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 II, claims 22-24 in the reply filed on 6/25/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “142” has been used to designate both a first guiding unit and a second back wall in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 243a and 243b in para. 45. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “not more than 40 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably not more than 35mm” and “more preferably not more than 30 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jansson (SE 538596 C2, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 22. Jansson teaches an arrangement (Fig. 1) for producing a semisolid metal slurry (intended use), comprising:
at least two stirring devices (mixers, P5), each having a first end (P5) and an opposite second end (P5) defining a central axis (Fig. 1) therebetween, and wherein each of the at least two stirring devices comprises a cast metal piece attached onto each first end (P5); and
a stirring apparatus (item 3) arranged for:
inserting the first end of each of the at least two stirring devices into a liquid metal bath such that each cast metal piece is submerged in the liquid metal bath (intended use/functional limitations);
after insertion of the at least two stirring device into the liquid metal bath, simultaneously rotating the at least two stirring devices with the attached cast metal piece around their respective central axis, and thereby rotating said cast metal pieces in the liquid metal bath (intended use/functional limitations);
wherein the rotation is continued at least until a majority of the cast metal pieces are molten, such that a semisolid metal slurry is produced (intended use/functional limitations).
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111. 02.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson.
Jansson teaches that the at least two stirring devices being six, each having a cast metal pieces attached to a first end thereof (P5), but fails to specifically teach being between two and four.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Jansson to employ between two and four stirring devices, since number of stirring devices would determine the amount of slurry being produced.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Hamazoe et al. (JP 3926018 B2, hereinafter Hamazoe).
Jansson teaches further arranged for (intended use) casting in a mould adapted (P5) but fails to specifically teach that the cast metal piece obtains the shape of a cylinder, and wherein a radial thickness of the cylinder is not more than 40 mm, preferably not more than 35 mm, more preferably not more than 30 mm.
The invention of Hamazoe encompasses apparatus for producing semi-solid metal. Hamazoe teaches that the chill can have various different shape (Fig. 8-12, para. 47).
In view of Hamazoe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Jansson in view of Hamazoe to employ the shape of cylinder for the cast metal piece, since one would choose the shape according to desired effects.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Jansson in view of Hamazoe to employ a radial thickness of the cylinder not more than 40 mm, since one would choose the size of the cylinder depending on the amount of slurry produced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights