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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 13. Applicant canceled Claims 2 and 12. A new matter rejection appears below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 03/02/2026.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 are 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.
The recitation of “a slag flow control apparatus” in Claims 1, 2, and 11 does not exist in the originally filed application and constitutes new matter. While Applicant attempted to address component (2) in Figs. 1-3, the drawings lack specificity such that the disclosure does not render the claimed slag flow controller an apparatus. There is insufficient structure depicted in the drawings to establish to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention that the “slag flow controller” is indeed a “slag flow control apparatus.” No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application per 37 C.F.R. 1.121. Applicant may not introduce new matter to evade interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claims 4-10, and 13-15 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 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.
By changing the terminology of “slag flow controller” to “slag flow control apparatus,” Applicant has rendered unclear the difference between the two terms and there is insufficient description as to the meaning of the term, rendering the claims indefinite. For example, a ramp could serve as a slag flow control apparatus. The term “slag flow control apparatus” is not defined by the claims, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See 112(a) rejection above.
Claims 4-10, and 13-15 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
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 1-2, 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 103557711 A in view of Fan et al. CN 208333136 U and further in view of Wang et al. CN 108611452 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. ‘711 teaches an apparatus for granulation of a blast furnace slag and recycling of waste heat, wherein the apparatus comprises an aerosol granulation nozzle module, a flow guide (Fig.1), a hopper (meeting the limitation for a cyclone separator), and a waste heat recovery device [0011]; the aerosol granulation module comprises a slag chute (meeting the limitation for a slag flow controller), a compressed air flow control valve, a water volume control valve and an aerosol spray gun [0005]; the slag flow controller is coupled to a slag inlet of the flow guide, a nozzle of the aerosol spray gun is configured to face an inlet of the flow guide to enable an aerosol to impinge a slag stream entering the flow guide through the slag flow controller to form a gas and a slag having a primarily solidified surface [0009].
The flow guide is configured to fully mix the gas and the slag having a primarily solidified surface in the flow guide, wherein an outlet of the flow guide is coupled to a feed port of the hopper (meeting the limitation for the cyclone separator) allowing entry of a completely solidified granular slag and a gas formed in the flow guide into the cyclone separator [0013] which is configured to separate the granular slag and the gas.
Liu et al. ‘711 does not teach the discharge port of the hopper (meeting the limitation for the cyclone separator) is directly coupled to a feed port of the waste heat recovery device.
However, Fan et al. ‘136 teaches a waste heat recovery system for a smelting furnace wherein a cyclone separator is directly coupled to a feed port of a waste heat recovery device [0004, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to couple the discharge port of the hopper (meeting the limitation for the cyclone separator) of Liu et al. ‘711 to a feed port of the heat recovery device for delivery of gas and the completely solidified granular slag to the waste heat recovery device [0033] based on the teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 at [0012]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by a desire to increase the recovery of waste heat to provide a waste heat recovery device in direct connection with the cyclone separator. The teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 provide motivation to couple the discharge port of the cyclone separator directly to a feed port of the waste heat recovery device (Abstract). Further, such modification would constitute a rearrangement of parts known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention for achieving increased flue gas heat recovery. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding temperatures, the instant claim is directed to an apparatus, not to a method of operation. The temperatures do not limit the structural components of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Liu et al. ‘711 is capable of performing the functions recited in the instant claims and appears to perform granulation of blast furnace slag and recycling of waste heat, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Liu et al. ‘711 does not expressly teach the compressed air flow control valve is coupled to a liquid inlet of the aerosol spray gun.
However, Wang et al. ‘452 teaches a spraying mechanism within a blast furnace slag granulation and waste heat recovery device which includes a water pipe connected to an atomizing nozzle [0040]. Wang et al. ‘452 teaches spraying water with slag in order to increase the efficiency of waste heat recovery as well as reducing environmental impact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the spraying mechanism of Lieu et al. ‘711 to spray water and granulated slag through the same nozzle in order to increase operation efficiency and reduce environmental impact based on the teachings of Wang et al. ‘452 at [0040-0042], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above. Liu et al. ‘711 further teaches a slag stream is subjected to flow control by the slag flow controller and flows into a slag inlet of the flow guide; a high pressure gas is directed to the gas inlet of the aerosol spray gun through the compressed air flow control valve; water is directed to the liquid inlet of the aerosol spray gun through the water volume control valve; the nozzle of the aerosol spray gun is configured to face the inlet of the flow guide to enable an aerosol to impinge the slag stream to form a gas and a granular slag having a primarily solidified surface [0005].
Regarding temperatures, the instant claim is directed to an apparatus, not to a method of operation. The temperatures do not limit the structural components of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Liu et al. ‘711 is capable of performing the functions recited in the instant claims and appears to perform granulation of blast furnace slag and recycling of waste heat, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 5-7, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above and Liu et al. ‘711 teaches an economizer having an external water source [0015]. Fan et al. ‘136 further teaches a boiler, flue gas recovery device (meeting the limitation for a tail gas treatment module), chimney, [0017], and heat exchanger [0004] with a circulating cooling water pump (meeting the limitation for a coil containing circulating water) [0015].
Regarding temperatures, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus, not to a method of operation. The temperatures do not limit the structural components of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Liu et al. ‘711 is capable of performing the functions recited in the instant claims and appears to perform granulation of blast furnace slag and recycling of waste heat, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above. Fan et al. ‘136 teaches the waste heat recovery device is coupled to the cyclone separator [0025-0026]. Fan et al. ‘136 further teaches at [0024] water vapor having a temperature of 0-180 °C from the waste heat recovery device is used to heat the sludge dryer, overlapping the temperature range of the instant claim of 70-95 °C, meeting the limitation of the instant claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above. Fan et al. ‘136 further teaches its apparatus utilizes an exhaust system and bag filter [0013-0014] (meeting the limitation for a tail gas purifier and exhauster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to clean the tail gas in order to reduce pollution into the environment, and to rearrange the slag treatment devices of Liu et al. ‘711 in order to increase the efficiency of waste heat recovery based on the teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 at [0024], meeting the limitations of the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. ‘711 teaches a method for granulation and waste heat recycling, including allowing a blast furnace slag separated from molten iron to enter a slag runner where a slag stream is formed and flows into a flow guide after its flow is controlled by a slag chute (meeting the limitation for a slag flow controller) [0019].
A compressed air flow control valve and water volume control valve are adjusted to form an aerosol in an aerosol spray gun and spray the aerosol out through a nozzle, so that the aerosol impinges the slag stream flowing into the flow guide to form a gas and a granular slag having a preliminarily solidified surface [0013, 0019].
Liu et al. ‘711 teaches mixing and heat exchanging the gas and slag through the flow guide and transporting to a hopper of Liu et al. ‘711 (meeting the limitation for a cyclone separator) [0019].
Liu et al. ‘711 does not teach the discharge port of the hopper (meeting the limitation for the cyclone separator) is directly coupled to a feed port of the waste heat recovery device.
However, Fan et al. ‘136 teaches a waste heat recovery system for a smelting furnace wherein a cyclone separator is directly coupled to a feed port of a waste heat recovery device [0004, 0012].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to couple the discharge port of the hopper (meeting the limitation for the cyclone separator) of Liu et al. ‘711 to a feed port of the heat recovery device for delivery of gas and the completely solidified granular slag to the waste heat recovery device [0033] based on the teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 at [0012] that a sludge dryer may be provided to further recover waste heat in order to recycle furnace gas. The teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 provide motivation to couple the discharge port of the cyclone separator to a feed port of the waste heat recovery device. Further, such modification would constitute a rearrangement of parts known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Fan et al. ‘136 teaches recovered waste heat is used for power generation [0002], meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Claims 4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 103557711 A in view of Fan et al. CN 208333136 U and Wang et al. CN 108611452 A as applied to Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11 above and further in view of Kong et al. CN 100464910 C.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above. Liu et al. ‘711 teaches a slag-liquid separator [0032] (meeting the limitation for a slag-sludge recovery module) and an exhaust gas purification treatment device [0016] (meeting the limitation for a tail gas treatment module). Fan et al. ‘136 further teaches a sludge dryer
Liu et al. ‘711 and Fan et al. ‘136 do not expressly teach a sludge pre-drying module.
However, Kong et al. ‘910 teaches a heat-treating wet slag with a pre-dryer (meeting the limitation for a sludge pre-drying module) coupled to a screw mixer in order to increase the availability of treated slag and increase economic and environmental benefit [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to incorporate a pre-dryer (meeting the limitation for a sludge pre-drying module) into the apparatus of Liu et al. ‘711 in order to achieve increased solid content based on the teachings of Kong et al. ‘910 at [0002], and to rearrange the slag treatment devices used in the method of Liu et al. ‘711 in order to increase the efficiency of waste heat recovery based on the teachings of Fan et al. ‘136 at [0004], meeting the limitations of the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding Claim 13, Liu et al. ‘711 modified by Fan et al. ‘136, Wang et al. ‘452, and Kong et al. ‘910 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Kong et al. ‘910 further teaches pumping a wet sludge from a sludge tank with a sludge pump into a sludge pre-dryer and mixing with the gas in the pre-dryer to form a semi-dry sludge [0011]. Transporting the semi-dry sludge from the sludge pre-drying module to a screw mixer and transporting the granular slag from the cyclone separator to the screw mixer and mixing to form slag-sludge [0015].
Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the treatment of tail gas in the gas purification system discharged through the chimney by an exhauster [0034]. Dust (meeting the limitation for fine powder) is collected in the tail gas treatment device and the tail gas purifier is extracted out with an external collector (meeting the limitation for a tanker)[0016], meeting the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 103557711 A in view of Fan et al. CN 208333136 U and Wang et al. CN 108611452 A as applied to Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11 above and further in view of Zhang et al. CN 206082460 U and Futakuchi et al. US 4536211 A.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Liu et al. ‘711 further teaches supplying water from the waste heat recovery device to the steam drum [0015] but does not expressly teach the use of a granular slag heat exchanger.
However, Zhang et al. ‘460 teaches a water coil-cooled heat granular slag heat exchanger in which granular slag is fed into an upper inlet and moves from top to bottom, and in the process of descending, it contacts and inherently exchanges heat counter-currently with cooling water in the coil and hot air rising from bottom to top [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a heat exchanger for waste heat recovery in order to retrieve decrease water waste and decrease environmental pollution based on the teachings of Zhang et al. ‘460 at [0004], meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Liu et al. ‘711 further teaches supplying water directly to an economizer at [0015] but does not detail the temperature of its steam.
However, Futakuchi et al. ‘211 expressly teaches a waste gas circulation method wherein pure water is supplied to the boiler to be pre-heated (Column 6, Lines 57-65), and an exhaust gas temperature of the waste heat boiler is 200 °C (Column 8, Line 33). This achieved temperature intersects and encompasses the instantly claimed step of preheating the water supplied to an economizer to 80 °C or higher and sending it in part to a boiler to be further heated and vaporized into steam having a temperature of 200-250 °C.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to heat the vaporized steam from the economizer to 200 °C in order to increase the efficiency of heat exchange in the apparatus of Liu et al. ‘711 based on the teaching of Futakuchi et al. ‘211 that such a steam temperature is suitable for processing waste heat into electric power (Columns 6-7/Lines 57-68 and 1-3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 103557711 A in view of Fan et al. CN 208333136 U and Wang et al. CN 108611452 A as applied to Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11 above and further in view of Zhang et al. CN 206082460 U.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Liu et al. ‘711 teaches the limitations set forth above. Liu et al. ‘711 teaches discharging water formed from the waste heat recovery device (meeting the limitation for low-temperature hot water) and sending it to the boiler of Liu et al. ‘711 and discharging the cooled granular slag from a lower part of the heat exchanger to the slag storage tank (meeting the limitation for a slag bin).
Fan et al. ‘136 teaches at [0024] water vapor having a temperature of 0-180 °C is sent to the boiler, overlapping the temperature range of the instant claim of 70-95 °C, meeting the limitation of the instant claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Liu et al. ‘711 further teaches supplying water from the waste heat recovery device to the steam drum [0015] but does not expressly teach the use of a granular slag heat exchanger.
However, Zhang et al. ‘460 teaches a water coil-cooled heat granular slag heat exchanger in which granular slag is fed into an upper inlet and moves from top to bottom, and in the process of descending, it contacts and inherently exchanges heat counter-currently with cooling water in the coil and hot air rising from bottom to top [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a heat exchanger for waste heat recovery in order to retrieve decrease water waste and decrease environmental pollution based on the teachings of Zhang et al. ‘460 at [0004], meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lieu et al. ‘711 does not disclose a water volume control valve coupled to a liquid inlet of the aerosol spray gun. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention the invention to inject water into the granulated slag aerosol in order to efficiently recover heat based on the teachings of Wang et al. ‘452.
Applicant argues additional cited references are not analogous art as they do not address the granulation of slag. However, the prior art is analogous as the prior art pertains to waste heat recovery systems within a blast furnace. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to reduce environmental impact and increase the efficiency of flue gas heat recovery to modify the apparatus of Lieu et al. ‘711 to spray water and granulated slag from the same nozzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 202272881 U teaches a waste heat recovery device for drying granular slag particles which includes a cyclone separator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights