparatus of Morando because Morando 2 teaches that controlling the pressure helps ensure velocity of the dross is maintained and improves the efficiency of the pump, and also that certain applications require certain pressure ranges (col. 4 lines 24-45).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Morando and Morando 2 as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-13 above and further in view of Morando (US 5,863,314, hereafter referred to as Morando 3) on claims 10-11 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 10: Morando and Morando 2 disclose the above combined device, but fail to explicitly teach anything about the size of the gas supply conduit relative to the gas delivery conduit. However, Morando 3 teaches a similar dross removal apparatus where the gas delivery passages (24, 26) connect to the gas source via a pair of nipples (32, 34) having internal passages (36, 38) which are substantially smaller in diameter than the gas delivery passages (24, 26) (col. 8 lines 61+; col. 9 lines 1-6; figures 2, 4, 5 and 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use gas supply conduits smaller in diameter than the gas delivery conduits for the apparatus of Morando and Morando 2 because Morando 3 shows that this was a well-known technique for this type of apparatus (col. 8 lines 61+; col. 9 lines 1-6, figures 2, 4, 5 and 7) and using a well-known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11: Morando, Morando 2 and Morando 3 disclose the above combination, but fail to explicitly disclose that the diameter of the delivery passages (24, 26) is at least four times greater than that of the internal passages (36, 38), even though the diameter is shown to be substantially larger (see Morando 3 figure 7). However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a diameter at least 4 times larger than the internal passages (36, 38) because figure 7 shows that the diameter is over 4 times larger, and while the images are not said to be to scale, they can at least convey particular suggested size relationships to one of ordinary skill in the art, and because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance when no unexpected results or criticality is shown (MPEP 2144.04).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Morando in view of Sato et al. (US 2015/0174678), Brandt et al. (US 2016/0160318) and Itoh (US 2014/0366802) on claims 14-15 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Morando discloses the above apparatus including a gas source connected to the gas delivery legs (22, 24), but fails to explicitly disclose that the gas is heated, or heated to a temperature between 300 and 500 degrees Fahrenheit. However, Sato et al., Brandt et al. and Itoh disclose similar apparatuses that use preheated gasses to flow into molten baths at temperatures which are close to or just above the melting temperature of the molten material, such as solder at 300 degrees C (Sato et al. par. 91-92), lithium between 195 and 260 degrees C (Brandt et al. par. 17, 37), and copper at 300 degrees C (Itoh et al. par. 93). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use preheated gas anywhere between 195 and 300 degrees C (or 383-572 degrees F) for the apparatus of Morando because Sato et al., Brandt et al. and Itoh teach that preheating the inert gas to around the molten metal temperature is known (Sato et al. par. 91-92) and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Morando fails to teach or suggest the gas delivery diameter being sized proportionally to the exit diameter to control the size of the gas port.
In response:
Applicant is arguing the claims far too narrowly. Applicant’s argument appears to be that the Morando does not disclose the claimed gas port because it is part of the cross member (36) and not the legs (24, 26). However, this is an extremely narrow and overly specific reading of the Morando reference. The cross member (36) of Morando is part of its gas delivery conduit, where the conduit in this case is the gas flow path in its entirety, such that it does directly connect at the opening means (44) to the pumping conduit (18). Nothing in the claims prevents this reading of the term “gas delivery conduit”, and it is entirely consistent with the definitions of these words in the art. Therefore, the opening means (44) still does read on the claimed gas port, and Morando still reads on claim 1.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/24/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
