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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 18, and 24-26 are currently amended, Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20-22 are as previously presented, Clams 5, 7-9, 11, and 19 are canceled, and Claims 14 and 23 are as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markwitz (US 2015/0267272 A1) in view of WO 95/25822 A1 and CN 106907937 A, based on the machine translation of both.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markwitz (US 2015/0267272 A1) in view of WO 95/25822 A1, based on the machine translation.
Markwitz et al teaches a cored wire intended to be injected into a molten metal bath (abstract). The cored wire is fed into the bath of molten metal using an injection device [0008]. The cored wire can be used for nodularization of the cast iron [0076]. At the time of injection of the cored wire into the molten bath, the rise in temperature of magnesium contained in the wire is delayed through slowed heat transfer. The cored wire can therefore be inserted more deeply into the column of liquid iron [0077]. However, Markwitz et al does not teach applying the cored wire through the rotor head of a rotary device as in Claim 1.
WO 95/25822 A1 (WO ‘822) teaches a wire electrode supplied through an impeller tube for treatment of metal, metal alloys or recycling scrap or material (page 10) and as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
810
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The wire electrode contains substances that have an improving effect on the melt (page 7). The melt is supplied with an inert gas through the impeller tube (page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the impeller of WO ‘822 to insert the cored wire of Markwitz et al, since WO ‘822 teaches if the melt is mixed intensely with inductive stirring action, the treated melt is evenly distributed (page 4). However, Markwitz in view of WO ‘822 do not teach the rotor head in WO ‘822 comprises at least one planar surface extending in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the tubular sleeve (rotating impeller tube 12), and a plurality of vanes projecting from the at least one planar surface in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular sleeve as claimed.
CN 106907937 A (CN ‘937) teaches a rotary stirring apparatus with a hollow rotary shaft and a rotary nozzle as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
554
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rotary nozzle of CN ‘937 in the method of Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822, since CN ‘937 teaches good dispersion, fast gas diffusion, and high degassing efficiency [0013].
Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘822 teaches the shaft is hollow, the wire goes through the hollow shaft.
Regarding Claim 10, WO ‘822 teaches adding an inert gas (page 4).
Regarding Claim 12, WO ‘822 teaches feeding the cored wire from the wire electrode supply roll. Markwitz et al teaches the cored wire as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image3.png
410
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Markwitz et al teaches the extruded bar reads on the first treatment agent and an intermediate layer 10 reads on the second treatment agent.
Regarding Claim 15, the second treatment agent is an inoculant [0079].
Regarding Claim 16, Markwitz et al teaches the extruded bar, or first treatment, is heated on a delay [0157]. The second treatment agent is heated first and includes barium [0064].
Regarding Claim 18, Markwitz et al teaches the intermediate layer 10 mostly contains an active substance such as ferrosilicon alloy and a preferred embodiment of up to 12% of calcium, barium, and rare earths [0064]. However, Markwitz et al does not teach away from greater than 12% barium and teaches up to less than 50%. Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123 II.
Regarding Claim 24, Markwitz et al teaches the at least 50% by weight magnesium [0058].
Regarding Claim 25, Markwitz et al teaches ferrosilicon, barium and calcium [0064].
Regarding Claim 26, Markwitz et al teaches at least 90% by weight magnesium [0058], which overlaps the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 2-4, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooper (US 2011/0148012 A1).
Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 does not teach the shaft in WO ‘822 is formed from a material comprising graphite as in Claim 2.
Cooper teaches a device for heating molten metal with a rotor or impeller with a rotor shaft comprised of graphite [0007]. The materials forming the molten metal pump components include structural refractory materials such as graphite or ceramics [0010].
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the impeller shaft in Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 be comprised of graphite and the tubular sleeve to be formed from a refractory material, since Cooper teaches graphite or ceramics that are resistant to disintegration by corrosive attach from the molten metal. Graphite is suitable for pump components because it is soft and relatively easy to machine, not as brittle as ceramics and less prone to breakage, and less expensive than ceramics [0007].
Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘822 teaches a hollow shaft and a wire going through the shaft.
Regarding Claim 18, Markwitz et al teaches as a preferred embodiment 12% by weight of calcium, barium, and rare earth metals, but does not teach away from greater than 12% or at least 30% as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.The active substance is at least 50%, e.g. ferrosilicon [0064]. Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123 II.
Regarding Claim 20, WO ‘822 teaches the impeller wheel, which reads on the “rotor head,” is integrally formed with the impeller tube.
Regarding Claim 21, WO ‘822 teaches a hollow shaft enclosed by the impeller tube, or tubular sleeve with a first end attached to the impeller wheel and the second end attached to the rotating union 28 (page 6). The rotating union reads on an apparatus for rotating the rotary device.
Regarding Claim 22, WO ‘822 teaches an outlet 20.
Regarding Claim 23, WO ‘822 teaches a hollow shaft in communication with the outlets 20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laforet (US 4,164,148).
Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 does not receiving molten iron from a cupola furnace and desulfurizing as claimed. Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 teaches adding magnesium.
Laforet teaches a test to determine the sulfur content of cast iron used for the production of nodular iron (abstract). The cast iron is received from a cupola (column 4, lines 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive the molten iron in Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 from the process taught in Laforet, since Laforet teaches determining the amount of nodularizing inoculant necessary to eliminate flake, non-nodular or non-compacted, carbon from the sample and then determining any deviation in the sulfur content of the sample (column 2, lines 43-48).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Willoughby et al (US 2005/0218568 A1).
Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Though WO ‘822 teaches using an inert gas, Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937 does not teach argon as claimed.
Willoughby et al (US 2005/0218568 A1) teaches injecting a fluid into a metallurgical vessel (abstract). The inert fluid includes argon, and the fluids can be used for iron [0003]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use argon as the inert gas in Markwitz et al in view of WO ‘822 and CN ‘937, since Willoughby et al teaches argon removes undesirable constituents [0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 14, Markwitz et al teaches adding a second metal in the cored wire. Markwitz et al does not suggest adding the second treatment agent adjacent to the rotary device as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the prior art cited in the office action mailed 12/17/2025 does not teach or suggest Claim 1 as presently amended. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above addresses Claim 1 as presently amended.
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 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