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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-16 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 16 is/are amended. Claim(s) 6-7 and 17-37 is/are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “light hydrocarbons that are different than the hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis off-gas” in lines 3-4. The instant specification discloses “the chemically reducing co-utilizes a reducing gas obtained from gasification, partial oxidation, or steam reforming of light hydrocarbons” (instant specification: [0031]), however the instant specification does not disclose that the hydrocarbons themselves of the light hydrocarbon are different than the hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis off-gas, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "light hydrocarbons that are different than the hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis off-gas" in lines 3-4. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if “hydrocarbons that are different” requires that the hydrocarbons have different chemical formulae (e.g., CH4 vs. C2H6), or if the hydrocarbons must merely be obtained from a different source than the pyrolysis off-gas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen et al. (US 20120285080 A1, listed in IDS filed 13 December 2021) in view of Claflin (US 3928023 A, cited in Office Action dated 03/06/2023), Ogorzaly (US 2742353 A, cited in Office Action dated 02/23/2026), and Metius (US 8685136 B2, cited in Office Action dated 03/06/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Despen teaches high-carbon biogenic reagents and uses thereof (Title), where carbon containing biomass is pyrolyzed to generate pyrolyzed solids, and condensable vapors and non-condensable gases [0012-0019], where a high carbon biogenic reagent is recovered comprising at least a portion of the pyrolyzed solids (i.e., providing a biomass feedstock pyrolyzing the biomass feedstock, thereby generating a biogenic reagent and a pyrolysis off-gas) [0019]. Despen teaches wherein the biogenic reagent comprises carbon [0071] and that the pyrolysis produces non-condensable gases, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane (i.e., wherein the pyrolysis offgas comprises hydrogen or carbon monoxide) [0372]. Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent may be used as a carbon-based taconite pellet addition product [0565], where taconite (which comprises iron oxides hematite and magnetite) is ground into a fine powder and pelletized for use in iron or steelmaking (i.e., obtaining a metal ore, wherein the metal ore comprises a metal oxide and the metal ore is in particulate form) [0565-0567]. Despen teaches the pellets may be combined with the high-carbon biogenic reagent when charged to a furnace, or the reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the pelletizing (i.e., combining the carbon with the metal ore, thereby generating a carbon-metal ore particulate) [0566-0567]. Despen teaches the pellets may be processed in a blast furnace to produce iron [0567], where the reaction of iron oxides to form iron is a reduction reaction (i.e., a process for reducing a metal ore, chemically reducing the metal oxide).
Despen does not teach wherein the chemically reducing is achieved using the pyrolysis off-gas.
Claflin teaches a method of treating off gases from iron processes (Title), where a blast furnace is charged with burden made up of metal bearing materials such as pellets, and limestone and coke, where metal oxides are reduced to metallic form (Col. 11 lines 28-31), where the metal oxide may be iron oxide (Col. 1 lines 45-46) therefore, Despen and Claflin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes involving production of iron in blast furnaces. Claflin teaches in addition to reducing gas produced in the furnace from blasting air or oxygen enriched air into the furnace and reacting with the furnace burden coke and auxiliary fuels such as natural gas, coke, coal, or fuel oil (Col. 5 lines 38-59), reducing gas is added to the blast furnace (Col. 6 lines 22-29), which reduces the amount of coke and limestone needed to reduce the metal (Col. 7 lines 2-4, Col. 12 lines 3-5), as much of the heat required is derived from other sources (Col. 8 lines 36-44). Claflin teaches the introduction of reducing gas in second and third zones also results in greater reduction of the iron ore than in usual blast furnace operation (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 4). Claflin teaches the reducing gas introduced into the second and third zones are CO and H2 (Col. 9 lines 22-36).
Claflin teaches a gas converter 54 which reduces CO2 and H2O in off gases to CO and H2 reducing gases respectively, which are injected into the blast furnace 45 (Col. 7 lines 53-64, Col. 9 lines 28-36, Fig. 2), where the converter may receive gases containing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor (Col. 7 line 64 Col. 8 line 3). Claflin teaches the converter may also receive off gases from other unit operations, such as a basic oxygen furnace (Col. 10 lines 53-61).
Because Despen is silent with respect to a suitable blast furnace to utilize the taconite pellets produced, in order to carry out the invention of Despen one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a blast furnace suitable for use within the process of Despen, such as the blast furnace capable of charging with pellets taught by Claflin.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the pyrolysis off-gas generated during by Despen to the gas converter of Claflin to convert CO2 in the pyrolysis gas into CO reducing gas which is fed to the blast furnace, as Claflin teaches the converter is suited to receive off gases from other unit operations, and as Claflin teaches introducing CO and H2 reducing gases produced from outside the blast furnace to achieve greater reduction of metal and reduces the amount of carbonaceous material and limestone needed to operate the blast furnace, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity and amount of iron produced, and decrease the cost of carbonaceous material and limestone, reducing costs and improving profitability of the process.
Despen teaches the process may further include thermal oxidation (i.e., combustion) of at least a portion of the condensable and non-condensable vapors with an oxygen-containing gas [0032], and the pyrolysis produces non-condensable gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) [0372], but does not teach wherein the chemically reducing indirectly utilizes the pyrolysis off-gas by first partially oxidizing the pyrolysis off-gas, thereby generating a reducing gas.
Metius teaches a system and method for reducing iron oxide to metallic iron using coke oven gas and oxygen steelmaking furnace gases (Title) where COG (coke oven gas) comprising CO and H2, as well as CH4 and other complex hydrocarbons, is processed by partial combustion (partial oxidizing) to convert the CH4 and other complex hydrocarbons into CO and H2, where the processed gas can be added to a reducing gas stream for reducing iron oxide in a furnace (Col. 1 lines 42-48, Col. 2 lines 7-18). Therefore, Despen and Metius are analogous to the instant application as both relate to combustion of gas mixtures containing CO, H2, CH4, and other hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed partial oxidation to form CO and H2 from CH4 and complex hydrocarbons as taught by Metius on at least a portion of the non-condensable vapors (i.e., the pyrolysis off-gas) comprising CH4 of Despen before introducing them to the converter of the blast furnace of Claflin, as doing so would produce more CO and H2 reducing gases (i.e., a first reducing gas) which can be used to reduce iron oxide as taught by Metius, predictably increasing how much of the iron ore is reduced in the furnace.
Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagents may be partially oxidized or steam-reformed to produce syngas (a mixture of CO and H2) (partial oxidation or steam reforming of the biogenic reagent; [0550]), or utilized for their reactive properties during metal refining such as for reduction of metal oxide [0550], but does not teach wherein the syngas is co-utilized in the chemical reducing in a blast furnace.
Claflin teaches using a mixture of CO and H2 as reducing gases in the second and third zones of the blast furnace (Col. 6 line 65 - Col. 7 line 4, Col. 9 lines 22-36), which reduces the amount of coke and limestone needed to reduce the metal (Col. 7 lines 2-4, Col. 12 lines 3-5), as much of the heat required is derived from other sources (Col. 8 lines 36-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have partially oxidized or steam reformed high-carbon biogenic reagent of Despen to produce additional CO and H2 (i.e., a second reducing gas) to add to the blast furnace as taught by Claflin, as doing so would supply additional reducing gas and further prevent premature melting of iron oxide by maintaining a low flame temperature, reducing the amount of carbonaceous material and limestone needed to operate the blast furnace, further reducing cost of those reagents and improving the purity and amount of the iron ore reduced.
Claflin teaches the use of carbonaceous reducing agent in the gas converter (Col. 9 lines 30-31), such as non-coking coal (Col. 10 lines 39-40), but does not teach which carbonaceous reducing agents may be used besides non-coking coal.
Ogorzaly teaches an iron ore reduction process (Title), where iron ore is reduced by burning carbonaceous material to produce reducing gas and heat for the reaction (Col. 1 lines 15-21), where the gas from the reduction zone corresponds to blast furnace gas (Col. 4 lines 9-10), thus Ogorzaly and Despen are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of reducing metal ore using reducing gases from carbonaceous material. Ogorzaly teaches the carbonaceous material may be coal, coke, or lignite (Col. 1 lines 70-71), or petroleum coke, charcoal, or peat (Col. 1 line 71).
Because Despen in view of Claflin is silent with respect to which carbonaceous material may be used in the gas converter besides non-coking coal, in order to carry out the invention of Claflin one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching carbonaceous reducing agents suitable for use within the process of Claflin, such as those of petroleum coke, charcoal, or peat taught by Ogorzaly. As Claflin and Ogorzaly both relate to carbonaceous materials used to produce reducing gases, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the carbonaceous materials of Ogorzaly. As petroleum coke, charcoal, and peat are not coal, Despen in view of Ogorzaly teaches wherein the process does not utilize coal.
Regarding claim 2, Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the creation of taconite pellets (comprising pelletizing the carbon-metal ore particulate, thereby generating a carbon-metal ore pellet; [0566-0567]).
Regarding claim 3, Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent contains at least 90 wt % or at least 95 wt % fixed carbon on a dry basis [0071].
Regarding claim 4, Despen teaches the producing pellets comprising the high-carbon biogenic reagent and taconite (which comprises hematite and magnetite) (wherein the metal ore is iron ore; [0565-0567]).
Regarding claim 5, Despen teaches the taconite pellets may be combined with the high-carbon biogenic reagent when charged to a furnace (wherein the carbon-metal ore particulate is a carbon-metal ore fine), or the reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the pelletizing, resulting in a pellet of iron ore and high-carbon biogenic reagent (or a carbon-metal ore lump; [0566-0567]).
Regarding claim 8, Despen does not teach wherein the chemically reducing co-utilizes a reducing gas obtained from gasification, partial oxidation, or steam reforming of light hydrocarbons.
Claflin teaches that auxiliary fuels such as natural gas (i.e., light hydrocarbons not derived from coal) are added to the blast furnace in the primary zone (Claflin: Col. 5 lines 45-50), and that gaseous hydrocarbons form CO and H2 therein (Claflin: Col. 6 lines 27-28), known reducing gases which partake in reducing the iron oxides (wherein the chemically reducing co-utilizes a third reducing gas made from light hydrocarbons; Col. 4 lines 53-61). The Examiner notes as CO is produced from incomplete combustion of fuels when there is a stoichiometric excess of fuel relative to the amount of oxygen (i.e. partial oxidation), the light hydrocarbons are partially oxidized to form the reducing gases in the primary zone. Claflin teaches adding auxiliary gases helps replace reducing gas lost and reduce the flame temperature (Col. 3 lines 62-67), where increases in flame temperature can cause premature melting of iron oxide, increasing coke usage (Col. 4 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added natural gas as an auxiliary fuel as taught by Claflin to the blast furnace of Despen as doing so would partially oxidize the auxiliary fuel to supply additional reducing gas and help prevent premature melting of iron oxide by maintaining a low flame temperature, lowering coke usage.
Regarding claim 11, Despen teaches high-carbon biogenic reagents and uses thereof (Title), where carbon containing biomass is pyrolyzed to generate pyrolyzed solids, and condensable vapors and non-condensable gases [0012-0019], where a high carbon biogenic reagent is recovered comprising at least a portion of the pyrolyzed solids (providing a biomass feedstock pyrolyzing the biomass feedstock, thereby generating a biogenic reagent and a pyrolysis off-gas; [0019]). Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent may contain at least 55 wt % carbon on a dry basis, such as at least 55 wt. %, 60 wt. %, 65 wt. %, 70 wt. %, 75 wt. %, 80 wt %, 90 wt %, 95 wt %, or more carbon on a dry basis (wherein the biogenic reagent comprises carbon; [0071]) and that the pyrolysis produces non-condensable gases, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) (wherein the pyrolysis off-gas comprises hydrocarbons; [0372]). Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent may be used as a carbon-based taconite pellet addition product [0565], where taconite (which comprises iron oxides hematite and magnetite) is ground into a fine powder and pelletized for use in iron or steelmaking (obtaining a metal ore, wherein the metal ore comprises a metal oxide and the metal ore is in particulate form; [0565-0567]). Despen teaches the pellets may be combined with the high-carbon biogenic reagent when charged to a furnace, or the reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the pelletizing (combining the carbon with the metal ore, thereby generating a carbon-metal ore particulate; [0566-0567]). Despen teaches the pellets may be processed in a blast furnace to produce iron [0567], where the reaction of iron oxides to form iron is a reduction reaction (process for reducing a metal ore, chemically reducing the metal oxide). Despen teaches the process may further include thermal oxidation of at least a portion of the non-condensable vapors with an oxygen-containing gas, where heat produced from the thermal oxidation may be utilized, at least in part, for drying the feedstock or to heat a substantially inert gas before entering one of the zones or reactors, such as the pyrolysis zone (oxidizing the pyrolysis gas, thereby generating heat [0032]). As Despen uses the heat produced to heat gas before it is introduced to the pyrolysis reactors, the heat produced from pyrolysis makes up some of the heat needed for the pyrolysis steps, reading on wherein the pyrolyzing uses the heat.
Despen does not teach pyrolysis of the non-condensable vapor to be partial, or wherein a reducing gas is generated by partial oxidation which achieves the chemically reducing.
Claflin teaches a method of treating off gases from iron processes (Title), where a blast furnace is charged with burden made up of metal bearing materials such as pellets, and limestone and coke, where metal oxides are reduced to metallic form (Col. 11 lines 28-31), where the metal oxide may be iron oxide (Col. 1 lines 45-46) therefore, Despen and Claflin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes involving production of iron in blast furnaces. Claflin teaches in addition to reducing gas produced in the furnace from blasting air or oxygen enriched air into the furnace and reacting with the furnace burden coke and auxiliary fuels such as natural gas, coke, coal, or fuel oil (Col. 5 lines 38-59), reducing gas is added to the blast furnace (Col. 6 lines 22-29), which reduces the amount of coke and limestone needed to reduce the metal (Col. 7 lines 2-4, Col. 12 lines 3-5), as much of the heat required is derived from other sources (Col. 8 lines 36-44). Claflin teaches the introduction of reducing gas in second and third zones also results in greater reduction of the iron ore than in usual blast furnace operation (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 4). Claflin teaches the reducing gas introduced into the second and third zones are CO and H2 (Col. 9 lines 22-36).
Claflin teaches a gas converter 54 which reduces CO2 and H2O in off gases to CO and H2 reducing gases respectively, which are injected into the blast furnace 45 (Col. 7 lines 53-64, Col. 9 lines 28-36, Fig. 2), where the converter may receive gases containing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor (Col. 7 line 64 Col. 8 line 3). Claflin teaches the converter may also receive off gases from other unit operations, such as a basic oxygen furnace (Col. 10 lines 53-61).
Because Despen is silent with respect to a suitable blast furnace to utilize the taconite pellets produced, in order to carry out the invention of Despen one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a blast furnace suitable for use within the process of Despen, such as the blast furnace capable of charging with pellets taught by Claflin.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the pyrolysis off-gas generated during by Despen to the gas converter of Claflin to convert CO2 in the pyrolysis gas into CO reducing gas which are fed to the blast furnace, as Claflin teaches the converter is suited to receive off gases from other unit operations, and as Claflin teaches introducing CO and H2 reducing gases produced from outside the blast furnace to achieve greater reduction of metal and reduces the amount of carbonaceous material and limestone needed to operate the blast furnace, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity and amount of iron produced, and decrease the cost of carbonaceous material and limestone, reducing costs and improving profitability of the process.
Despen teaches does not teach partial oxidizing of pyrolysis off-gas, or wherein a reducing gas is generated by the partial oxidation which achieves the chemically reducing.
Metius teaches a system and method for reducing iron oxide to metallic iron using coke oven gas and oxygen steelmaking furnace gases (Title) where COG (coke oven gas) comprising CO and H2, as well as CH4 and other complex hydrocarbons, is processed by partial combustion (partial oxidizing) to convert the CH4 and other complex hydrocarbons into CO and H2, where the processed gas can be added to a reducing gas stream for reducing iron oxide in a furnace (Col. 1 lines 42-48, Col. 2 lines 7-18). Therefore, Despen and Metius are analogous to the instant application as both relate to combustion of gas mixtures containing CO, H2, CH4, and other hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed partial oxidation to form CO and H2 from CH4 and complex hydrocarbons as taught by Metius on at least a portion of the non-condensable vapors (i.e., the pyrolysis off-gas) comprising CH4 of Despen before introducing them to the converter of the blast furnace of Claflin, as doing so would produce more CO and H2 reducing gases (i.e., a first reducing gas) which can be used to reduce iron oxide as taught by Metius, predictably increasing how much of the iron ore is reduced in the furnace.
Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagents may be partially oxidized or steam-reformed to produce syngas (a mixture of CO and H2) (partial oxidation or steam reforming of the biogenic reagent; [0550]), or utilized for their reactive properties during metal refining such as for reduction of metal oxide [0550], but does not teach wherein the syngas is co-utilized in the chemical reducing in a blast furnace.
Claflin teaches using a mixture of CO and H2 as reducing gases in the second and third zones of the blast furnace (Col. 6 line 65 - Col. 7 line 4, Col. 9 lines 22-36), which reduces the amount of coke and limestone needed to reduce the metal (Col. 7 lines 2-4, Col. 12 lines 3-5), as much of the heat required is derived from other sources (Col. 8 lines 36-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have partially oxidized or steam reformed high-carbon biogenic reagent of Despen to produce additional CO and H2 (i.e., a second reducing gas) to add to the blast furnace as taught by Claflin, as doing so would supply additional reducing gas and further prevent premature melting of iron oxide by maintaining a low flame temperature, reducing the amount of carbonaceous material and limestone needed to operate the blast furnace, further reducing cost of those reagents and improving the purity and amount of the iron ore reduced.
Claflin teaches the use of carbonaceous reducing agent in the gas converter (Col. 9 lines 30-31), such as non-coking coal (Col. 10 lines 39-40), but does not teach which carbonaceous reducing agents may be used besides non-coking coal.
Ogorzaly teaches an iron ore reduction process (Title), where iron ore is reduced by burning carbonaceous material to produce reducing gas and heat for the reaction (Col. 1 lines 15-21), where the gas from the reduction zone corresponds to blast furnace gas (Col. 4 lines 9-10), thus Ogorzaly and Despen are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of reducing metal ore using reducing gases from carbonaceous material. Ogorzaly teaches the carbonaceous material may be coal, coke, or lignite (Col. 1 lines 70-71), or petroleum coke, charcoal, or peat (Col. 1 line 71).
Because Despen in view of Claflin is silent with respect to which carbonaceous material may be used in the gas converter besides non-coking coal, in order to carry out the invention of Claflin one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching carbonaceous reducing agents suitable for use within the process of Claflin, such as those of petroleum coke, charcoal, or peat taught by Ogorzaly. As Claflin and Ogorzaly both relate to carbonaceous materials used to produce reducing gases, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the carbonaceous materials of Ogorzaly. As petroleum coke, charcoal, and peat are not coal, Despen in view of Ogorzaly teaches wherein the process does not utilize coal.
Regarding claim 12, Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the creation of taconite pellets (comprising pelletizing the carbon-metal ore particulate, thereby generating a carbon-metal ore pellet; [0566-0567]).
Regarding claim 13, Despen teaches the high-carbon biogenic reagent contains at least 90 wt % or at least 95 wt % fixed carbon on a dry basis [0071].
Regarding claim 14, Despen teaches the producing pellets comprising the high-carbon biogenic reagent and taconite (which comprises hematite and magnetite) (wherein the metal ore is iron ore; [0565-0567]).
Regarding claim 15, Despen teaches the taconite pellets may be combined with the high-carbon biogenic reagent when charged to a furnace (wherein the carbon-metal ore particulate is a carbon-metal ore fine), or the reagent may be incorporated with the iron ore during the pelletizing, resulting in a pellet of iron ore and high-carbon biogenic reagent (or a carbon-metal ore lump; [0566-0567]).
Regarding claim 16, Despen does not teach wherein the chemically reducing co-utilizes a third reducing gas obtained from gasification, partial oxidation, or steam reforming of light hydrocarbons different than the hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis gas.
Claflin teaches that auxiliary fuels such as natural gas (i.e., light hydrocarbon) are added to the blast furnace in the primary zone (Claflin: Col. 5 lines 45-50), and that gaseous hydrocarbons form CO and H2 therein (Claflin: Col. 6 lines 27-28), known reducing gases which partake in reducing the iron oxides (wherein the chemically reducing co-utilizes a third reducing gas made from light hydrocarbons; Col. 4 lines 53-61). As natural gas is not a pyrolysis off-gas, Claflin teaches light hydrocarbons that are different than the hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis gas as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claim 16 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) above. As CO is produced from incomplete combustion of fuels when there is a stoichiometric excess of fuel relative to the amount of oxygen (i.e. partial oxidation), the light hydrocarbons are partially oxidized to form the reducing gases in the primary zone. Claflin teaches adding auxiliary gases helps replace reducing gas lost and reduce the flame temperature (Col. 3 lines 62-67), where increases in flame temperature can cause premature melting of iron oxide, increasing coke usage (Col. 4 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added natural gas as an auxiliary fuel as taught by Claflin to the blast furnace of Despen as doing so would partially oxidize the auxiliary fuel to supply additional reducing gas and help prevent premature melting of iron oxide by maintaining a low flame temperature, lowering coke usage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Claflin, Metius, and Ogorzaly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mahony (US 3235374 A, cited in Office Action mailed 03/06/2023).
Regarding claim 9, Despen does not teach wherein the process is co-located at a metal ore mine or at a metal ore processing plant.
Mahony teaches a system and process for the direct reduction of iron ore (Title), where to reduce costs of transporting low-grade iron ores, iron ore may be beneficiated by reducing at the mine site to increase the iron content (Col. 1 lines 17-35), as the mass and volume of the commodity produced is reduced by converting iron oxides into reduced iron and by separating gangue materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located the process of Despen at the site of the iron ore mine as taught by Mahony, as doing so would reduce transportation costs as iron ore is reduced to iron at the mine site rather than transported to a separate site to undergo reduction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Claflin, Metius, and Ogorzaly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugitatsu (US 6797034 B2, cited in Office Action dated 03/06/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Despen does not teach wherein the pyrolyzing and the chemically reducing are conducted at the same site.
Sugitatsu teaches a method of producing reduced metals and apparatus for reducing metal oxides (Title), where organic matter containing component is carbonized (pyrolyzed) to form a carbide containing component and a dry-distilled gas (Col. 4 lines 25-43), where the dry-distilled gas is used to heat a rotary hearth used to reduce an agglomerate of metal oxide and reducing agent (chemically reducing; Col. 4 lines 18-24), where the organic material may also include metal oxide to use the carbide containing component as a reducing agent in the furnace (Col. 7 lines 55-62). Sugitatsu teaches the organic matter-containing component used may be wood or resin (Col. 6 lines 4-8). As Sugitatsu shows all of the process equipment together in the figures depicting both embodiments (Fig. 1-2), and does not anywhere suggest that the unit operations be placed in different facilities, one of ordinary skill would recognize the pyrolyzing and the chemically reducing are conducted at the same site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the pyrolyzing and chemical reducing of Despen at the same location as taught by Sugitatsu, as doing so would predictably reduce costs of transporting non-condensable vapors from the pyrolysis process to the chemical reducing where they are used, and minimize loss of heat energy from the non-condensable vapors (where retaining heat in the vapors would be desired as it would reduce the heating duty of operating the blast furnace). Despen and Sugitatsu are analogous as both are directed to processes for pyrolyzing biomass and using products from such in an iron reducing process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that dependent claim 7 does not appear to be specifically rejected in the Office Action dated 02/23/2026, and that none of the references teach or suggest chemically reducing wherein the chemically reducing is achieved by utilizing first and second reducing gases (see pg. 7 of remarks), the Examiner notes that claim 7 was rejected under the same rejection as originally set forth in the Office Action dated 03/06/2023, where Despen in view of Claflin teaches all of the features of former claim 7 now incorporated into claim 1 as amended. For clarity of the record, all currently applicable rejections are written out in their entirety in this Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Claflin utilizes coal to generate reducing gases, and therefore could not have suggested co-utilizing a second reducing gas (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted by Applicant, Claflin and Metius teach generating reducing gases (CO and H2) from coke derived from coal and applying them to reduce iron ore to metallic iron. Despen, however, already teaches that the biogenic reagent may be partially oxidized or steam reformed to produce syngas (a mixture of CO and H2), and that iron may be produced in a blast furnace according to the process. Therefore Claflin is relied upon to suggest after partially oxidizing or steam reforming the biogenic reagent to form CO and H2 reducing gases according to Despen, then using the CO and H2 reducing gases produced from the partial oxidizing or steam reforming of the biogenic reagent for reducing iron ore to metallic iron in the blast furnace as taught by Claflin, as doing so is taught by Claflin to supply additional reducing gas and further prevent premature melting of iron oxide by maintaining a low flame temperature, reducing the amount of carbonaceous material and limestone needed to operate the blast furnace, further reducing cost of those reagents and improving the purity and amount of the iron ore reduced.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
