Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/569,301

Quick change nozzle system for an atomizer

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Priority
Jun 17, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTIB2021055359
Examiner
ABOAGYE, MICHAEL
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
ArcelorMittal
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
795 granted / 1054 resolved
+10.4% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1088
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1054 resolved cases

Office Action

§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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: I n the specification page 7, para [0042], line 2 “the nozzle assembly 10i” should be “the in-use nozzle assembly 10 i ”. In the specification page 8, para [0044], line 1, it is suggested to replace “The nozzle assembly 10 comprises has a liquid metal inlet 41” with “The nozzle assembly 10 comprises a liquid metal inlet 41”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, lines 6-7, it is suggested to replace “ the nozzle assembly ” with -- the at least one nozzle assembly --. It is further suggested that said replacement be applied to all the remaining claims, where applicable for claim language consistency. In claim 11, lines 1 2 -1 3 , it is suggested to replace “ an actuator designed to move the nozzle assemblies within the support structure in a direction substantially parallel to the liquid metal reservoir opening ” with -- an actuator designed to move the nozzle assembl y within the support structure in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the liquid metal reservoir opening --. Particularly since said opening structurally will define a plurality of directions. In claim 11, lines 14-16, it is suggested to replace “ the support structure being configured in such a way that the nozzle assembly is moveable within the support structure in the direction substantially parallel to the liquid metal reservoir opening ” with -- the support structure being configured in such a way that the nozzle assembly is moveable within the support structure in the direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the liquid metal reservoir opening --. In claim 17, line 2, it is suggested to replace “level or wear” with --degree of wear--. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation " the nozzle assemblies " in line 12 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the term “at least one nozzle assembly” does not necessarily mean a plurality of nozzle assemblies. Claim 15 recites the limitation " each nozzle assembly " in lines 4 and 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly since the base claim requires “at least one nozzle assembly” which does not necessarily mean a plurality of nozzle assemblies Claim 17 recites the limitation " the level " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation " the downward pressure " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Fujita et al. (US Patent No. 4,962,291) is the closest cited prior art that is also drawn to a liquid metal atomizing system. Fujita et al. teaches a system th at comprises a reservoir or a holding vessel (1, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 23-47) for holding molten metal, said reservoir having a bottom opening for exiting the molten metal to be atomized by and atomizing device (4, see figure 1) having an atomizing fluid or gas jetting nozzle (42, see figure 1) to form a metallic spray in an atomizing tower or spraying chamber ( 41, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 23-47) . The system further comprises a support structure in the f orm of a discharging runner (2, see figure 1) that defines a nozzle part (see column 2, lines 23-40) having a liquid metal inlet, a liquid metal outlet and an atomizing fluid outlet, configured in such a way that the liquid metal stream exiting the liquid metal outlet is impinged by the atomizing fluid exiting the atomizing fluid outlet of the atomizing fluid or gas jetting nozzle (42, see figure 1); and a sliding gate (22, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 23-40) that is movable by a control device (23, see figures 1&7 and column 2, lines 23-40) to control the flow of molten metal through the nozzle portion of the support structure . Yoshino et al. is not particularly directed to an atomization system, however relevant to the instant claimed invention because Yoshino et al. teaches a nozzle change equipment for a submerge nozzle (5, see figures and abstract) of a tundish (1, see figure 1 and abstract) used for allowing molten metal flow from the tundish to a continuous casting apparatus (see column 1, lines 5-25), the nozzle change equipment comprising a pushing cylinder (30 , see figure 1, abstract and claim 1) for slidable pushing an old submerged nozzle (5) in a horizontal direction from a position corresponding to a molten metal discharge opening of a slide valve to cause a new submerge nozzle (51, see abstract and figure s 1, 5A to 5C) to replace and assume the position of the old under the tundish (see abstract , column 1, line 49-column 2, line 9 and claim 1). Fujita et al. and Yoshino et al. either considered individually or as combined however differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest a nozzle change equipment that comprises: at least a support structure within which a nozzle assembly is mounted ; an actuator designed to move the nozzle assembl y within the support structure in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of a liquid metal reservoir opening , and the support structure being configured in such a way that the nozzle assembly is moveable within the support structure in the direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the liquid metal reservoir opening ; and other claimed features. The improvement of the instant claimed invention over the prior art is that the movement of the nozzle by the actuator for chang ing an of nozzle assembly for a new nozzle assembly during production can be performed in a very short time, for example in less than 5 seconds, and as such the liquid metal flow will be hardly disrupted, and the productivity loss associated to the nozzle change will be very small. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller et al. (US 5,289,975) is also cited in PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8165 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30AM-5:00PM . 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. /M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12612677
EQUIPMENT AND METHOD FOR LEACHING COPPER, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTROLYTIC COPPER USING SAID EQUIPMENT AND METHOD
3y 6m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12601022
METHOD FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY INJECTING A FUEL GAS AND AN OXYGEN-RICH GAS INTO A UNIT
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595524
INDUCTION HARDENING SYSTEM
3y 3m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595529
Alkaline Oxidation Methods and Systems for Recovery of Metals from Ores
1y 11m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589431
INTELLIGENT TEMPERATURE CONTROL METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIE-CASTING DIE
1y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.3%)
2y 11m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1054 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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