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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group II (claims 9-18) in the reply filed on 05/20/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The non-elected group II (claims 1-8) are withdrawn from prosecution.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: cross-reference to related application is missing in the specification. As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include at least CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. 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 14 and 15 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein the contacting of the iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere further produces a byproduct gas used as a source of energy for the hydrometallurgy or for devolatization of biomass". In particular, it is unclear if the use of the byproduct gas as a source of energy for the hydrometallurgy or for devolatization of biomass is part of the claimed invention because the claim as written does not include any steps directed to either hydrometallurgy or devolatization of biomass. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable. For prosecution purpose the limitation calling for “used as a source of energy for the hydrometallurgy or for devolatization of biomass" is not accorded any patentable weight; and that a prior showing a method in which the contacting of the iron oxide with the hot reducing atmosphere produces a byproduct gas is deemed to have met the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the source of energy is used for acid regeneration for the hydrometallurgy”. In particular, it is unclear if the use of the source of energy for regeneration for the hydrometallurgy is part of the claimed invention because the claim as written does not include any steps directed to acid regeneration for the hydrometallurgy. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable. For prosecution purpose the limitation calling for “the source of energy is used for acid regeneration for the hydrometallurgy" is not accorded any 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, 12-16 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 claims 14 and 15, 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 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 both claim 14 and 15.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (CN104870657), Hardie et al. (US 5,051,127), Geiger et al. (US 5,733,358), Brotzmann et al. (US 4, 861,368) and Fassbinder et al. (US 4,849,015) 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