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 with traverse of Group II, claims 13-24 in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that WO052 does not disclose all the elements of claim 13. While the Examiner is persuaded by this argument, upon conducing the searches, Millner in view of Basini was discovered, which discloses the limitations of claim 13. See 103 rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/2/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/10/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is no copy of WO2013/110969 included with the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4: amend “H2” to “H2”. 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.
Claim 22 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 22 recites the limitation "the third heater" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the third heater is introduced in claim 17 and claim 22 depends on claim 13.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 13-16 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millner et al. (US 2010/0313711 A1, hereinafter “Millner”) in view of Basini et al. (US 2013/0129609 A1, hereinafter “Basini”).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, 16, and 22, Millner teaches a method for the melting of pig iron in a blast furnace (Millner, Abstract). Millner teaches blast furnace gas is drawn off at the upper shaft end of the blast furnace 1, de-dusted in a de-duster 7 and purified in a blast furnace gas scrubber 8, then the purified bast furnace gas is compressed in a compressor 12, blended with hydrocarbons, for example natural gas, and subsequently mixed uniformly with the reduction gas REDG from the combustion chamber 10 (Millner, [0014-0017]). Millner further teaches a sufficient mixing zone or mixing chamber is used to set a uniform temperature distribution, where the temperature of the recirculation gas REZG is increased to about 1000°C before being routed through a reformer 11 which is a vessel or tubes filled with a catalyst to reform the hydrocarbon-containing gases (Millner, [0017-0018]). Millner teaches the recirculation gas REZG is subsequently introduced either via tuyers 4 at the level above the tuyeres 4 or into the shaft of the blast furnace 1 (Millner, [0019]).
While Millner teaches the above use of a catalytic reformer to produce the gases introduced into the blast furnace, (Millner, [0017-0019]), Millner does not explicitly disclose a first heater in fluidic downstream connection with a stream of steam and in fluidic downstream or upstream connection with an oxygen source providing oxygen or oxygen-enriched air, said first heater being arranged for heating said stream of steam to provide a first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam or either directly for feeding the first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam and the heated carbon feed stream separately to said one or more reactor inlets or through a mixing unit arranged for first joining the first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam with the heated carbon feed stream to provide a combined stream and for feeding said combined stream to said one or more reactor inlets; said catalytic partial oxidation reactor being in fluidic downstream connection with the gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace.
With respect to the difference, Basini teaches a catalytic system suitable for short-contact-time catalytic partial oxidation for the production of synthesis gas and possibly hydrogen (Basini, [0001]). Basini further teaches the catalytic processes start from the following reagents, hydrocarbons, air and/or air enriched with oxygen, and steam, where the reagents are preheated to a temperature ranging from 25-350°C, premixing the reagents in one or more passages so as to form a homogeneous reagent mixture, then reacting the reagent mixture on the catalytic system to produce the synthesis gas (Basini, [0039-0049]).
As Basini expressly teaches the catalytic system allows a high catalytic activity to be combined with a reduced concentration of by-products responsible for the formation of carbonaceous deposits and/or soot (Basini, [0032]).
Millner and Basini are analogous art as they are both drawn to the formation of synthesis gas comprising CO and H2 (Millner, [0018]; Basini, [0001-0004]).
In light of the motivation to use the short-contact-time catalytic partial oxidation for the production of synthesis gas as taught in Basini above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalytic system and processes in Millner as the reformer 11 in order to allow a high catalytic activity to be combined with a reduced concentration of by-products responsible for the formation of carbonaceous deposits and/or soot (Basini, [0032]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The blast furnace of Millner in view of Basini corresponds to a blast furnace installation for producing pig iron comprising a blast furnace provided with gas inlets in the shaft arranged for feeding a stream of syngas to the blast furnace of claim 13.
The preheating of the air/air enriched with oxygen and steam of Basini corresponds to said blast furnace installation further comprising a first heater in fluidic downstream connection with a stream of steam and in fluidic downstream or upstream connection with an oxygen source providing oxygen or oxygen-enriched air, said first heater being arranged for heating said stream of steam to provide a first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam of claim 13. Moreover, while Basini does not explicitly disclose the actual heater used, the fact that the steam and air are preheater, one of ordinary skill in the art would know there would be a corresponding heating device to actually perform the preheating. The preheating of the air/air enriched with oxygen and steam of Basini corresponds to (a) heating a first stream of steam in a first heater, before or after having been mixed with an oxygen source selected from oxygen and oxygen-enriched air, to provide a first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam of claim 14.
The blast furnace gas traveling from the blast furnace to be blended with natural gas and the mixing chamber to increase the temperature of the REZG gas mixture of Millner corresponds to a second heater in fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace arranged for conveying a first stream of blast furnace gas and with a source of a first stream of natural gas, said second heater being arranged for heating said first stream of blast furnace gas and said first stream of natural gas either separately or mixed to provide a heated carbon feed stream of claim 13 and (b) heating a first stream of blast furnace gas from the blast furnace and a first stream of natural gas in a second heater, before or after being mixed together, to provide a heated carbon feed stream of claim 14.
The preheated gas streams being sent to the catalytic partial oxidation reactor of Millner in view of Basini corresponds to said first and second heater being in fluidic downstream connection with one or more reactor inlets of a catalytic partial oxidation reactor arranged for producing a stream of syngas, either directly for feeding the first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam and the heated carbon feed stream separately to said one or more reactor inlets or through a mixing unit arranged for first joining the first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam with the heated carbon feed stream to provide a combined stream and for feeding said combined stream to said one or more reactor inlets of claim 13 and (c) feeding the first heated stream of oxygen-enriched steam and the heated carbon feed stream either as a combined stream or separately to a catalytic partial oxidation reactor to produce a stream of syngas of claim 14.
The recirculation gas being introduced into the blast furnace of Millner corresponds to said catalytic partial oxidation reactor being in fluidic downstream connection with the gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace of claim 13 and (d) feeding said stream of syngas to the shaft of the blast furnace of claim 14.
The short-contact-time catalytic partial oxidation system and air enriched with oxygen of Basini corresponds to wherein the oxygen source is oxygen gas and the catalytic partial oxidation reactor is a Short Contact Time Catalytic Partial Oxidation reactor of claim 15.
The de-duster and scrubber of Millner corresponds to wherein fluidic connection conveying the first stream of blast furnace gas from the blast furnace comprises a gas cleaning plant of claim 16.
Preheating the steam, air, and hydrocarbon gas streams to 25-350°C of Basini overlaps with wherein the first heater, the second heater and, if applicable the third heater, are controlled such that a temperature of the combined stream is from 200 to 500° C of claim 22. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Basini teaches one of the reagents can be oxygen and/or water vapor, i.e., the oxygen and water vapor are mixed (Basini, [0004]). Given that Basini also teaches the reagents are preheated prior to entering the catalytic system, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to deduce that the oxygen and water vapor are mixed upstream of the preheater as claimed in claim 23. Moreover, Basini teaches the steam, air, and hydrocarbon gas streams are preheated to 25-350°C (Basini, [0047]), which overlaps with claim 23. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millner in view of Basini as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Achatz et al. (US 2016/0348196 A1, hereinafter “Achatz”).
Regarding claim 21, while Millner in view of Basini teaches the blast furnace gas is de-dusted and scrubbed (Millner, [0014]), Millner and Basini do not explicitly disclose a desulphurization unit arranged within the fluidic connection of the first stream of blast furnace gas and/or the first stream of natural gas and/or the heated carbon feed stream.
With respect to the difference, Achatz teaches a method for producing syngas in combination with a metallurgical plant, including a blast furnace, where the blast furnace top gas is cleaned including the removal of sulfur and sulfur compounds (Achatz, Abstract and [0020]).
As Achatz expressly teaches, cleaning the blast furnace top gas allows for the top gas to be used in later operations without bring undesirable contaminants (Achatz, [0017-0020]).
Millner, Basini, and Achatz are analogous art as they are all drawn to the formation of synthesis gas comprising CO and H2 (Millner, [0018]; Basini, [0001-0004]; Achatz, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to remove the sulfur and sulfur compounds from the blast furnace top gas as taught in Achatz above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the sulfur from the blast furnace gas of Millner in view of Basini in order to allow for the top gas to be used in later operations without bring undesirable contaminants (Achatz, [0017-0020]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millner in view of Basini as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ravenscroft, “Direct from Midrex, 3rd Quarter 2017” Midrex 3rd Quarter report, 19 September 2017 (hereinafter “Midrex”).
Regarding claim 24, Millner and Basini do not explicitly disclose wherein the fluidic connection between the catalytic partial oxidation reactor and the gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace is provided with a fluidic connection to a source of a stream of H2, is provided with a further heater for heating said stream of H2.
With respect to the difference, Midrex teaches the direct reduction process with hydrogen addition, which includes adding hydrogen gas to the reducing gas after the reducing gas has passed through a reformer and prior to entering the shaft furnace (Midrex, pg. 10, Figure 3). Moreover, Midrex teaches the hydrogen gas is sent through a preheater prior to being introduced to the reducing gas (Midrex, pg. 10, Figure 3).
As Midrex expressly teaches, the addition of the hydrogen gas allows for less natural gas to be used for a more environmentally friendly process (Midrex, pg. 10, “Hydrogen using in Midrex plants”).
Millner, Basini, and Midrex are analogous art as they are all drawn to the formation of synthesis gas comprising CO and H2 (Millner, [0018]; Basini, [0001-0004]; Midrex, Figure 3).
In light of the motivation to add preheated hydrogen gas to the reducing gas prior to entering the shaft furnace as taught in Midrex above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add hydrogen gas to the syngas of Millner in view of Basini in order to decrease the natural gas used for a more environmentally friendly process (Midrex, pg. 10, “Hydrogen using in Midrex plants”), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, claim 17 introduces a third heater arranged downstream of the second heater for further heating the carbon feed stream upstream of the mixing unit. Neither Millner nor Basini teach multiple heating units for heating the hydrocarbon gas/blast furnace gas more than once. Moreover, claims 18-20 depend on claim 17 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738