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 1-4 and 9-15 in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected rotary device with central aperture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 July 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European patent office on 21 September 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EPO21197933.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 March 2024 and 06 May 2024 were considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2014005560A1 (machine translation) of Janiczkova.
Regarding Claim 1, Janiczkova teaches a device for refining metal melts in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Janiczkova discloses a rotary device which has a cylindrical rotor fastened to a hollow shaft, which is formed by two parallel disks connected to radial partitions, and which has a central cavity open at the bottom and connected at the top to a feed bore in the shaft, channels running from the central cavity, which channels pass through the radial walls of the shaft, Para[0022]. Janiczkova teaches passages between each partition that connect the central cavity to an outlet on the outer surface of the rotor, Para[0010],[Fig. 1A]. Janiczkova discloses radial blades on the lower disk, [Fig. 1A]. Janiczkova also discloses that in the lower disk of the rotor, along the blade flanks, gaps are formed which connect the respective channel to the lower side of the rotor, Para[0025]. Therefore, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the base comprises at least three apertures and at least three radial blades.
Janiczkova teaches four radial partitions resulting in 4 apertures and 4 radial blades, Para[0010], [Fig 1A]. Therefore, Janiczkova teaches the additional limitation of claim 2. Thus, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the radial blades protrude outwardly from the plane of the base.
Janiczkova teaches radial blades that protruded outwardly from the lower disk portion of the rotor, [ref. sign 8 of Fig. 1A]. Therefore, Janiczkova teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Thus, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the radial blades are obliquely angled relative to a plane normal to the axis of rotation, and wherein the radial blades are configured to slow fluid entering the central chamber through the base.
Janiczkova teaches that on the lower side of the rotor there are attached radial arcuate vanes which are directed with their convex side in the direction of rotation, i.e. are bent in the direction of rotation, Para[0040]. Therefore, Janiczkova teaches the additional limitation of claim 4. Thus, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the rotor comprises at least four dividers and at least four passages defined therebetween, or wherein the rotor comprises at least six dividers and at least six passages defined therebetween.
Janiczkova teaches four radial partitions resulting in 4 apertures and 4 radial blades, Para[0010], [Fig 1A]. Therefore, Janiczkova teaches the additional limitation of claim 9. Thus, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 15 further limits claim 1 by claiming a rotor for use in the rotary device of claim 1.
Janiczkova teaches a rotor for a rotary device, Para[0002], [0003]. Therefore, Janiczkova teaches the additional limitation of claim 15. Thus, Janiczkova anticipates all limitations of claim 15.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014005560A1 (machine translation) of Janiczkova in view of US2009071294A1 of Schmeisser.
Claim 10 further limits claim 1 by claiming that each passage comprises a second outlet in the roof of the rotor.
Janiczkova is silent on outlets in the roof of the rotor.
Schmeisser discloses a rotary stirring device for treating molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Schmeisser teaches that the peripheral edge a of the roof of the rotor is provided with a plurality (eight in this embodiment) of part-circular cut-outs. Each cut-out serves as a second outlet for its respective compartment (in this case two cut-outs are provided per compartment), Para[0038], [Fig. 2A]. Schmeisser teaches that during degassing, gas passes down the shaft into the rotor chamber, where it is mixed with molten metal which is drawn upwardly into the chamber. The gas/metal dispersion flows into the compartments via the inlets and exits the rotor laterally through the first outlets and upwardly through the second outlets, Para[0042]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the second outlets on the roof as taught by Schmeisser in the rotor of Janiczkova in order to control the flow of the gas/metal dispersion during degassing. Thus, Janiczkova in view of Schmeisser teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 further limits claim 10 by claiming that each second outlet is a cut-out extending inwardly from the outer periphery of the roof, and optionally wherein the cut-out is part- circular or semi-circular in cross-section.
Janiczkova is silent on outlets in the roof of the rotor.
Schmeisser discloses that conveniently, the cut-outs are part-circular or semi-circular and are preferably arranged symmetrically around the rotor, Para[0014]. Schmeisser teaches that the inventors have found that the combination of laterally directed and upwardly directed outlets allows smaller and more numerous bubbles of gas to be created which results in significantly more efficient degassing and cleaning, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the circular shape of the second outlets as taught by Schmeisser in the rotor disclosed by Janiczkova in order to increase the efficiency of the degassing. Thus, Janiczkova in view of Schmeisser covers all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014005560A1 (machine translation) of Janiczkova in view of US2009071294A1 of Schmeisser as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of JPH08325648A (machine translation) of Nagase.
Claim 12 further limits claim 10 by claiming that an inner surface of the roof comprises a groove extending between the central chamber and at least one second outlet.
Janiczkova discloses protrusions which project into the cavity, Para[0043], [ref. sign 11 of Fig. 6A]. Janiczkova teaches that the protrusions protruding into the cavity mix the gas supplied into the cavity with the melt, thereby promoting generation of the bubbles, Para[0047].
Schmeisser teaches that the peripheral edge a of the roof of the rotor is provided with a plurality (eight in this embodiment) of part-circular cut-outs. Each cut-out serves as a second outlet for its respective compartment (in this case two cut-outs are provided per compartment), Para[0038], [Fig. 2A]. Schmeisser teaches that during degassing, gas passes down the shaft into the rotor chamber, where it is mixed with molten metal which is drawn upwardly into the chamber. The gas/metal dispersion flows into the compartments via the inlets and exits the rotor laterally through the first outlets and upwardly through the second outlets, Para[0042].
Additionally, Nagase teaches a degassing device in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nagase discloses that the bottom surface of the lid portion is fine grooves, as shown in FIG. 4 are provided a number in a direction slightly inclined than the radial, Para[0022], [ref. sign 40 of Fig. 3 and 4]. Nagase discloses that the present invention has been made in view of such conventional drawbacks, and its object is to remove hydrogen gas so as not to cause oxides to molten metal, Para[0005].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protrusions or grooves of Janiczkova and Nagase in the bottom surface of the lid portion connecting the central cavity to the second outlet taught by Schmeisser in order to promote generation of the bubbles, control the flow of the gas/metal dispersion during degassing, and remove hydrogen gas. Thus, Janiczkova, Schmeisser, and Nagase teach all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014005560A1 (machine translation) of Janiczkova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JPH08325648A (machine translation) of Nagase.
Claim 13 further limits claim 1 by claiming that an inner surface of the roof comprises a flow-directing member for channeling gas bubbles in the roof down into the central chamber and towards the base of the rotor.
Janiczkova is silent on a flow-directing member for channeling gas bubble in the roof down into the central chamber.
Nagase discloses that the upper surface of the base portion 62 of the disk member 61 according to this embodiment are joined so as to face the flat bottom surface of the lid 60, between which a number of fine holes 67 are formed. These fine holes 67 communicates the inlet side of the passage 66A of the interior of the cavity and the molten metal guide portion 66 of the hollow body 65. Therefore, the inert gas into the cavity of the hollow body 65 according to this embodiment is fed, when this hollow body portion 65 and the molten metal guide portion 66 is rotated driven about a central axis of the shaft 32 the hollow bodies Below the molten metal from the department 65 is sucked in the molten metal guide portion 66 from the first embodiment similarly to the hole portion 63A, extending outwardly through a passage 66A. Here, since the fine from the hole 67 on the inlet side of the passage 66A of the inert gas bubbles are ejected melt is mixed with fine bubbles forcibly inert gas while passing through the passage 66A. Therefore, hydrogen contained in the molten metal was below the hollow body portion 65 is removed in this passage 66A, Para[0038], [Fig. 7]. Therefore, it would be obvious to include the fine holes on the bottom surface of the lid as taught by Nagase in order to suck the molten metal/gas downwards and towards the central cavity as shown by the arrows in [Fig.7] in order to remove hydrogen from the molten metal. Thus, Janiczkova in view of Nagase covers all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014005560A1 (machine translation) of Janiczkova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE202007013385U1 (machine translation) of Diehl.
Claim 14 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the rotor is made from an isostatic pressed refractory material.
Janiczkova does not specifically teach an isostatic pressed refractory material.
Diehl teaches a rotating stirring device for molten metal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Diehl teaches that the rotor can also be manufactured by isostatic pressing or casting from a suitable material (e.g., tungsten carbide), Para[0027]. Diehl discloses that the rotors of the present invention offer advantages in terms of mixing efficiency in metal treatment and degassing, Para[0128]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an isostatic pressed refractory material of Diehl in the rotary device of Janiczkova in order to increase mixing efficiency in metal treatment and degassing. Thus, Janiczkova in view of Diehl covers all limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 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, Keith 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights