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
Claim 14 has been amended, claim 15 and the withdrawn claims 1-8 have been canceled, and therefore claims 9-14 and 16-18 are currently under consideration in the application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 as amended, recites the limitation “supplying said byproduct gas for acid regeneration during hydrometallurgy or for devolatilizing biomass”. It should be pointed out that this limitation is directed to the end use of the byproduct of the claimed metallic ore smelting process as such interpreted by the Examiner as no part of said claimed metallic ore smelting process. Furthermore, the recited acid regeneration during hydrometallurgy and devolatilizing biomass are interpreted by the Examiner as separate processes that use the byproduct, and that the base claim 1 from which claim 14 depends does not include any steps directed to either acid generation during hydrometallurgy or devolatilizing biomass; and therefore, said limitation in claim 14 is not accorded any substantial patentable weight in this office action.
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.
Claims 9, 12-14,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gharda (EP2440677) in view of Brotzmann et asl. (US Patent No. 4,798,624).
Regarding claim 9, Gharda teaches a process for smelting metallic ore, comprising: providing an iron oxide (i.e. iron ore pellets or lump, see figure 1 and para [0041]) by a hopper (102, see figure 1 and para [0041]) through a regulating valve (162, see figure 1 and para [0041] through a charging device (102, see figure 1 and para [0041]) into a shaft furnace (116, see figure 1 and para [0041]) a producing a hot reducing (see para [0042]) atmosphere by gasification in a gasifier (108, see figure 1 and para [0042]) and contacting the iron oxide in the shaft furnace (116, see figure 1) with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal (see para [0041]-[0043]).
Gharda teaches a process for smelting metallic ore by providing a metallic ore that is an iron ore, however fails to expressly teach an iron oxide produced by
Hydrometallurgy as claimed. However, this limitation regarding how the iron oxide is produced is directed to a product by process, however, the court held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is
unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See
MPEP2113.
Gharda teaches a process for smelting metallic ore that is conducted in a cylindrical smelting furnace having a continuous curved wall with a longer axis along a vertical direction, and end walls joining the continuous curved wall and thereby defining a longitudinal volume in the vertical direction but fails to teach a smelting furnace comprising a cylindrical furnace having a continuous curved wall with a longer axis along a horizontal direction, and end walls joining the continuous curved wall and thereby defining a longitudinal volume in the horizontal direction.
Brotzmann et al. teaches a process for smelting a metallic or an iron ore (see Brotzmann et al., abstract) by conducting the process in a smelting vessel or furnace that comprises two design types: (i) cylindrical furnace with a high aspect ratio (i.e. longer axis along a horizontal direction, see Brotzmann et al., figures 1, 2 and 4) and (ii) a cylindrical furnace with substantially longer axis along the vertical direction (see Brotzmann et al., figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the smelting process of Gharda to use a cylindrical furnace with a high aspect ratio (i.e. longer horizontal length) in view of the teachings of Brotzmann et al., wherein doing so would amount to a mere substitution of one furnace design or configuration for another within the same art that would work equally well in the Dong et al. metal smelting assembly, especially since both furnace designs or configurations were successfully used in the case of Brotzmann et al. for the same
process of metallic or iron ore smelting. Also see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 12, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches a process in
which the hot reducing atmosphere comprises a source of carbon other than coke or coal; wherein the alternative carbon sources including: heavy oil residue, biomass and natural gas (see Gharda, para [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches a process for smelting metallic ore in which the hot reducing atmosphere is produced by gasification of carbonaceous material (see Gharda, para [0042]) using a gasifier (108, see Gharda, figure 1 and para [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches a
process for smelting metallic ore in which the contacting of the iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere further produces a byproduct gas in the form of spent reducing gas that is discharged from the furnace via a vent (166, see Gharda, figure 1 and para [0045]), and treated; wherein the treated byproduct gas collected and is reuse as a reducing gas and also utilized in several downstream processes to include fuel energy production and acetic acid or urea synthesis (see Gharda, para [0045]-[0046]). The combined disclosure of Gharda and Brotzmann et al., therefore, encompasses the scope of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches that the process
for smelting metallic ore is known to produce molten metal that know as crude iron that
is also called pig iron (see, Gharda, para [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches a process for smelting metallic ore that contains trace elements, wherein the contacting of the iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere further produces a slag containing the trace
elements (see Gharda, para [ 0002], [0027]- [0028], [0041]).
Claims 10, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gharda (EP2440677) in view of Brotzmann et asl. (US Patent No. 4,798,624) as evidenced by Ibaraki et al. (US Patent No. 5,135,572).
Regarding claim 10, 11, and 17, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. teaches a process for smelting metallic ore by providing a metallic ore that is an iron ore (i.e. iron ore pellets or lump, see Gharda, para [0041]), however fails to expressly teach the iron ore to comprises magnetite and/or Fe203; however, iron ore used for producing hot metal as evidenced by Ibaraki et al. mainly comprises hematite (Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3) and magnetite (Fe.sub.3 O.sub.4), (see Ibaraki et al., column 2, lines 45-53). Ibaraki et al. also teaches that the hot metal produced include ferro-alloys (see Ibaraki et al., column 1, lines 5-11) which encompasses the claimed a ferro-manganese alloy, a ferro-nickel alloy, and/or a ferro-vanadium alloy. Therefore on the basis of the teachings of Ibaraki et al., it would reasonably be expected that the iron ore used in the process of Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. would also comprises hematite (Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3) and magnetite (Fe.sub.3 O.sub.4) in the same way as set forth in claims 10 and 11. It is also noted that eventhough Ibaraki et al., does not expressly teach that the magnetite is produced by magnetic separation, density, or flotation during hydrometallurgy or the Fe203 is produced by solvent extraction and acid regeneration during hydrometallurgy as claimed, however, these limitations are directed to a product by process, however, the court held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal argument against the Gharda reference, is that it teaches a process that can melt scrap; that Gharda fails to teach magnetite and/or iron oxide produced from the metallic ore by hydrometallurgy is provided; a hot reducing atmosphere by gasification is generated; and the magnetite and/or iron oxide is contacted with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal; that Gharda is also silent about, for example, self-reducing briquettes which would increase reaction times by 20 to 30 minutes, which permits a continuous casting of pig iron or filling the ladle for steel making and continuous pouring of the slag into the slag granulation unit, ready for use in cement
In response, it should be pointed that, contrast to Applicant’s position, Gharda in para [0041], clearly teaches a process of smelting metallic ore, by providing an iron oxide in the form of iron ore pellets or lump, Gharda also in in para [0041]– [0043] teaches producing a hot reducing atmosphere by gasification in a gasifier and contacting the iron oxide in the shaft furnace with the hot reducing atmosphere to
produce a molten metal.
With respect to the magnetite and/or iron oxide being produced from the metallic
ore by hydrometallurgy, it should be point out that, the Examiner interprets said limitation as being directed to a product by process because it is only drawn to how the iron oxide is produced. Furthermore, the court held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP2113. It should also be pointed that the claim as written does not include any particular hydrometallurgical steps showing how said claimed magnetite and/or iron oxide is even produced.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Gharda is also silent about, for example, self-reducing briquettes which would increase reaction times by 20 to 30 minutes, which permits a continuous casting of pig iron or filling the ladle for steel making and continuous pouring of the slag into the slag granulation unit, ready for use in cement. It should be noted that said argument is fully considered, however, it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims because no continuous casting process step are recited in the claims.
Applicant’s principal argument against the Brotzmann reference, is that it was publication year of 1989, teaches a process that is radically different from that of the currently claimed invention and also from that of Gharda. In Brotzmann, the smelting process rests on hot gases (gas jet hits) being blown onto an agitated bath of powdered raw material floating on the molten product. Brotzmann stresses out that successive gas jet hits are an essential feature of their invention. As the skilled person would readily recognize, this is an outdated and inefficient method of heat transfer through the material to be processed. The Applicant finds it difficult to believe that the skilled person, looking for an economical and energy-efficient alternative to traditional smelting furnaces would turn to such archaic design and method. In contrast, the presently claimed process of smelting metallic ore is advantageous over Broztmann as it presents with a much simpler yet efficient design and results in much faster reaction times and greater furnace efficiency by heating the metallic ore above the pool of melted metal. In addition to corresponding to a poor energy utilization at the filing date of the presently claimed invention, the process of Brotzmann is likely to create highly abrasive conditions inside the operating vessel.
In response, it should be pointed out that Applicant’s argument against Brotzmann is deemed unpersuasive, in that Brotzmann is relied upon in the rejection only to meet the design or configuration of the smelting apparatus and not the process itself as argued by Applicant. That Brotzmann et al., teaches a cylindrical furnace with a high aspect ratio, showing substantially longer axis along the vertical direction, and because Brotzmann et al., substantially meets that design aspect of the claim, Brotzmann et al., clearly remedies the deficiencies of Gharda. Therefore, the instant claims as presented cannot patentably distinguish over Gharda in view of Brotzmann. Furthermore, a correlation between the claimed furnace or smelting apparatus design or configuration has not clearly been established in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights