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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2023 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 9-13, and 16-18 have been amended, new claims 19 and 20 have been added, claim 14 has been canceled, claims 1-8 remain withdrawn; and therefore claims 9-13 and 16-20 are currently under consideration in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 1, it is suggested to replace “A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by combination of a pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process” with -- A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by a combination of a
pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process--.
In claim 9, line 4, it is suggested to replace “producing a hot reducing atmosphere by gasification” with -- producing a hot reducing atmosphere by gasification of carbonaceous material--. In order to reflect the source of the material gasified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9-13 and 16-20 are 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.
In claim 9 as amended, the preamble recites "A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by combination of a pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process”; however hydrometallurgical process is not particularly a smelting process, since per the plain definition, a hydrometallurgical is a metal extraction process that uses aqueous chemical solution to dissolve, purify and recover metals through step such as leaching. Therefore, the preamble as presented raises an issue of clarity under 112(b) since the smelting process would not encompass any downstream hydrometallurgical processes. The scope of the claim is therefore rendered unascertainable.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein heat from off gas produced by the smelting
apparatus" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in that there is no earlier recitation or step in the claim directed to the production of off gas, to allow a heat originated therefrom to be used for heating as recited in lines 12-15 of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 as amended recites the limitation "wherein heat from off gas produced by the smelting apparatus during the pyrometallurgical process is used for one or more of heating a leaching solution, evaporating the leaching solution, and regenerating the leaching solution as part of the hydrometallurgical process, and/or for heating the metallic ore during magnetic separation for production of the magnetite" in lines 11-15. As indicated in the previous office action, the one or more of heating a leaching solution, evaporating the leaching solution, and regenerating the leaching solution as part of the hydrometallurgical process, and/or for heating the metallic ore during magnetic separation for production of the magnetite as recited are directed to an end use or an intended use of (i.e. the term “used for” in line 12) the off gas produced in the process step of contacting the magnetite and/or iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal in the smelting apparatus. That, even though the preamble of the claim recites "A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by a combination of a pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process”, the claim does not include any clear process steps directed to any one of said claimed hydrometallurgical processes to suggest a sequence from a pyrometallurgical process of smelting the magnetite and/or the iron oxide to a hydrometallurgical process such as leaching.
Furthermore, there is no earlier formation or provision of a leaching solution recited in
the claim to be heated by the off gas produced in the smelting apparatus. It is
suggested that, if a combination and/or a hybrid pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical process of a magnetite and/or iron ore is intended, then the claim should be amended to clearly reflect that accordingly. Therefore, the limitation as presented in the current form is construed by the examiner as an intended use or and an end use of said off gas, and as such said specific processes are accorded no substantial patentable weight.
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 also teaches a process that further comprises producing an off gas (i.e. the spent reducing gas discharged from the operative top zone (134) of the via the vent (166) of the shaft furnace (116), see para [0045]) during the pyrometallurgical process of contacting the magnetite and/or iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal in the smelting apparatus; wherein a portion of said spent gas is discharged via a first outlet (150, see figure 1 and para [0046]) and the sensible heat of said spent gas used as a source of heat in downstream processes (see para [0046]).
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 even though 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.
Claims 19 and 20 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) and further in view of Liu (US Patent No. 7,896,963)
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al. fails to expressly teach and iron oxide that is provided as self-reducing briquettes that includes a mixture of the magnetite and/or iron oxide, waste, fuel, flux, and a functional binder. However, Liu teaches in smelting furnaces such as electric arc furnaces, converting furnaces, open-hearth furnaces for steel making, blast furnaces for iron making etc., iron oxide provided in self-reducing pellets or briquettes are preferred because their use lead to a much more efficient iron and steel production (see Liu, abstract and column 1, lines 5-15); wherein said self-reducing pellets or briquettes comprises iron ore concentrate , carbonaceous reducing agent, finely divided Portland cement as a binder
and fluxing agent (see Liu, column 2, line 59-column 3, line 24, column 5, lines 10-14 and claim 1). Because, improving the process efficiency would also be desirable in the smelting process of Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al., motivation to use iron oxide provided in the form of a self-reducing pellets or briquettes as taught by Liu in the process of Gharda in view of Brotzmann et al., would be a modification obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gharda and Brotzmann are entirely silent regarding the use of off gas and that a person of skill in the art could not arrive at the process of claim 9 in view of Gharda and Brotzmann. With claim 9, now amended to recite off gas produced in the pyrometallurgical process (where high temperatures are achieved to reduce the iron ore, creating a high energy off gas) heats, evaporates, or regenerates the leaching solution as part of the hydrometallurgical process, and/or heats the metallic ore during magnetic separation (to improve the magnetic properties of the ore and facilitate separation).
In response, it is noted that in claim 9 as amended, the preamble recites "A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by combination of a pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process”; however hydrometallurgical process is not particularly a smelting process, since per the plain definition, a hydrometallurgical is a metal extraction process that uses aqueous chemical solution to dissolve, purify and
recover metals through step such as leaching.
Applicant’s argument that Gharda and Brotzmann are entirely silent regarding the production of off gas is not agreed to because, Gharda also teaches a process that further comprises producing an off gas (i.e., the spent reducing gas discharged from the operative top zone (134) of the via the vent (166) of the shaft furnace (116), see para [0045]) during the pyrometallurgical process of contacting the magnetite and/or iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal in the smelting apparatus; wherein a portion of said spent gas is discharged via a first outlet (150, see figure 1 and para [0046]) and the sensible heat of said spent gas used as a source of heat in downstream processes (see para [0046]).
With respect to Applicant s argument that Gharda and Brotzmann are entirely silent regarding the use of off gas. It noted and as previously indicated, the one or more hydrometallurgical processes of heating a leaching solution, evaporating the leaching solution, and regenerating the leaching solution, and/or for heating the metallic ore during magnetic separation for production of the magnetite as recited in the amended claim 9, are directed to an end use or an intended use of (i.e. the term “used for” in line 12) the off gas produced in the process step of contacting the magnetite and/or iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere to produce a molten metal in the smelting apparatus. That, even though the preamble of the claim recites "A smelting process for smelting metallic ore by a combination of a pyrometallurgical process and a hydrometallurgical process”, the claim does not include any clear process steps directed to any one of said claimed hydrometallurgical processes to the extent that a process sequence from the claimed pyrometallurgical process of smelting the magnetite and/or
the iron oxide to a hydrometallurgical process such as leaching may be considered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Golberger et al. (US 20050092130), Meynerts et al. (US 20130192421), Jung et al. (US 20150345870), Parra Huerta (US 20070187302), Joe et al. (US 6,086,653), Kwon et al. (US 7,662,210), Michishita et al. (US 11,021,766) and Jahnke et al. (US 6,149,859) are also cited in PTO-892.
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