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, 3, 57, 9 and 11 have been amended, and claims 1-12 remain under consideration in the application.
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 7 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 7, recite the limitation “wherein the injector is oriented perpendicular or
tangentially to the furnace wall, ending at the upper middle of lower face of the protrusion”. In particular, it is unclear as to what “upper middle of lower face” means, particular since the protrusion (54) has not been described in the specification or defined in the claim to comprise any distinct upper face and lower face; furthermore, none of the figures shows such distinct features. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoes et al. (US Patent No. 8,808,616).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Simoes et al. teaches a metallurgic plant for producing iron products, comprising a shaft furnace (see abstract and column 1, lines 10-49, note shaft furnace of Simoes et al. forms an integral part of a conventional metallurgic plants for producing iron product); and a gas injection system (10, see abstract, figures 1&3, and column 4, lines 10-21) for the shaft furnace (see abstract, column 1, lines 50-67 and column 4, lines 10-21) comprising a furnace wall ( i.e., the portion of the shaft furnace defined by the outer casing 14 of the shaft furnace (see figures 1& 3, and column 4, lines 10-35); and a cooling plate or stave cooler (see figures 1&3); wherein the gas injection system comprise: a gas distribution pipe (i.e., 12, see figures 1&3 and column 4, lines 15-45); one or more injectors (i.e. first blow channel 26 and second blow channels 30, see figure 1-3, and column 4, line 39-column 5, line 10) having nozzles comprising ceramic insert (40, see figure 3 and column 5, lines 35-38, also see column 2, line 53-column 5, line 10); and at least one protrusion (i.e., the ribs see figures 1 &3 ) projecting from the hot side of said cooling plate.
Regarding the cooling plate (i.e., conventionally also called stave cooler), Simoes et al., in figure 3, shows the cooling plate as being attached to the inner wall portion of the shaft furnace outer casing (14); and comprising a hot side, turned away from the furnace wall. It should be noted that eventhough the hot side is not expressly shown in the figures, however, stave coolers or cooling plates of metallurgical furnaces are conventionally or characteristically defined by a hot side or an inner side facing the furnace internal space onto which the refractory bricks or lining are mounted and the cold side facing the furnace outer shell or wall. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2125, which pertains to Drawings, the court held that Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed; and that When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the amendment to claim 1 calling for “wherein the gas injection system further comprises a protrusion that is attached to the hot side of said cooling plate”; Simoes et al. in figures 1 and 3, shows protrusions or ribs projecting from the hot side of said cooling plate. Though these protrusions or ribs are integral part of the hot side of cooling plate and not attached per the dictionary definition of the word phrase “that is attached’; however, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.V.B which pertains to obviousness of making integral, similar to instantly-claimed assembly of the protrusion and the hot side of and cooling plate and that of Simoes et al., the court held that a claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. It should also be pointed out that, claim 1 as instantly amended does not necessarily distinguish between a protrusion and a rib projecting from the face of the hot side of the cooling plate.
Regarding the length of the clamed ceramic insert, Simoes et al., in figure 3, shows nozzles comprising ceramic insert (40) that traverses or extends beyond the furnace wall, the cooling plate and the protrusion on cooling plate; and terminating inside the furnace at injection points (28 &32, see figures 2& 3, column 4, lines 39-49 and column 5, lines 13-19 and lines 35-38).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Simoes et al. in figured 3, shows protrusions or ribs which are integral part of the cooling plate and projecting off the face of the hot side of the cooling plate, and therefore the protrusions are inherently actively cooled by the cooling water that circulates through the cooling plate. Thus, Simoes et al. meets substantially all aspects of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, shows protrusions or ribs which are integral part of the
cooling plate that is mounted on the furnace outer shell and hence any heat generated in the cooling pate and the protrusions would be extracted by the furnace shell by heat conduction; and as a result, the protrusions would necessarily be passively cooled by the furnace shell. Thus, Simoes et al. meets substantially all aspects of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Simoes et al. teaches nozzles comprising ceramic insert (40) that are accessible via a connecting or access ports (36 and 38, see figure 3 and column 5, lines 35-38) on the furnace wall (see figure 3). Thus, Simoes et al. meets
substantially all aspects of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Simoes et al. teaches a gas injection system for a furnace
in which the gas distribution pipe or bustle pipe (12, see figures 1-3(14) is divided into a plurality of portions located around the furnace with each portion being supplied by individual hot reducing gas supply lines (see figure 2, shows a staggered arrangement of a plurality of gas supply lines and corresponding injection points 28 and 32, also see column 5, lines 13-19).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoes et al. (US Patent No. 8,808,616) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Greaves (US 3,722871).
Regarding claim 8, Simoes et al. in figures 1-3, shows a gas distribution pipe (12) that comprises plurality of injectors (see figure 2 for example shows at least 9 injectors opening or points) but fails to particularly teach a gas distribution pipe that comprises between 20 and 100 injectors.
Greaves teaches a gas injection system (i.e., tuyere see abstract and figures 1-5 and column 1, lines 40-60) for a furnace having a gas distribution pipe (i.e., bustle pipe 20, see column 3, lines 44-60 and figures 1 and 2) that comprises at least 20 injectors (i.e., the sum total of first row of tuyeres 11a and 11b, and second row of tuyeres 12 a and 12b, which overlaps with the claimed range of injectors, see figures 1-5 and column
3, lines 8-60, Also see MPEP 2144.05.I.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gas injection system of Simoes et al. to us a gas distribution pipe that comprises at least 20 injectors as taught by Greaves so as to provide the benefit of effectively and efficiently controlling the internal conditions such as the maintaining a uniform temperature and reaction in the furnace during the pig iron making process (see Greaves, abstract and column 1, lines 30-40).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoes et al. (US Patent No. 8,808,616) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Rhodes (EP0639750).
Regarding claim 11, Simoes et al. fails to teach a protruding cover arranged above the injector(s) and configured to protect a nozzle body of the injectors front portion that protrudes inside the furnace from a descending burden material.
Rhodes teaches a gas injection system or a burner for a furnace (see Rhodes, abstract and column 1, lines 1-5), the furnace (2, see figure 1 and abstract) defining a furnace wall and comprising a cooling plate (i.e., cooling panel 4, see abstract and figure 1), the burner (6) having an injector with nozzle body portion that comprises a portion (32), see figure 1) protruding inside the furnace that is provided with a cover (38, see figure 1 and column 5, lines 20-26) having a smooth acuate surface that is configured for deflecting any scrap falling down; and thereby protecting the burner and its mounting assembly from any damaging impact from a falling scrap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gas injection system of Simoes et al. to provide a protective cover over the injector nozzle body portion that protrudes inside the furnace as exemplified by Rhodes, to provide the benefit of protecting the burner and its mounting assembly from any damaging impact from a falling scrap during scrap charging into the furnace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 remain 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal argument is that there is no further, separate protrusion attached to the hot side of the cooling plate, as recited by Applicant's amended claim 1, and as illustrated, e.g., in Applicant's Fig. 2 which discloses a protrusion 54 being attached to the hot face of a ribbed cooling plate 18, and that claim term, "attached", means "fastened, affixed, joined" (see e.g. Oxford Dictionary). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not describe a portion that is integrally formed with another portion as being "attached" thereto. Rather, it would be readily understood that the two are parts of a unitary structure. In other words, a rib that is integrally part of the cooling plate cannot be said to be attached to it, hence Simoes fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations amended claim 1.
In response, it should also be pointed out that, claim 1 as instantly amended
does not necessarily distinguish between a protrusion and a rib projecting from the face of the hot side of the cooling plate.
It is also noted that Simoes et al. in figures 1 and 3, shows protrusions or
ribs projecting from the hot side of said cooling plate. Though these protrusions or ribs are integral part of the hot side of cooling plate and not attached per the dictionary definition of the word phrase “that is attached’; however, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.V.B which pertains to obviousness of making integral, similar to instantly-claimed assembly of the protrusion and the hot side of and cooling plate and that of Simoes et al., the court held that a claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. It should also be pointed out that, claim 1 as instantly amended does not necessarily distinguish between protrusion and ribs projecting of the face of the hot side of the cooling plate.
It should further be pointed out that the rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), of claim 7, presented in the previous rejection was not addressed in Applicant’s response, and therefore said rejection is maintained in the instant Office action.
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 MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759