DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 7-13 are currently under review.Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are withdrawn.
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 II, claims 7-14, and the species of claims 8-10 in the replies filed on 6/23/2026 and 7/15/2026, respectively, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the replies filed on 6/23/2026 and 7/15/2026.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional application, Application No. 63/446,762, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Accordingly, these claims do not recite the priority benefit of the provisional application.
The provisional application does not teach that purification is performed for both aluminum and aluminum alloys as recited in claims 7-13.
The provisional application further does not teach any types of stirring devices or impellers as recited in claims 8-11.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2,987,391).
Regarding claim 7, Foster et al. discloses a method of recovering metal from aluminum including elemental aluminum and aluminum alloys, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a method of purifying because metals are being removed from the aluminum [col.1 ln.10-20]. The method of Foster et al. includes steps melting said aluminum in a furnace (which naturally includes a consideration of heating and results in a metal bath) [col.2 ln.55-60, col.6 ln.39-55], in addition to contacting the molten aluminum with a flux material including 15 to 65 weight percent NaCl, 35 to 85 weight percent KCl, and a remainder or specifically 2.5 to 5 weight percent of a fluoride constituent which may be cryolite or aluminum fluoride [col.3 ln.1-30]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the flux component ranges of Foster et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). Foster et al. further teaches that the flux is introduced with a pump, which naturally results in stirring and therefore meets the limitation of a stirring device [col.6 ln.24-40].
Regarding claim 11, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). Foster et al. further teaches melting of the aluminum above 1350 degrees F (approximately 730 degrees C), which overlaps with the claimed range [col.6 ln.24-55]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). The examiner notes that any arbitrary component of the flux material of Foster et al. or a cryolite component, for example, can be considered as a “second flux” which would be entirely capable of achieving the claimed functional language of being “configured to reduce a concentration of a second metal” because one of ordinary skill would readily understand that the flux of Foster serves to remove metals from the aluminum melt.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2,987,391) in view of Eckert (US 5,397,377).
Regarding claims 8-9, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). Foster et al. does not expressly teach a stirring device as claimed. Eckert discloses a process for treating molten metal [abstract]; wherein an impeller device is provided to disperse treatment media (ie. flux) within the molten metal (ie. submergence impeller) to achieve improved fluxing [abstract, col.2 ln.27-40, col.3 ln.10-68]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Foster et al. by utilizing an impeller for dispersing and mixing fluxing agent instead of a pump to achieve improved fluxing as taught by Eckert.
Regarding claim 10, Foster et al. already teaches that flux is introduced and mixed in a side well area (4) [fig.5]. The examiner notes that the combination of Foster et al. and Eckert would suggest substituting or adding the impeller of Eckert to the area (4) of Foster et al., which would result in an impeller located at a side well area as claimed.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2,987,391) in view of Brondyke et al. (US 3,649,247).
Regarding claim 12, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). Foster et al. does not expressly limit an amount of Mg in the aluminum scrap melt as claimed. Brondyke et al. discloses treating aluminum melt from aluminum scrap, wherein said scrap is known to contain Mg in an amount of 1.5 weight percent in a specific embodiment [col.2 ln.74-75]. Said scrap is further treated with a flux to avoid high melt losses [col.1 ln.28-30]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize example scrap material of Brondyke et al. wherein high melt losses can be avoided.
Regarding claim 13, Brondyke et al. further teaches that the flux material can include other components such as Mg2Cl or potassium aluminum fluoride which are known in the art and further avoid high melt losses as taught above. The examiner notes that these additional fluxing components meet the limitation of an additional (ie. second) flux which serves to reduce non-aluminum elements such as Mg, Cu, Mn etc. (ie. second element of the metal bath) [col.1 ln.28 to col.2 ln.4].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2,987,391) in view of Derham et al. (US 3,650,730).
Regarding claim 12, Foster et al. discloses the method of claim 7 (see previous). Foster et al. does not expressly limit an amount of Mg in the aluminum scrap melt as claimed. Derham et al. discloses treating aluminum melt from aluminum scrap, wherein said scrap is known to contain undesirable impurity Mg in an amount of 0.86 weight percent in a specific embodiment which needs to be removed [col.1 ln.6-20, col.4 ln.65-75]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize example scrap material of Derham et al. wherein Mg impurities need to be removed as taught by Derham et al.
Regarding claim 13, Derham et al. further teaches that the flux material can include other components such as cryolite or AlCl3 among others (ie. second flux) which serve to remove Mg (ie. reduce a concentration of a second element) [col.2 ln.70-75, col.4 ln.1-75].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights