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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/08/2024 (no copies of the documents mentioned in the other documents section have been provided) fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NOTE: In the remarks filed on 10/16/2025, the applicant has stated that copies of the aforementioned documents have been provided in the parent application 17/826,111. However, upon reviewing the file wrapper of this parent application, it appears that only the 1st entry in the Other Documents section of the IDS filed on 10/08/2024 has been provided in the parent application. There appears to be no copies of the other six documents cited in this section either in this application or in the parent application. The applicant is requested to file copies of these documents or contact the examiner to exactly point out where these documents can be located in either file wrapper.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is recommended that the word “the” be added prior to the phrase “connecting points” in order to establish antecedent basis (similar to the amendment in claim 5). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is also objected to as it depends on claim 4.
In claim 17 the phrase “larger than of the lower stage conduit” is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected.
Double Patenting
NOTE: In the remarks filed on 10/16/2025, the applicant has stated that a terminal disclaimer has been filed to obviate these double patenting rejections presented below. However, no such terminal disclaimer appears to have been received. The applicant is requested to file this terminal disclaimer to expedite prosecution.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,508. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims disclose substantially the same subject matter as the instant claims. Additionally, the patent claims are narrower in scope than the instant claims and so anticipate every limitation of the instant claims, as mapped in the table presented below.
US 18/909,191
US 12,146,508
1
1
2
10
6
15
7
16
10
2
11
3
12
4
13
5
14
6
15
7
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) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper (US 2014/0263482).Regarding Claim 16:In Figures 1-3, Cooper discloses a device for pumping molten metal (10 for pumping molten metal, see abstract), the device comprising: (a) a pump (200) configured for pumping molten metal (see paragraph [0034]), wherein the pump comprises (i) a motor (210), (ii) a shaft (214) having a first end (end at coupling 216) connected to the motor (see paragraph [0031]), and a second end (lower end of 218) connected to a rotor (300), wherein the rotor (300) is configured to push molten metal upwards (see paragraph [0034]); and (b) a riser (120) comprising an inlet (136), an outlet (140) above the inlet (as seen in Figure 3), and a two-stage inner conduit (conduit in 120) comprising an upper stage conduit (134, 140) and a lower stage conduit (132, 136) beneath the upper stage conduit, wherein the upper stage conduit comprises an upper stage conduit cross-sectional area of a channel (cross-sectional area depicted as AC1 of a channel C1 in annotated Figure A below) of the upper stage conduit, wherein the lower stage conduit comprises a lower stage conduit cross-sectional area of a channel (cross-sectional area depicted as AC1 of a channel C2 in annotated Figure A below) of the lower stage conduit, wherein the upper stage conduit cross-sectional area (AC1) is larger than the lower stage conduit cross-sectional area (as seen in annotated Figure A below, AC1 > AC2).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20:In Figures 1-3, Cooper discloses the device, wherein the two-stage inner conduit comprises a transition (between 132 and 134) from the lower stage conduit to the upper stage conduit (see Figure 3).
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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2014/0263482).Regarding Claims 17-18:Cooper is silent regarding the exact dimensions of the cross-sectional area of the inlet (136) and the lower stage conduit cross-sectional area (AC2). It is noted that in Figure 3, the cross-sectional area of the inlet (136) appears to be larger than the lower stage conduit cross-sectional area (AC2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the cross-sectional area of the inlet (136) to be 5% to 50% larger than the lower stage conduit cross-section area (AC2) (per claims 17 and 18), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the arguments related to the cross-sectional areas of the channels formed in the conduit, the examiner has remapped the rejections and provided annotated Figure A above amend the rejection to reflect the newly added limitations. In light of these changes, these arguments are not persuasive. Further arguments regarding other rejections and objections have been addressed in their respective sections above. It is also noted that the original specification and even the parent application makes no mention of the limitation: “the upper stage conduit cross-sectional area is larger than the lower stage conduit cross-sectional area.” In contrast, the specification and parent application only disclose the following: “[0047] As shown, the cross-sectional area of lower stage 302 is greater than the cross-sectional area of upper stage 310, although any suitable cross-sectional area for lower stage 302 and upper stage 310 may be utilized.” This is clearly opposite of what is claimed in claims 1, 16 and 19 since the sizes of the cross-sectional areas of the upper stage and the lower stage are interchanged in these claims versus what is disclosed in the specification. This indicates that there appears to be no clear criticality to the specific sizes of these conduits. Therefore, any variation of this limitation mentioning cross-sectional areas would generally be rendered obvious by change in size (for instance similar to the rejections of claims 17-18). The applicant is requested to add the inventive feature of the plurality of lobes extending from and connected to a circular center to all independent claims in order to expedite prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 10-15 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections mentioned above are resolved.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “the conduit comprises a cross-section comprising a circular center and a plurality of lobes extending from and connected to the circular center.” A substantially similar limitation was allowed in parent application 17/826,111 due to the reasons presented in the notice of allowanced dated 7/8/2024. Hence, these claims are also allowable for the same reasons since the novel and unique feature of this claim is the claimed shape of the conduit which aids in reduction of the formation of a vortex in the pumped molten metal.
Thut (US 20060180963) discloses a similar device (10, 20) wherein a riser (10) comprises a conduit (conduit within 12, see Figures 1-3) comprising a circular center (40) with a single annular lobe (38) that is connected to this circular center (as seen in Figure 3). However, this lobe (38) is a singular lobe and also Thut mentions that this lobe (38) is used to enhance the vortex flow (see paragraph [0050]). Hence, Thut fails to mention a plurality of lobes and modifying this lobe to be formed of a plurality of lobes would potentially hinder its function of enhancing vortex flow.
Claims 3 and 8-9 would be allowable since they depend on allowable claim 1.
Claims 4-5 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5 are dependent on claim 1 and so are allowable for the same reasons presented above.
Claim 19 is also allowed since it has a similar limitation as the one mentioned above with respect to claim 1. Claim 19 has not been rejected under double patenting because the arrangement of the claimed cross-sectional areas is opposite the arrangement claimed in the patent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746