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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11, 13, 15 and 20 have been amended, claims 1-10 and 17-19 remain withdrawn and claims 11-16 and 20 remain under consideration in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 as amended, recites the limitation “a scrap chamber arranged to receive melt” in line 3. Because the phrase “arranged to receive melt” appears to suggest that melt if fed to the scrap chamber, contrary to the operation of the claimed multi-chamber melting furnace, it is, therefore suggested to replace with -- a scrap chamber arranged to contain melt--. Furthermore, if melt circulation occurs between the scrap chamber and the heating chamber, to ensure the presence of melt in the scrap chamber, then the claim should be amended to reflect as such for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 11, lines 10 -11, it is suggested to replace “at least one heating chamber which is arranged to receive melt and which has at least one combustion device” with -- at least one heating chamber which is arranged to contain a pool of melt, and has at least one combustion device--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-16 and 20 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.
Claim 11, as amended recites the limitation "the level" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, as amended in lines 6-7, recites the limitation "the scrap chamber for thermal pretreatment of the aluminum scrap" without reciting how/ by what manner or particularly reciting any thermal treatment device for treating the scrap in the scrap chamber during a first treatment phase; and during a subsequent second pretreatment phase (as claim 11, in line 13) in the scrap chamber. Furthermore, the phrase “the scrap chamber for thermal pretreatment” is vague, in that it could encompass scrap chamber arrangements or designs provided with any of the perceivable heating means or thermal inducing devices known in the art for scrap thermal pretreatment, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claim 11 as amended includes the following limitations "each air inlet” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in that the preceding line 12 of the claim, recites “at least one air inlet” which in plain meaning means not less than one, which does not necessarily mean a plurality or multiple air inlets as “each air inlet” suggests.
Claim 11 as amended includes the following limitations “the air flow” at the
beginning of line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the
claim.
Claim 15 as amended includes the following limitations "each air inlet” at the beginning of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 and 20 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: Cibaldi differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest as in claim 11: at least one air inlet in the wall of the scrap chamber for providing at least one air flow into the scrap chamber during a second pretreatment phase at a predetermined second temperature, and a control/regulating unit which is connected to each air inlet to provide the air flow in the scrap chamber in such a way that an ignitable substoichiometric pyrolysis gas/combustion air mixture is formed in the scrap chamber; and other claimed features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of
claim 11 by Cibaldi under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been presented in this instant office action because (i) the amendment did not resolve all the 112(b) issues raised in the previous office action mailed on 10/30/2025, and (ii) the amendment to claim 11, further raises new issues of clarity under 112(b).
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 MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is
(571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights