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 15, 18, and 21-24. Claims 1-14 are canceled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on04/23/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Raick US 3231254 A are maintained under additional grounds necessitated by amendment.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There is an inconsistency in reference to the internal wall and external wall or shell. [0016] in the instant Specification recites “…the blast furnace has an external wall, or shell 2…” and “…an internal wall 5…”[0017] and [0018] of the instant Specification recite “…the internal wall 2.” It is unclear the designation for reference numerals 2 and 5. 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.
Claims 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.
Claim 15 recites “an internal wall in contact with matters charged into the blast furnace” in Line 9 and “the internal wall in the injection zone” in Lines 9-10. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “the internal wall in the injection zone.” This is further emphasized by the clear recitation of “an external wall” in Line 8. The nexus between each reference of an “internal wall” is disjointed and it is not clear from the claim language as presently drafted if these are the same internal walls, or separate walls. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
857
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Raick ‘254 Fig ures 1-3
Claims 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Raick US 3231254 A as evidenced by NPL Yang et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Raick ‘254 discloses a blast furnace for ironmaking production where iron ore is at least partly reduced by a reducing gas, the blast furnace comprising: a stack (claim 4), the reducing gas being injected in the stack in an injection zone; an external wall; and an internal wall in contact with matters charged into the blast furnace, the internal wall in the injection zone having local inward enlargements in the form of a burden deflector which extend along with recesses inward into the blast furnace (Column 2, Lines 5-13), the reducing gas injection locations being below the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements) (Column 1, Lines 9-27).
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 15, Raick ‘254 discloses “a blast furnace of conventional construction including a continuous internal furnace wall formed by the hearth, bosh, and stack” in claim 4. As evidenced by NPL Yang et al., blast furnaces of conventional construction include a hearth, bosh, belly, and shaft or stack, specifically a belly located below the stack, a bosh below the belly, a hearth below the bosh, and a tuyere level located between the bosh and hearth. see e.g. (Figures 1.1.4-6). Raick ‘254 further discloses a tuyere level between the bosh and hearth (Column 2, Lines 28-44, claims 3-4), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Raick ‘254 discloses the reducing gas injection locations are directly below the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements) (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Raick ‘254 discloses the reducing gas injection locations are at a distance equal to a width of the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Raick ‘254 discloses the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements) are protrusions added to the internal wall (Fig. 1) (Column 2, Lines 28-32), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Raick ‘254 discloses the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements) are formed by a stave having a trapezoidal section (Fig. 1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I.
Regarding Claim 21, Raick ‘254 discloses the reducing gas is injected by an injector arranged to inject the reducing gas downwards (Fig. 1), meeting the limitations of the instant 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raick US 3231254 A as applied to Claims 15 and 17-21 above, in view of Zhou et al. CN 204490910 U.
Regarding Claim 16, Raick ‘254 discloses the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the width of its recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements).
However, Zhou et al. ‘910 teaches at [0017] a tuyere for a blast furnace having a truncated protective cone formed over the tuyere end having a length of about 100 to 150 mm “because the effective length of the tuyere (4) is usually about 200 mm.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements) of Raick ‘254 to extend from 200 mm to 250 mm in order to deflect falling burden and protect the tuyere nozzle outlet while maintaining an effective length of the tuyere based on the teachings of Zhou et al. ‘910 at [0017] and Raick ‘254 at (Column 1, Lines 52-54), overlapping the instantly claimed range of a width between 50 and 250 mm, meeting the limitations 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). "[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).
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. 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.
Claims 22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raick US 3231254 A as applied to Claims 15 and 17-21 above, in view of Keogh et al. EP 0446860 A1.
Regarding Claims 22 and 25, Raick ‘254 discloses the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the width of its recesses (meeting the limitation for enlargements).
However, Keogh et al. ‘860 teaches a blast furnace with tuyeres angled between 10° to 80° degrees downward with respect to a horizontal plane and blowing reducing gas for ironmaking at a speed of about 10 to 150 m/s in order to increase iron reduction efficiency [0020, 0025].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to position the downward angled tuyeres of Raick ‘254 to at an angle between 10° to 80° with respect to a plane perpendicular to the internal wall and blow reducing gas at a speed between about 10 to 150 m/s, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of 15° and 30° and 75 m/s and 200 m/s in order to increase iron reduction efficiency based on the teachings of Keogh et al. ‘860 at [0020, 0025], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
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). "[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 26, Raick ‘254 modified by Keogh et al. ‘860 teaches the limitations set forth above. Raick ‘254 does not expressly teach reduction gas contains part of top gas exhausted from the blast furnace during the ironmaking process.
However, Keogh et al. ‘860 further teaches the reducing gas contains part of top gas exhausted from the blast furnace during the ironmaking process [0016].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle top gas exhausted from the blast furnace during the ironmaking process as part of the reducing gas in order to increase operation efficiency, based on the teachings of Keogh et al. ‘860 at [0016], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 27, Raick ‘254 modified by Keogh et al. ‘860 teaches the limitations set forth above. Raick ‘254 does not expressly teach reduction temperature.
However, Keogh et al. ‘860 further teaches an advantageous iron reduction temperature range between 800 °C and 1500 °C, overlapping the range of the instant Claim of 850 °C and 1200 °C [0004]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to inject reducing gas at a temperature between 800 °C and 1500 °C in order to efficiently reduce iron based on the teachings of Keogh et al. ‘860 at [0004], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
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). "[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).
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).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raick US 3231254 A as applied to Claims 15 and 17-21 above, in view of Tleugabulov SU 905288 A1.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Raick ‘254 discloses the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the location of reducing gas injection with respect to the working height of the furnace.
However, Tleugabulov ‘288 teaches a blast furnace with tuyeres for injecting reducing gas located at 5-55% of the working height of the furnace for stabilizing iron reduction [0013], overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of between 20% and 70% and between 30% and 60% of the working height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to position the tuyeres of Raick ‘254 to a position between 5% and 55% of the furnace working height, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, in order to increase iron reduction stability based on the teachings of Tleugabulov ‘288 at [0013], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
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). "[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).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raick US 3231254 A as applied to Claims 15 and 17-21 above, in view of Zhang et al. CN 101555532 A.
Regarding Claim 28, Raick ‘254 discloses the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the concentration of reducing gas used in the furnace.
However, Zhang et al. ‘532 teaches a blast furnace for ironmaking utilizing a reducing gas comprising 0-3% CO2, 30-70% CO, 0-10% H2 and 0-10% N2 [0012], overlapping the instantly claimed concentration ranges.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the reducing gas composition taught in Zhang et al. ‘532 in order to efficiently reduce iron based on the teachings of Zhang et al. [008-0013], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
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). "[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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/12/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
857
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/12/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the primary reference does not define local inward enlargements. However, as made clear in the amended Figure 1 of Raick ‘254 above, it is clear a lip extends inward into the furnace and over the injection zone from material forming the internal wall of the blast furnace. Applicant’s Specification at [0018] describes a cavity which Raick ‘254 teaches as a recess, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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