Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/258,150

ROTARY DEVICE FOR TREATING MOLTEN METAL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Foseco International Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
941 granted / 1154 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1219
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1154 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 10/30/2024, only with respect to the non-patent literature document, fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the document should be identified as a Chilean office action, not a Columbian office action. Please correct and resubmit. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). Drawings The drawings were received on 06/16/2023. These drawings are accepted. Status of Claims Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15 are currently amended, and Claims 2, 6, and 9 are as originally filed. 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 1-6 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 1 recites “a refractory material more resistant to corrosion and thermal shock” in line 11. It is not clear to what this refractory material is being compared, since “more” implies a different material. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the complementary receiving portion" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the locking portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In Claim 6, it is not clear what applicant intends to recite with the limitation “with chords removed.” Does the rotary device need to represent empty spaces from which chords are removed, or is this a negative limitation with no chords? Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeisser (US 8,281,964 B2) in view of International Syalons. Schmeisser teaches a rotary stirring device as represented below in the annotated drawings: PNG media_image1.png 354 556 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 596 501 media_image2.png Greyscale Inert gas is passed through the driveshaft and the graphite shaft into the metal via the rotor and is dispersed (column 11, lines 49-51). A continuous flow path exists from the source of the gas, through the bore of the shaft and connection piece, through the roof of the rotor, into the chamber, through the inlets, into the passages, and out of the rotor through the outlet (column 7, lines 62-67). Shaft is connected directly to the rotor or indirectly (column 5, lines 43-48). However, Schmeisser does not teach the tubular sleeve or driveshaft is formed from a refractory material as claimed. International Syalons teaches using sialon (silicon alumina nitride) ceramics for rotary degassers (page 2). 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 sialon ceramic for the driveshaft material in Schmeisser, since International Syalons teaches sialon ceramics are uniquely suited to withstand the demanding thermochemical conditions of molten aluminum processing at temperatures exceeding 700 °C (pages 2 and 3). Regarding Claim 2, International Syalons teaches silicon alumina nitride as described above. Regarding Claim 3, Schmeisser teaches the rotor is threaded to the shaft as represented above. Regarding Claim 4, Schmeisser teaches the first end of the graphite shaft is connected to the driveshaft within a housing 182 as represented above in FIG. 15. The second end of the graphite shaft is attached to the rotor as described above with FIG. 3a. Regarding Claim 5, Schmeisser teaches a threaded throughbore with a tubular connection piece (column 7, lines 41-43). Regarding Claim 6, Schmeisser teaches in FIG. 3b a polygonal cross section in the rotor (column 8, lines 2-16). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601024
HETEROSTRUCTURED ANTIMICROBIAL STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601030
METHOD FOR PRODUCING REDUCED FORM OF METAL OXIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590347
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING COLD-ROLLED AND ANNEALED STEEL SHEET WITH A VERY HIGH STRENGTH, AND SHEET THUS PRODUCED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590761
DIRECT FLAME PREHEATING SECTION FOR A CONTINUOUS METAL STRIP PROCESSING LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569897
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, AND PRODUCTION LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month