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 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 5-8 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 5-8 are amended. Claims 1-4 are cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 5-8 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 5-8.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: “inserting” in line 2 should read “introducing” to match the terminology used in parent claim 5 at line 7
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 5-8 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "configured to be used as corrective substances" in lines 5-6. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the materials must be configured to be used as corrective substances in said melting bath.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reiffel (WO 2007146430 A2, original document supplied with IDS filed 06/02/2023).
Regarding claim 5, Reiffel teaches a method for melting ferrous metals [0003], mill scale (i.e., machining waste) [0003], and scrap and steel [0003]. Reiffel teaches providing a steel container which contributes to the melt (i.e., a closed container made of a material that is compatible with a melting bath) [0008]. Reiffel teaches a melting bath in which said container is placed [0004-0005], where the steel of the container melts in the bath (Fig. 2B, [0011, 0019]). Reiffel teaches said container being configured to contain materials configured to be used as corrective substances in said melting bath [0004], and introducing said corrective substances in said container [0006], so as to obtain a closed container which contains said corrective substances (Fig. 1, [0008]). Reiffel teaches inserting said closed container in said melting bath (Fig. 2A-5B, [0006]), where said closed container is made of a metal that melts in contact with said melting bath, allowing contact of said corrective substances with said melting bath [0011]. Reiffel teaches the melting of the capsules achieves chemical processes (which would comprise a subsequent release of substances) by delaying and/or controlling thermal contact between the highest temperatures and the capsules (where controlling the contact would intrinsically require monitoring the melting of said container in said melting bath and the subsequent release of substances) [0006].
Claims 6-8 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/24/2025. The amendments to claims 6-8 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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 107805685 A, original document provided with IDS filed 06/02/2023, machine translation supplied in Office Action dated 09/24/2025).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches a method for melting ferrous metals [0013], non-ferrous metals [0012, 0029-0030], and scrap steel pipes (i.e., machining waste and scrap and steel) [0013, 0015]. Chen teaches providing a closed container [0011-0012] where the container is made of wood which burns immediately and eliminates risks brought by the sealed container [0019], and steel (the same material as the bath) [0019], thus the container is made of material that is made of a metal that melts in a melting bath, in which said container is to be placed [0030]. Chen teaches said container being configured to contain ferrosilicon powder and aluminum materials which act as deoxidizers of the steel (i.e., materials configured to be used as corrective substances in said melting bath) [0020]. Chen teaches introducing said corrective substances in said container so as to obtain a closed container which contains said corrective substances [0029], and inserting said closed container in said melting bath [0030]. Chen teaches said closed container being made of a metal that melts in contact with said melting bath [0013], allowing contact of said corrective substances with said melting bath [0013]. Chen teaches adding ferrosilicon alloy rods when the liquid level of the steel in the ladle reaches 1/4 of the ladle depth, and stop adding when the steel is tapped to 3/4 of the ladle depth [0030], where as the melting and release of substances in the ladle (i.e., the molten bath) influences the level in the ladle, Chen teaches monitoring melting of said container and a subsequent release of said corrective substances in said melting bath.
Claims 6-8 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/24/2025. The amendments to claims 6-8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a container must be made of a material compatible with the melting bath in which it is places, and that the claimed container ensures products contained therein come into contact with the metal in a semi-liquid state (see pg. 4 of remarks), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the closed container is made of a material compatible with a melting bath and products contained therein come into contact with the metal in a semi-liquid state) 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).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Reiffel does not teach the limitations of claim 5 as amended (see pg. 4-5 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant alleges the closed container of Reiffel is not made of a material compatible with the melting bath. As noted above, the instant claims as amended do not require the closed container be made of a material compatible with a melting bath, and instead only require that the material is made of a metal that melts in the bath. As Reiffel teaches the metal container to melt in the bath (Reiffel: [0011, 0019], Fig. 2B), Reiffel teaches all of the claimed limitations.
While Applicant appears to note the container of Reiffel or the instant application may be desired to ensure that closing of the container can melt to release gases or that he container itself can melt integrally in the melting bath and therefore release its contents into the melting bath, 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.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Chen does not teach the limitations of claim 5 as amended (see pg. 4-5 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant alleges that as Chen is for making metal bars, it has no indication of a process for melting ferrous and non-ferrous metals, scrap, and steel processing waste, however Chen teaches melting ferrous metals in the form of ferrosilicon alloy rods (i.e., ferrous metals) [0013], aluminum material (i.e., non-ferrous metals) [0012, 0029-0030], and scrap steel pipes (i.e., machining waste and scrap and steel) [0013, 0015], thus Chen reads on the limitations of the method as claimed.
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