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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is unchanged since the response filed 12/22/2025. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended, Claims 2, 3, and 7 are as originally filed, and Claims 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 are as previously presented.
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.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in “International Conference on Applied Energy” in view of Yilmaz et al in Journal of Cleaner Production.
Wang et al in International Conference on Applied Energy teaches a process simulation of blast furnace operation for coke consumption as represented below in the figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
452
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pure hydrogen as an auxiliary reducing agent is simulated in the model (page 3) via a tuyere (page 2). The limitation of “carbon consumption parameter Input ΔC” is defined in the specification in [0024] as (A-B)/A [Wingdings font/0xFB] 100%. “A” is the carbon consumption in which high-concentration hydrogen-containing gas is not blown, and “B” is the carbon consumption at time of operation, understood as when hydrogen-containing gas is blown. The table below is based on Wang et al when hydrogen is used based on Fig. 3:
Mass of hydrogen injected (kg/tHM)
Mass of coke injected (kg/tHM)
Mass of pulverized coal (kg/tHM)
Total mass of carbon injected (kg/tHM)
Input ΔC (%)
0
385
112
497 (“A”)
0
10
370
112
482
3.0
20
345
112
457
8.0
30
330
112
442
9.1
40
320
112
432
10
50
320
112
432
10
60
320
112
432
10
Wang et al teaches a carbon consumption parameter that overlaps with 7% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123 II. However, Wang et al does not teach the blowing temperature and gas volume as claimed in the conditions in Claim 1.
Yilmaz et al teaches modeling and simulation of hydrogen injection into a blast furnace to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A temperature range of 80-1200 °C was assumed for the injected hydrogen (page 492) and as represented below in the drawing (page 494):
PNG
media_image3.png
506
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The mass and volume of hydrogen injected with respect to temperature for 30 kg/tHM is approximately represented below based on hydrogen density of 0.08988 kg/m3:
Mass of hydrogen injected (kg/tHM)
Volume of hydrogen injected (Nm3/tHM)
Condition
20
222.52
reads on higher than 900 °C and 1200 °C or lower
reads on higher than 300 °C and 600 °C or lower
reads on room temperature or higher and 300 °C or lower
30
333.78
reads on higher than 900 °C and 1200 °C or lower
reads on higher than 300 °C and 600 °C or lower
reads on room temperature or higher and 300 °C or lower
40
445.04
reads on higher than 900 °C and 1200 °C or lower
50
556.30
reads on higher than 900 °C and 1200 °C or lower
60
667.56
reads on higher than 900 °C and 1200 °C or lower
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modeling and simulation of Yilmaz et al with the method of Wang et al, since Yilmaz et al teaches that hydrogen at higher temperatures is beneficial to maintain the required adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) (page 494) and the energy balance of the process can be evaluated (page 491) with very good results (page 492). Regarding the condition of a blowing temperature of the high-concentration hydrogen-containing gas that is higher than 600 °C and 900 °C or lower, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, the relationship between the mass of hydrogen injected and temperature is represented in the trend in the Fig 5.
Regarding Claim 2, Yilmaz et al teaches 300 °C or lower and 200-300 Nm3/t as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Yilmaz et al teaches higher than 300 °C and 600 °C or lower and 145-600 Nm3/t as described above.
Regarding Claim 4-6, Yilmaz et al teaches the AFT is usually 2000-2300 °C for blast furnaces (page 492).
Regarding Claim 7, Yilmaz et al teaches higher than 600 °C and 1400 °C or lower as described above.
Regarding Claim 8, Yilmaz et al teaches higher than 600 °C and the high-concentration hydrogen-containing gas is 400 Nm3/t or more as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Yilmaz et al teaches higher than 600 °C and the high-concentration hydrogen-containing gas is 400 Nm3/t or more as described above and teaches the AFT is usually 2000-2300 °C for blast furnaces (page 492).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al.
Wang et al teaches a process simulation of blast furnace operation for coke consumption as represented above in Figs 1 and 3. Pure hydrogen as an auxiliary reducing agent is simulated in the model (page 3) via a tuyere (page 2). The limitation of “carbon consumption parameter Input ΔC” is defined in the specification in [0024] as (A-B)/A [Wingdings font/0xFB] 100%. “A” is the carbon consumption in which high-concentration hydrogen-containing gas is not blown, and “B” is the carbon consumption at time of operation, understood as when hydrogen-containing gas is blown. The table below is based on Wang et al when hydrogen is used based on Fig. 3:
Mass of hydrogen injected (kg/tHM)
Mass of coke injected (kg/tHM)
Mass of pulverized coal (kg/tHM)
Total mass of carbon injected (kg/tHM)
Input ΔC (%)
0
385
112
497 (“A”)
0
10
370
112
482
3.0
20
345
112
457
8.0
30
330
112
442
9.1
40
320
112
432
10
50
320
112
432
10
60
320
112
432
10
Wang et al teaches a carbon consumption parameter that overlaps with 7% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123 II. Wang et al teaches reducing CO2 emissions (page 1), which reads on blowing the hydrogen-containing gas at a determined gas volume.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yilmaz et al.
Wang et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Wang et al teaches a plurality of gas volume-carbon consumption parameters as represented above. However, Wang et al does not teach a plurality of blowing temperatures as in Claim 11 or a gas volume-top gas temperature change correlation as in Claim 13.
Yilmaz et al is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 11, Yilmaz et al teaches modeling and simulation of hydrogen injection into a blast furnace to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A temperature range of 80-1200 °C was assumed for the injected hydrogen (page 492) and as represented above in the drawing on page 494.
Regarding Claim 13, Yilmaz et al further teaches using FactSage methods and physical property data to describe the blast furnace, including the top gas temperature as represented below in the drawing and table:
PNG
media_image4.png
696
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
350
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The values of top gas and volume of reducing agent (including hydrogen) are used in the model, and the output values include the flame temperature (page 491). Regarding Claims 11 and 13, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modeling and simulation process of Yilmaz et al with the method of Wang et al, since Yilmaz et al teaches that hydrogen at higher temperatures is beneficial to maintain the required adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) (page 494) and the energy balance of the process can be evaluated (page 491) with very good results (page 492).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lan et al in International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Wang et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Wang et al does not teach a gas volume-top gas temperature change amount correlation as claimed.
Wang et al teaches different gas volumes of the hydrogen gas as described above but does not teach a pressure drop change as claimed. Lan et al teaches the change in the permeability after hydrogen-rich smelting in blast furnaces represented by the following equation:
S
=
∫
T
s
T
d
∆
P
T
-
∆
P
s
d
T
Where S is the comprehensive permeability index, Ts is the steep temperature rise under the pressure difference, Td is the temperature at which the burden drops, ΔPT is the pressure difference at temperature T, and ΔPS is the pressure difference at temperature Ts (pages 14258-14259). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the equation of Lan et al to relate the changes in pressure with the temperature of the hydrogen gas stream in Wang et al, since Lan et al teaches that low S reflects an increase in hydrogen and increase in the reduction rate of iron-bearing burden (page 14260).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments file 05/04/2026 have been fully considered. The basis for the rejection, specifically the formula for ΔC, has been recalculated and reflected in the tables above. The calculation includes the total amount of carbon, both the coke and pulverized coal. Regarding the argument that Wang et al is specifically direct to blast furnace operations with biomass syngas, this is not reflected in the entire disclosure in Wang et al. Wang et al teaches two different conditions, with hydrogen and with biomass syngas, which comprises hydrogen and CO. The process parameters of the reference case are reflected in Table 20. Figures 3 and 4 both demonstrate conditions with hydrogen and with “syngas.” Wang et al teaches the following on page 3, column 1:
Fig. 3 shows the change of coke rate when the mass of syngas injected ranges from 0 kg/tHM to 60 kg/tHM … Pure hydrogen as a reducing agent could have a superior ability to replace coke. Also worth noting that a significant reduction of coke is found when the hydrogen is injected from 10 kg/tHM to 40 kg/tHM, whereas the coke rate tends to be constant after 40 kg/tHM.
Therefore, Wang et al teaches using both syngas and hydrogen gas separately with the process parameters of the reference case in Table 2. Applicant also argues that hydrogen gas was used in one model, but that model is reflected in Figs 3-6. The closing paragraph of Wang et al confirms that both syngas and hydrogen gas were applied in the study and not just syngas on page 4, column 2:
Although pure hydrogen has a superior ability to save coke and reduce CO2 emissions, the higher injection of hydrogen could also result in an unsteady result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights