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. Upon amendment, applicant is cautioned against the introduction of new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Applicant is encouraged to point to the passage in the instant Specification which identifies support for each claim amendment. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 13-24 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. C laim 1 3 recites “by generating” in Line 2 and it is unclear whether this is a positive active method step or part of the intended use in the treatment of a molten aluminum metal for Na removal in a tapping/transport crucible. Appropriate correction is required to properly incorporate a “stirring action” as a positive method step to be taken as part of the claim. There is no introduction of what the method includes or comprises. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 3 recites “ tapping/transport crucible” in Line s 2, 3, 5, and 8, and it is unclear whether this is meant to indicate either a tapping crucible, a transport crucible, a combination, or some other meaning entirely. Claim 16, Claim 19, Claim 20, Claim 21, and Claim 22 recite the same. Appropriate correction is required. Similarly, Claim 17, Claim 19, Claim 21, Claim 23, and Claim 24 recite “the crucible” for which there is a literal lack of antecedent basis in each mention. It is further unclear whether the “tapping/transport crucible” is the same or different from “the crucible.” Appropriate correction is required to set forth a positive component of the claimed method or equipment. Claim 13 recites “electromagnetic coil (EMS) in Lines 4 and 6. Claim 16 recites “EMS coil” in Line 3. Claim 17 recites “EMS coil” in Line 3. Claim 19 recites “electromagnetic coil (EMS)” in Line 3. While there is literal support in the instant Specification for “electromagnetic coil (EMS)” e.g. at Page 4, there is a conflicting recitation, “electro-magnetic stirring (EMS)” e.g. at Page 4. Appropriate correction and consistency of reference is required. It is unclear whether “EMS” indicates a coil or stirring. Claim 13 recites “in vicinity of” in Line 4 and as used, “vicinity” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of “vicinity” are unclear and indefinite. Further, the placement of the phrase “in vicinity of” ahead of the phrase “to generate a stirring action,” renders the stirring an intended use. It must be clearly set forth whether the stirring action of the molten aluminum metal is actually generated by the coil. C laim 13 recites “is adapted to fit a lid” and the term “adapted” as used is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of any shape or changes made to the crucible are unclear. It is further unclear whether an ‘adaptation’ is an active method step. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 recites “where the lid” and it is unclear whether this is meant to indicate a location or a feature of the lid. Appropriate correction is required to set forth any positive active method step as it relates to the lid. Claim 13 recites “sub pressure between 300 – 10 mbar” in Line 10, Claim 14 recites “sub pressure between 200 – 10 mbar” in Line 3, Claim 15 recites “sub pressure between 100 – 10 mbar” in Line 3 , and Claim 19 recites “300 – 10 mbar” in Line 9. It is unclear why the larger value is placed prior to the smaller value as a “sub pressure” has already been established and in the Specification indicates vacuum pressure e.g. at Page 3. Appropriate correction is required to establish proper units of pressure. Claim 13 recites “where Na is removed from said space” in Lines 10-11. This presents the following two issues: It is unclear both the source of Na and why the element is referred to by its symbol instead of fully referenced as sodium. Applicant must clearly set forth the inclusion of sodium as the recitation is removal of sodium from “aluminum metal.” It is unclear from what “space” sodium is removed. “said space” therefore lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 16 recites “to maximize” in Line 4 and this is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of any maximation. Further, the maximization of exposure of volatile components to the sub pressurized space is set forth as an intended use. Applicant is encouraged to recite positive active method steps. Claim 19 recites “arranged adjacent an electromagnetic coil” in Line 3. It is unclear the location or configuration of the electromagnetic coil as it relates to the wall of the claimed equipment. Appropriate correction is required to clearly describe the tangible feature of the claimed equipment. Claim 19 recites “means for tightly adapt to it” in Lines 7-8. This phrase lacks grammar and clarity. It is unclear the tangible feature of the claimed equipment. Regarding Claim 20 , the phrase "such as" in Line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 20 recites “the tapping/transport crucible is made by a mantle wall made out of a non-ferromagnetic material” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear how a crucible is “made by” a single wall. Appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth any tangible feature of the claimed equipment components. Claim 22 recites “a gas connection for connecting to a vacuum pump controlled by a control station” and it is unclear whether the connection to the vacuum pump is a tangible feature of the claimed equipment or an intended use of the gas connection. Claims 17-18, 21, and 23-24 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim. Upon amendment, applicant is cautioned against the introduction of new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Applicant is encouraged to point to the passage in the instant Specification which identifies support for each claim amendment. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: FILLIN "Identify each claim limitation." \d "[ 1 ]" "seal and locking mechanism" in C laim 21 Line 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 13-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011. Regarding Claim s 13 , 14, 15, and 19 , Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches a method and apparatus for treating molten metal in a tapping crucible (Page 3, Translation), the method including generating a stirring action of molten metal, wherein the tapping crucible has a mantle wall of a non-magnetic shell material that allows an electromagnetic field generated by an electromagnetic coil brought in vicinity of said material to generate a stirring action of the molten metal inside the tapping crucible when energizing the electromagnetic coil (Page 1, Translation) . The crucible is adapted to fit a gastight cover (meeting the limitation for a substantial air tight manner ) wherein the lid is provided with a n evacuation conduit (meeting the limitation of the instant claims for “means for continuously evacuating the atmosphere below the lid to a sub pressure between 300 – 10 mbar during stirring ” ) (Page 2, Translation). Karlsson et al. ‘876 does not expressly teach aluminum is the treated metal or that sodium is the impurity removed. However, as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al., sodium is a known impurity element in molten aluminum. Though NPL Zhang et al. teaches refining methods different from those of Karlsson et al. ‘879 and Lefebvre et al. ‘589, NPL Zhang et al. is used strictly to evidence that sodium is a known impurity prior to the addition of a salt-based flux. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove sodium as an impurity of aluminum, a known metal with alkali impurities, using the teachings of the method and apparatus of Karlsson et al. ‘876. Karlsson et al. ‘876 does not expressly teach sodium removal without the application of fluxing agents. However, Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches separating dross from molten aluminum in a tapping furnace and removing dross (meeting the limitation for sodium removal) without the addition of fluxing agents by inducing stirring generated with an electromagnetic coil [0066]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove sodium from an aluminum melt in the method of Karlsson et al. ‘876 without the use of fluxing agents based on the teachings of Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at [0066]. Karlsson et al. ‘876 teaches the degassing of the melt is achieved with an exemplary underpressure of 50 Torr (approximately 66.7 mbar), lying within the instantly claimed ranges of “300-10 mbar,” “200-10 mbar,” and “100-10 mbar,” meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. Notwithstanding the 112(f) claim interpretation above, See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists . In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim s 16 and 17 , Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Lefebvre et al. ‘589 further teaches at ( Abstract ) that the stirring is operated to generate forced convection in the upper part of the melt in the tapping/transport crucible , maximizing the exposure of volatile components to the sub pressurized space , and the highest metal velocity is in the bottom part of the crucible (Fig. 1) . See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio , 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to generate forced convection in the upper part of the melt of Karlsson et al. ‘876 in order to ease the removal of dross based on the teachings of Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at [0011]. Regarding Claim s 20 and 21 , Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at ( Page 2, Translation ) that the container wall (meeting the limitation for the crucible mantle wall) is made out of “a non-magnetic material, for example stainless steel, the lid of which is provided with “a vacuum tight cover,” (Page 2, Translation)(Fig. 3, 19) meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. Regarding Claim 22, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 2, Translation) the lid comprises a gas connection via which the vacuum pressure is controlled and maintained, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Regarding Claim 2 3 , Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 2, Translation) the lid is provided with an evacuation conduit (meeting the limitation for an ejector), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Regarding Claim 24, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above. Karlsson et al. ‘876 further teaches at (Page 3 , Translation) maintaining the entry of new air into the lid (meeting the limitation for a controllable inlet ), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. GB 1112876 A in view of Lefebvre et al. WO 2019157589 A1 as evidenced by NPL Zhang et al. 2011 as applied to Claims 13-17 and 19 -24 above, further in view of Araseki US 20120261262 A1. Regarding Claim 18, Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 teaches the limitations set forth above , including that operation takes place above the melting point of aluminum . However, Karlsson et al. ‘876 and Lefebvre et al. ‘589 do not expressly teach the treatment temperature . Nonetheless , Araseki ‘262 expressly teaches removing non-metallic impurities from an aluminum melt in a crucible via electromagnetic stirring (Abstract) wherein the temperature during treatment is 900 ° C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct the electromagnetic purification of aluminum in the process of Karlsson et al. ‘876 modified by Lefebvre et al. ‘589 at a temperature of 900 °C in order to control the precipitated elements, based on the teachings of Araseki ‘262 at [0043] meeting the limitations of the instant Claim . Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4897115 A teaches removing volatizable metal impurities from an aluminum melt at 900 °C with a vacuum pressure of about 0.01 to 20 mbar. WO 2010094337 A1 teaches a melting device for aluminum and aluminum alloys comprising a melting chamber and electromagnetic stirring. Zhang, Lifeng, et al. "Application of electromagnetic (EM) separation technology to metal refining processes: a review." Metallurgical and materials transactions B 45.6 (2014): 2153-2185. teaches the application of electromagnetic force to metal refining. Hudson, Shaymus W., and Diran Apelian. "Inclusion detection in molten aluminum: current art and new avenues for in situ analysis." International Journal of Metalcasting 10.3 (2016): 289-305. teaches common elemental inclusions in aluminum melts and dross. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2634 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /M.S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1733