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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/20/22 and 1/16/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/10/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7, 12, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are incorrect factual statements. For example claim 3 states that “The process defined in claim 1 includes heating the batch of iron ore and biomass via heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas in a top space of the batch oven,” while claim 1 contains no such limitation. The correct form for such a dependent claim would be “The process defined in claim 1 further including, heating the batch of iron ore and biomass via heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas in a top space of the batch oven,” or “The process of claim 1 further including, heating the batch of iron ore and biomass via heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas in a top space of the batch oven.”
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation a metallisation of 80-99%, and the claim also recites typically 90-99% which is the narrower statement of the range. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-17 and 19-22 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "claims 17 and 18". Claim 18 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Low teaches a “process for producing sponge iron” (which reads upon “a process for producing direct reduced iron ("DRI")”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]; direct reduced iron is also called sponge iron). Low teaches that “the process includes the steps of preparing a sandwich of at least two layers wherein the at least two layers includes a first layer of iron oxide source and second layer of a mixture of iron oxide source and carbon source and subjecting the sandwich of at least two layers to a heating process in a non-oxidative environment at a temperature between 950°C to 1900°C” (which reads upon “in a batch oven in a temperature range of 700-1100°C”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 700-1100°C overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 950°C to 1900°C. Accordingly, the prior art renders the limitation obvious. Low teaches that “the predominant reaction of the extraction of sponge iron is determined by the source of iron oxides” (paragraph [0016]). Low teaches that “the source of iron oxide is predominantly magnetite iron ore (Fe3O4)” (which reads upon “from iron ore”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]). Low teaches that “the carbon source can be selected from coal powder, charcoal powder, wood debris, carbonaceous substance from printing ink's waste water treatment or any combination thereof” (which reads upon “biomass”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Low teaches “subjecting the said sandwich of the at least two layers under a non-oxidative pyrolysis process in a reactor at temperature between 950° C. to 1900° C. for a period between 10 minutes to 36 hours” (which reads upon “heating a batch of iron ore and biomass in a batch cycle time of 10-100 hours”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Low teaches that “during the pyrolysis at non-oxidative environment, temperature between 950° C. to 1900° C., metallic iron (Fe) is obtained by reduction wherein the iron oxide source is reduced by the carbon source” (which reads upon “reducing iron ore”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Low teaches that after the first cycle “the sponge iron extracted by this method possessed 82% of total iron and 6% of carbon present in the form of Fe3C and free carbon” (which reads upon “forming a solid DRI product having a metallisation of 80-99%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Low teaches that after the second cycle “the sponge iron extracted by this method possessed 92% total iron and 4% carbon present mainly in the form of Fe3C” (which reads upon “typically 90-99%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). Low paragraphs [0016]-[0018] teach that CO2 is produced as an offgas (which reads upon “generating an offgas”, as recited in the instant claim). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that discharging the solid product at the end of the batch cycle and discharging offgas during the course of the batch cycle are necessarily included in the process of Low.
Regarding claim 2, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low is silent regarding the furnace having a fan or being a convection furnace.
Regarding claim 12, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low teaches that “during the pyrolysis at non-oxidative environment, temperature between 950° C. to 1900° C., metallic iron (Fe) is obtained by reduction wherein the iron oxide source is reduced by the carbon source” (paragraph [0011]; overlapping range). Low teaches that after the second cycle “the sponge iron extracted by this method possessed 92% total iron and 4% carbon present mainly in the form of Fe3C” (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low teaches that “the process for producing the sponge iron includes the first step of preparing a sandwich of at least two layers and subjecting the said sandwich of the at least two layers under a non-oxidative pyrolysis process in a reactor at temperature between 950° C. to 1900° C. for a period between 10 minutes to 36 hours” (paragraph [0010]; overlapping range).
Regarding claim 14, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low teaches that “the two layers of sandwich as per example 1 is repeated with an addition of two layers of 1.5 mm thickness paper as organic material (14) in between the sandwich” (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low Example 1 teaches a “sandwich of two layers includes of 2000 g second layer (12) of mixture of 86.21% pure millscale powder of 200 mesh and 13.79% charcoal powder of 200 mesh, and that the first layer (10) of the sandwich is made up of 260 g technical pure millscale powder” (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Low teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Low teaches “preparing a sandwich of at least two layers wherein the at least two layers includes a first layer of iron oxide source and second layer of a mixture of iron oxide source and carbon source” (paragraph [0005]; sandwich reads on briquette). In the alternative, Low teaches that “sponge iron produced by gas-based process is normally hot briquette and hence it is also known as Briquette Iron (HBI)” (paragraph [0002]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sandwich shape of Low with a briquette, as taught by Low because that is the standard shape used to produce sponge iron. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gripenberg et al. (US 20030136226 A1).
Regarding claims 3-7, Low teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Low is silent regarding the details of the heating unit. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Regarding the subject limitations, in order to carry out the invention of Low, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary types of heating units used in producing metals from fines. Gripenberg is similarly concerned with a method and an apparatus for recovery of metals and more particularly for recovery of metals from metallic fines (paragraph [0001]). Gripenberg teaches that “the plant is built around a burner 20 installed in a sidewall of a furnace” (paragraph [0020]). Gripenberg teaches that “the burner is a so-called oxy-fuel burner and is thus supplied with fuel, such as fuel oil, propane, natural gas, or butane through a first feeding line 21 and with oxygen through a second feeding line” (which reads upon “heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0020]). Gripenberg teaches that “by oxygen is in this context meant a gas with an O2 content exceeding 21% and preferably so-called technical oxygen having an O2 content of 90-99.5%” (which reads upon “a nominally cold oxygen-air mixture with a minimum of 25% oxygen in the air-oxygen mixture (calculated as a mixed stream regardless of whether or not air and oxygen are (a) actually pre-mixed or (b) fed independently as two individual streams to the gas burners)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0020]; Gripenberg is silent regarding preheating the oxygen). Gripenberg teaches that “the pressure is maintained by means of a gas also functioning as a carrying gas, such as compressed air, nitrogen or argon” (paragraph [0029]; air is fed as individual stream). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Low, using an oxy-fuel burner powered furnace, as taught by Gripenberg, motivated to use a conventional type of heating unit predictably suitable for producing metals from fines. Low teaches “a heating process in a non-oxidative environment at a temperature between 950° C. to 1900° C” (which reads upon “heating the batch of iron ore and biomass via heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas with hot air in a temperature range 400-1200° C”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “heating the batch of iron ore and biomass via heat generated by the combustion of a fuel gas with a combination of hot air (in a temperature range 25-1200 °C) and cold oxygen, where hot air and oxygen are either pre-blended or fed as individual streams to gas burners”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]; the burner will heat the air, which will heat the briquette).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between using combustion of a fuel gas in a top space of the batch oven and combustion of a fuel gas in a bottom space of the batch oven with a reasonable expectation of success.
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 400-1200 °C or 25-1200 °C overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 950°C to 1900°C. Accordingly, the prior art renders the limitation obvious.
Claims 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisele et al. (US 20070209480 A1).
Regarding claims 8-11, Low teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Lee’s Examples use coal/charcoal powder.
Low is silent regarding a flux or binder.
Eisele is similarly concerned with the production of metallic iron from iron ore (paragraph [0002]). Eisele teaches “the production of metallic iron from its ore which employs a composition comprising a mass of material formed from a mixture of iron ore particles and particles of a reductant that is either a biomass material in particulate form or a plastic resinous material in particulate form” (which reads upon “a process for producing direct reduced iron ("DRI") from iron ore and biomass”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Eisele teaches that “while the metallic iron can be produced with only the theoretical stoichiometric amount needed to reduce the iron, for practical purposes and to assure sufficient reductant, in practice a quantity of organic material is used that is in excess of the amount that is theoretically needed to reduce the iron” (paragraph [0043]). Eisele teaches that “a small quantity of wheat flour was also added to act as a binder since the ground wood did not have enough cohesion to be formed into a cohesive mass” (which reads upon “(b) flux/binder materials”, as recited in the instant claims 9 and 11; paragraph [0050]). Eisele teaches that “the iron ore preferably comprises between about 60%-90% by weight of the mass” (which reads upon “wherein the balance of the batch as supplied to the batch oven is (a) iron ore”, as recited in the instant claims 9 and 11; which reads upon “wherein the percentage of biomass in the batch as supplied to the batch oven is 20-50% by weight on a wet (as- charged) basis of the total weight of the batch”, as recited in instant claim 8; which reads upon “wherein the percentage of biomass in the batch as supplied to the batch oven is 30-40% by weight on a wet (as- charged) basis of the total weight of the batch”, as recited in instant claim 10; paragraph [0043]; 100% - 60%-90% iron ore - a small quantity = about 10-40% reductant). Eisele teaches that “a suitable reductant can either be a biomass material or a plastic resinous material” (which reads upon “biomass”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]). Eisele teaches that “the mass can comprise pieces or lumps of any size desired the most useful being pellets, briquettes or other agglomerates in which the particles are bonded together by a binder that may compromise the reductant itself or a binder that has been added to the mass” (paragraph [0034]). Eisele teaches that “the invention has the advantage of allowing renewable and recyclable organics to be used as reducing agents without having to first process the organics to produce charcoal or otherwise prepare them for the smelting process” (paragraph [0039]). Eisele teaches that “accordingly, they can be used in a raw form and since many of them are surplus or considered to be waste products the smelting process can often be carried out at a low cost” (paragraph [0039]). Eisele teaches that “moreover, the production of iron from renewable organics is critical in making iron production an environmentally sustainable industry” (paragraph [0039]). Eisele teaches that “another advantage of the invention results from the fact that the biomass material or other organic acts as a binder for the pellets holding them together until the reactions are completed” (paragraph [0039]). Eisele teaches that “the elimination of separate binders results in less contamination of the product, smaller quantities of slag and simplifies the control of slag properties” (paragraph [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the stoichiometric amount of carbon (charcoal) of 12.2% in the sandwich of Low with about 10-40% biomass reductant, as taught by Eisele to assure sufficient reductant and to allow renewable and recyclable organics to be used as reducing agents without having to first process the organics to produce charcoal powder, thus increasing environmental sustainability, lowering cost and reducing contamination of the product.
Regarding claim 19, modified Low teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Eisele teaches that “the resulting iron pieces or nuggets are conveniently shipped, are stable against corrosion and can be used as a replacement for scrap iron in basic oxygen furnaces or for remelting in electric furnaces used in steel making” (paragraph [0041]).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 107881281 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 17 and 21, Low teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Addition of a second batch oven to increase throughput, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Low is silent regarding using at least a part of an offgas discharged from at least one batch oven as an energy source, i.e. a fuel gas, in at least one other batch oven, and controlling the batch cycles and operating conditions in the batch ovens to balance heat supply and demand requirements across the batch oven.
Tang is similarly concerned with producing sub-manganese-rich powder by separating, reducing, smelting and removing iron from refractory high-iron manganese ore slag (paragraph [0002]). Tang teaches that “the reduction process uses a muffle rotary kiln, and the temperature of slag-iron separation and reduction is strictly controlled” (paragraph [0037]). Tang teaches that “the rotary kiln cylinder includes a preheating section, a high-temperature section and a cooling section from front to back” (paragraph [0052]). Tang teaches that “the high-temperature section is arranged inside the first heating furnace body and the second heating furnace body” (paragraph [0052]). Tang teaches that “the rotary kiln cylinder is provided with an outer wall between the first heating furnace body and the second heating furnace body, support pipes are arranged between the outer wall and the rotary kiln cylinder, a flue gas passage is formed between the outer wall and the rotary kiln cylinder, and the outer wall is supported on the first support ring device” (paragraph [0053]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a flue gas passage between two furnaces of modified Low, as taught by Tang to increase efficiency and balance heat supply and demand requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited, and Eisele et al. (US 20070209480 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 107881281 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 20, modified Low teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above.
Low is silent regarding using the electric arc furnace fuel gas an energy source in the batch oven.
Tang is similarly concerned with producing sub-manganese-rich powder by separating, reducing, smelting and removing iron from refractory high-iron manganese ore slag (paragraph [0002]). Tang teaches that “the reduction process uses a muffle rotary kiln, and the temperature of slag-iron separation and reduction is strictly controlled” (paragraph [0037]). Tang teaches that “the rotary kiln cylinder includes a preheating section, a high-temperature section and a cooling section from front to back” (paragraph [0052]). Tang teaches that “the high-temperature section is arranged inside the first heating furnace body and the second heating furnace body” (paragraph [0052]). Tang teaches that “the rotary kiln cylinder is provided with an outer wall between the first heating furnace body and the second heating furnace body, support pipes are arranged between the outer wall and the rotary kiln cylinder, a flue gas passage is formed between the outer wall and the rotary kiln cylinder, and the outer wall is supported on the first support ring device” (paragraph [0053]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a flue gas passage between the electric arc furnace and the batch oven of modified Low, as taught by Tang to increase efficiency and reduce fuel costs.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (US 20120100034 A1), previously cited, and Tang et al. (CN 107881281 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eisele et al. (US 20070209480 A1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Low teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Low teaches that “sponge iron is an important iron and steel feedstock” (paragraph [0002]). Low is silent regarding transferring the solid DRI product to an electric melting furnace and processing the solid product in the electric melting furnace and producing molten metal, such as pig iron or steel. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Producing iron or steel from sponge iron is well known in the art. Eisele is similarly concerned with the production of metallic iron from iron ore (paragraph [0002]). Eisele teaches “the production of metallic iron from its ore which employs a composition comprising a mass of material formed from a mixture of iron ore particles and particles of a reductant that is either a biomass material in particulate form or a plastic resinous material in particulate form” (paragraph [0024]). Eisele teaches that “the resulting iron pieces or nuggets are conveniently shipped, are stable against corrosion and can be used as a replacement for scrap iron in basic oxygen furnaces or for remelting in electric furnaces used in steel making” (paragraph [0041]). Accordingly, 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 product of Low as a replacement for scrap iron in basic oxygen furnaces or for remelting in electric furnaces used in steel making, as taught by Eisele, in order to produce iron or steel as an intermediate or final product.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733