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 .
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
Claims 1-11, 13 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 12, 14 and 15 are being examined in the instant office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner except for the Notice of the substantive examination report issued in corresponding AR Application NO. 20200101581 results and prior art search. No copy has been provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 states a deduster operable for “deducting” top gas. This apparently should read “dedusting” and the Appropriate correction is required to the claim and the corresponding language in [0013] of the specification.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 now claims “natural gas or another carburizing gas being introduced into a portion the gas remaining after removal of the hydrogen.” The original specification supports natural gas or another carburizing gas being introduced into “the gas” remaining after removal of the hydrogen (paragraph [0027] discloses “The remaining stream (15) is enriched with carbon-bearing gas”) but does not support natural gas or another carburizing gas being introduced into only “a portion” of the gas or a portion of the remaining stream.
7. 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the carburization zone" in line 5 and line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 1 states “a carburizing zone.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the dedusting step" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 states a “a deduster” but not a dedusting step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0036804 A1 of Reid in view of WO 2019/219340 A1 of Kooij and US 7,491,309 B2 of Peter et al.
Regarding claim 12, Reid teaches a system for the direct reduction of iron wherein the process loop uses hydrogen as the sole reducing agent {Abstract, Figure 9, “By using hydrogen as the sole reducing agent, the carbon dioxide produced by all current iron making technologies is eliminated”, [0013]}. They further teach the regeneration of hydrogen from steam created in the process using electrolysis {Figure 9 and “A novel feature of the invention is the on-site generation of the required hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of the water produced in the reduction reactions and subsequent recycling of the hydrogen and oxygen”, [0019]}. This reads on the required limitation in claim 12 of a system for the direct reduction of iron including a process loop using hydrogen as a chemical carrier for removal of oxygen from iron ore and regenerating resulting steam by electrolysis.
Reid further teaches the system to include a hot gas filter which separates the iron powder from other gases created from the reduction of the iron oxide; this feature does not condense the steam from the reaction {Figure 9, “The iron product is separated by high temperature gas filtration”, [0020]}. Reid further teaches the system may use a shaft furnace for the direct reduction {“Direct Reduction (DR) technologies that convert iron ore into solid iron products fall into three main categories, shaft furnaces (Midrex, HYL), rotary kiln furnaces (Inmetco, Fastmet) or fluidized bed furnaces (FINMET)”, [0009]}. Figure 9 further shows the system does not require any addition of liquid water to the process. This reads on the required limitation in claim 12 of a system for the direct reduction of iron including a deduster operable for deducting top gas from a shaft furnace of the process loop without condensing steam in the top gas and wherein no liquid water is added to the process loop.
Reid further teaches the system to include the production of hydrogen from the water vapor present in the gas created from the reduction of the iron oxide using an electrolyzer {Figure 9 and “A novel feature of the invention is the on-site generation of the required hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of the water produced in the reduction reactions and subsequent recycling of the hydrogen and oxygen”, [0019]}. This reads on the required limitation in claim 12 of a system for the direct reduction of iron including an electrolyzer.
Although Reid provides a specific embodiment where steam is condensed to liquid water for electrolysis, Reid broadly teaches a “novel feature of the invention is the on-site generation of the required hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of the water produced in the reduction reactions and subsequent recycling of the hydrogen and oxygen”, and thus teaches the use of an electrolyzer in the system to create hydrogen from water in general. Reid is silent to electrolyzer comprising solid oxide electrolyzer for steam electrolysis operable for producing the hydrogen using water vapor present in the top gas , i.e. specifically electrolysis of the steam from the top gas instead of condensing the steam to liquid water for electrolysis.
In the field of endeavor of direct reduction of iron ore using hydrogen gas as reducing agent, Kooij teaches using a solid oxide electrolysis cell modules for electrolysis of steam since the working temperatures of the modules is in the range of about 400-1000C, where steam is dissociated to produce oxygen and hydrogen. The high temperature steam significantly reduces the electrical input required for hydrogen production relative to traditional electrolysis processes resulting in high overall system efficiency and reduced energy costs (Page 4, Line 20 – Page 5, Line 9).
Peter et al. teach that electrolysis of steam uses less electrical energy input than the electrolysis of water for generating the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen and the integration of a solid oxide electrolyzer cell with cost-effective heat source reduces the total cost of hydrogen production (col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a solid oxide electrolyzer for steam electrolysis as the electrolyzer in the direct reduction of iron system of Reid, as taught by Kooij as used in process for direct reduction of iron ore to provide hydrogen via electrolysis of steam which significantly reduces the electrical input required for hydrogen production relative to traditional electrolysis processes resulting in high overall system efficiency and reduced energy costs. Using a solid oxide electrolyzer for steam electrolysis of the steam from the top gas in the system of Reid instead of condensing the steam to water for water electrolysis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art as taught by Peter et al. to use less electrical energy for electrolysis compared to electrolysis of water to generate the same amount of hydrogen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0036804 A1 of Reid in view of WO 2019/219340 A1 of Kooij and US 7,491,309 B2 of Peter et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of WO 2019/042574 A1 of Stroder and US 6063155 A of Masso.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 12, and the relevance of Reid is set forth supra.
Reid teaches the system for the direct reduction of iron to include a purge stream {Figure 9}. Reid further teaches that there are significant energy efficiency improvements in preheating the feed materials by heat exchange with the hot reactor products {“ Significant improvement in energy efficiency can be achieved by preheating the feed materials by heat exchange with the hot reactor products”, [0018]}. However, Reid does not teach the system to have a fired heater operable for heating bustle gas introduced into the shaft furnace.
In the field of endeavor of a plant for the treatment of Iron containing oxide, Stroder teaches the reducing gas (analogous to bustle gas) to be heated using a fired gas heater {Abstract, “In another preferred embodiment of the invention, the reducing gas in the reduction stage is heated by indirect heat transfer with at least one fired gas heater”, Page 5, Lines 14-15}. This reads on the required limitation in claim 14 of a system for the direct reduction of iron with a fired heater operable for heating bustle gas introduced into the shaft furnace.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a fired heater operable for heating the bustle gas, as taught by Stroder, in order to ensure the feed materials are properly preheated in the scenario that heat exchange with the hot reactor products is not sufficient.
The references as combined do not teach the system for the direct reduction of Iron to include a compressor operable for compressing the top gas without cooling at a temperature above 100°C.
In the field of endeavor of a process for the conversion of iron oxide to iron carbide, Masso teaches a system that includes a compressor which is used for top gas; they teach the top gas can be compressed so that it may be suitably used as a fuel for the heater {Abstract, “The other portion or stream of top gas from compressor 52 may suitably be fed through line 58 to heater 56 as fuel for same”, (19)}. As the compressor is being used for the top gas, it can be assumed the compressor is operable at a temperature above 100°C, as top gas is generally hotter than 100°C, as seen by the top gas temperature in Figure 9 of Reid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a compressor operable for compressing the top gas without cooling at a temperature above 100°C to system of the references as combined, as taught by Masso, in order to use the top gas as a fuel for the heater in the system.
The references as combined are further silent to the inclusion of a carburizing gas injector operable for depositing carbon on direct reduced iron formed from the iron ore via the introduction of carburizing gas into the shaft furnace in their system for the direct reduction of iron.
In the field of endeavor of a process for the conversion of iron oxide to iron carbide, Masso teaches a system for the production of iron carbide to include injecting a carburizing gas to a carburizing zone of the reactor to create iron carbide {Abstract, “feeding a carburizing gas to said carburizing zone so as to provide a final iron carbide product in said carburizing zone”, (13)}. They teach the benefit of carburization is to create iron carbide, which has been found to be a very useful starting material in the production of steel {“Iron carbide has been found to be a very useful starting material in the production of steel”, (3)}. This reads on the required limitation in claim 14 of a system for the direct reduction of iron including a carburizing gas injector operable for depositing carbon on direct reduced iron formed from the iron ore via the introduction of carburizing gas into the shaft furnace.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a carburizing gas injector operable for depositing carbon on direct reduced iron formed from the iron ore via the introduction of carburizing gas into the shaft furnace to the system of the references as combined, as taught by Masso, in order to create iron carbide which is useful as a starting material for the production of steel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that the EP Application very recently received an Intent to Grant where the verbatim claim was found patentable over each of the references cited here, which were also cited by the EPO as D1-D3. Applicant argues that Reid generally teaches creating an internal heat generating gas comprising hydrogen and oxygen generated by electrolysis of water in an electrolyzer. Furthermore, Reid discloses in paragraph [0050] that "the remaining (reducing) gas ... contains only hydrogen and steam. This is fed into a condenser and liquid water is removed for recycling to the electrolyzer."
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing because while Reid does disclose condensing steam to water for electrolysis, the “novel feature of the invention is the on-site generation of the required hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of the water produced in the reduction reactions”, which the position of the Office is that this is not limited to liquid water electrolysis. Nevertheless, Kooij and Peter et al. teach the benefits of solid oxide electrolyzer steam electrolysis over liquid water electrolysis for efficiency, reduced energy costs and use of less electrical energy.
The rejection of claim 14 is maintained. There were no specific arguments presented.
The rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn for the reasons as set forth in the Notice of Allowance issued on September 30, 2022, for parent application US 16/889,859. However the claims is 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 and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Yvonne L Eyler can be reached at (571)272-1200. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759