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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-25 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 27 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/13/2025.
Priority
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
Three (3) information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/21/2023, 08/07/2025, and 09/04/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner. The Examiner notes that Cite No. 7 and 8 of IDS mailed 09/04/2025 has the correct files uploaded, but the dates and assignees listed in the IDS have been corrected. The Examiner further notes that the English abstract provided for Cite No. 8 currently listed JP4863935B2 is of a different patent document that does not correspond to JP4863935B2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “38” has been used to designate both “individual connector piping” (page 8, line 31) and “feed branch” (page 11, line 13),
reference character “38.1” has been used to designate both “flange” (page 11, line 13) and “elbow” (page 13, line 29),
reference character “74.1” has been used to designate both “central passage” (page 11, lines 23-24) and “inner surface” (page 10, lines 19-20), and
reference character “96” has been used to designate both “coolant pipe” (page 12, line 22; page 13, line 11) and “first water pipe” (page 13, line 3).
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“A” and “B” in Fig. 3.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“peripheral mounting portion” of claim 1,
“cooling element” or “ceramic/refractory lining” of claim 12, and
“upward peripheral ribs” of claim 22
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the instant abstract is 171 words, which exceeds the limit of 150 words in length,
the instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of limitation “wherein said peripheral wall is cladded with an outer heat protection layer and/or said inner tube is provided with an inner heat protection layer); and/or wherein said peripheral wall is covered with anti-abrasion protection like welding, abrasion resisting material” of claim 19,
reference character “38” has been used to designate both “individual connector piping” (page 8, line 31) and “feed branch” (page 11, line 13),
reference character “38.1” has been used to designate both “flange” (page 11, line 13) and “elbow” (page 13, line 29),
reference character “74.1” has been used to designate both “central passage” (page 11, lines 23-24) and “inner surface” (page 10, lines 19-20),
reference character “96” has been used to designate both “coolant pipe” (page 12, line 22; page 13, line 11) and “first water pipe” (page 13, line 3), and
“bend passage” (at least in page 13, line 4 and line 7) is a potential typographical error since reference characters “90” and “94” are referred to as “bent passage” (at least page 12, lines 22 and 28) elsewhere in the instant specification.
Regarding informality a), Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Regarding informality b), see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 recites the limitation “trough an aperture” which is potentially a typographical error that should read “through an aperture”,
claim 12 recites the limitation “resp.” as an abbreviation and should read the entire word instead (e.g. “respectively”), and
claim 19 recites the limitation “heat protection layer);” with a single, closing parenthesis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are:
“means for injecting process gas” in claims 1 and 18,
“means for injecting hot process gas” (emphasis added) in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the instant case, “means for injecting process gas” is interpreted as an injector (page 2, line 17) or any equivalent structure capable of “injecting process gas”.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “in order to inject hot blast into the shaft furnace” is interpreted as intended use. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “means for injecting process gas, in particular hot reducing gas” is interpreted as “process gas” or “hot reducing gas” being the material worked upon. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this case, any structure capable of injecting gas will be considered as reading upon the instant limitation regardless of the material used in the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “burden material” is interpreted as the raw materials charged from the top of a furnace, including but not limited to sinter, pellets, and coke (page 6, lines 3-5), which descend through the furnace to produce iron.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “tangentially oriented” is interpreted as arranged along the inner shell circumference as described in the instant specification (page 12, lines 2-3).
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, 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 shaft furnace”, and the claim also recites “in particular, a blast furnace” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims 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. In this case, a shaft furnace or a blast furnace will both be considered as reading on the instant limitation.
Claims 2-14, 16-19, and 21-25 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, 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 “means for injecting process gas”, and the claim also recites “in particular hot reducing gas” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims 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. In this case, any process gas will be considered as reading on the instant limitation.
Claims 2-14, 16-19, and 21-25 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front region with injection hole(s)" (emphasis added) in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 recites “a front portion, with at least one injection hole” (emphasis added) in line 14.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said injector body" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 recites “a nozzle body” (emphasis added).
Claims 3-7 depend on claim 2, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said outer member" (emphasis added) in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 4 recites “a cup-shaped outer element” (emphasis added) in line 3.
Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “cooperating frusto-conical surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the term “cooperating” changes the shape of a typical “frusto-conical” geometry or if the term “cooperating” is intended to designate a function, shape, or something different.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said central passage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a central passage is introduced in claim 5 and the instant claim depends on claim 1.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "extending axially from the base member towards the tip". This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what tip is referenced.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said side wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a side wall” is introduced in claim 4 and the instant claim depends on claim 9.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said outer element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “an outer element” is introduced in claim 4 and the instant claim depends on claim 9.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said inner element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “an inner element” is introduced in claim 4 and the instant claim depends on claim 9.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein said injection holes are configured to permit process gas injection generally along the longitudinal axis and/or transversally thereto”. The term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear whether the term “generally” implies that the injection holes should be configured such that the process gas injection occurs (a) in a determined area of the longitudinal axis or transversal to it, (b) in a specific amount of the longitudinal axis or transversal to it, (c) in a direction that is “close” to the longitudinal axis or transversal to it, or (d) a different interpretation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein said injector is arranged through said metal shell so that its longitudinal axis is directed generally towards a center of said furnace or is tangentially oriented”. The term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear whether the term “generally” implies that: (a) most or the entirety of the injector is directed towards a center, (b) the injector is directed in a direction that is “close” to the center of the furnace, or (c) a different interpretation.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16, does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said inner member" (emphasis added) in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 recites “an inner gas channel” in line 11 and “the inner side of said metal shell” in line 14. It is unclear which component is referenced by the limitation “inner member”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said central passage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a central passage” is introduced in claim 5 and the instant claim depends on claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said outer member bottom wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 4 recites “a cup-shaped outer element” (emphasis added) in line 3 and the instant claim depends on claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said peripheral duct" (emphasis added) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 18 recites “a peripheral pipe” in line 2.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the coupler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a coupler” is recited in claims 11 and 17 and the instant claim depends on claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the injector feed branch" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the only other feed branch introduced is “a process gas feed branch” in claim 17 and the instant claim depends on claim 16. It is further unclear whether the “injector feed branch” of claim 18 is the same as the “process gas feed branch” of claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein said peripheral wall is covered with anti-abrasion protection like welding, abrasion resisting material”. The term “anti-abrasion protection” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “anti-abrasion protection” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear what properties a material needs to possess, and to what amounts, for the material to meet the limitation of “anti-abrasion protection”.
Further regarding claim 19, the phrase "like welding, abrasion resisting material" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the term "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein an upper surface of said nozzle body is shaped to promote stagnation of descending material, in particular by way of a flattened upper surface with upward peripheral ribs” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what shapes are considered to “promote stagnation of descending material”.
Further regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein an upper surface of said nozzle body is shaped to promote stagnation of descending material, in particular by way of a flattened upper surface with upward peripheral ribs” renders the claim indefinite. 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 22 recites the broad recitation “shaped to promote stagnation of descending material“, and the claim also recites “in particular by way of a flattened upper surface with upward peripheral ribs” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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.
Further regarding claim 22, the limitation “upward peripheral ribs” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what component constitutes a “rib” and it is further unclear what shape or configuration is needed to meet the limitation “upward peripheral ribs”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "said inner member" (emphasis added) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 recites “an inner gas channel” in line 11 and “the inner side of said metal shell” in line 14. It is unclear which component is referenced by the limitation “inner member”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “for injecting grouting material, insulating material or similar material”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what materials are considered “similar”, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP 2173.05(III)(C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein said nozzle body is further inserted through an aperture in a cooling element”. Claim 1, on which claim 12 depends, recites “said nozzle body being mounted trough an aperture in said metal shell”. Since the nozzle body is already mounted through an aperture in the metal shell, the nozzle body cannot be mounted in a different aperture since the nozzle body would no longer be mounted in the metal shell as recited in claim 1. The claim therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 8-12, 14, 16-18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tchen teaches a process for directly utilizing ore fines in metallurgical furnaces (Title, metallurgical furnace includes a blast furnace as explained in page 1, lines 9-11 and reads on claimed “shaft furnace, in particular a blast furnace”). Tchen teaches arranging for the admixture of ore fines, fuel, flux and air or enriched air to be injected into the boshes through special tuyeres, which are allocated on the boshes’ wall between the level of 1000°C and that of the main tuyeres (page 1, lines 40-53, special tuyeres read on the claimed means for injecting process gas and main tuyeres reads on the claimed plurality of tuyeres; wall reads on the claimed shell and base member). Tchen teaches the special tuyere is constituted by several smaller injecting tubes grouping together with a common water-jacket, whether concentrically or aligned one beside other, but in any case, their axes must be all convergent downward and meet together on one common point while the combustion, agglomerating and smelting of all the injected materials will take place near the wall of the boshes (page 1, lines 69-86).
Tchen teaches the main tuyeres (Figs. 1-5, 1, reads on claimed plurality of tuyeres arranged around the metal shell at a tuyeres level) are located on the upper side of the hearth (2) and near the bottom of the boshes (3), the special tuyeres (5, reads on claimed means for injecting process gas) for injecting the ore fines, etc. are located above the main tuyeres and below the zone, the tuyere is constituted by several smaller tubes with common water-jacket (6), the tube (7) is for injecting the fuel, (8) is for injecting the mixture of ore fines, flux etc. and (9, reads on the claimed inner gas channel for guiding process gas since air is a gas) is for air or enriched air where the interior tube is destined for injecting ore fines, fuel, flux etc. and the exterior one for injecting air or enriched air under pressure to form an air screen around the injected materials to prevent their escaping, projecting elsewhere (page 2, lines 1-27, Figs. 1-5, parts 6-9 are part of the special tuyere and further read on the claimed means for injecting process gas).
Tchen therefore reads on the limitation a plurality of tuyeres arranged around the metal shell at a tuyeres level in order to inject hot blast into the shaft furnace; means for injecting process gas, in particular hot reducing gas, into the shaft furnace at an injection level above said tuyeres level; wherein said means for injecting hot process gas include at least one injector of claim 1 and wherein the nozzle body includes an inner gas channel for guiding process gas from an inlet port in the base member to said injection holes(s) of claim 1.
As seen in Fig. 5, Tchen teaches the cross-section of bosh 3 is a hollow shell (see wall depicted by cross-hatching from where parts 6-9 protrude, reads on claimed shell and base member) and therefore the furnace of Tchen reads on the claimed shell defining a furnace outer wall of claim 1.
As further seen in Fig. 5, Tchen teaches a nozzle body with a peripheral wall extending along a longitudinal axis from a front portion (see nozzle encompassing parts 6-9 and the wall from which it protrudes), with at least one injection hole (tubes 7, 8, and 9 in Fig. 5), to an opposite rear portion connected to a base member. Since Tchen teaches this nozzle and injectors are used inside the wall of a furnace, the nozzle of Tchen also reads on the claimed said injector comprising: a nozzle body with a peripheral wall extending along a longitudinal axis from a front portion, with at least one injection hole, to an opposite rear portion connected to a base member; said nozzle body being mounted trough an aperture in said shell in such a way that the front region with injection hole(s) is located on the inner side of said shell, whereas said rear portion is outside of said shell of claim 1.
However, Tchen does not explicitly disclose a metal shell of claim 1 and wherein the base member comprises a peripheral mounting portion configured for connecting said injector in a gas tight manner to a mounting unit surrounding the aperture in the metal shell of claim 1.
Regarding the material of the shell of claim 1, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary materials for shells used in shaft or blast furnaces. Kitagawa teaches a structure for a tuyere section in a blast furnace (Title). Kitagawa and Tchen are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with the structure of a blast furnace and both comprise a shell and tuyeres, Kitagawa teaches using a steel shell (Description, page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the furnace of Tchen using the steel shell, as taught by Kitagawa, in order to form a blast furnace using known and tested shell materials predictably suitable for metallurgical furnaces.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation metal shell of claim 1.
Regarding the base member and mounting of claim 1, Tchen teaches an exterior tube injects air under pressure (page 2, lines 18-27). It is well-known in the metallurgical arts that blast furnaces operate under pressure and must be gas-tight to contain the processed materials and avoid contamination. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. While Tchen does not explicitly disclose a “peripheral mounting portion”, one such structure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a gas tight operation. In this case, the furnace of Tchen necessarily operates in a gas-tight manner. and therefore the structure of Tchen where the nozzle is mounted in a furnace wall reads on the claimed wherein said base member comprises a peripheral mounting portion configured for connecting said injector in a gas tight manner to a mounting unit surrounding said aperture in said metal shell of claim 1.
Additionally, or alternatively, Nippon Steel teaches a hot gas blowing device for blast furnace (Title). Tchen and Nippon Steel are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with blast furnaces and both teach a blast furnace comprising a shell and an injector for blowing hot gas. Nippon Steel teaches a gas blowing device (Fig. 1-2, E) with housing (1, reads on claimed mounting unit) where the nozzle is divided into a first nozzle (7, reads on claimed nozzle body) and a second nozzle (10, reads on claimed base member comprising a peripheral mounting portion) (pages 2-3 and claim 1). Nippon Steel teaches the nozzle structure prevents charge material from intruding into the nozzle tip (page 1). Nippon Steel further teaches when the nozzle tip has worn or been melted, by dropping the first nozzle 7 into the furnace, its removal is extremely easy and the second nozzle 10 can be used semi-permanently in conjunction with the cooling effects of the cooling box 2 or 2', making it economical (page 3, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the second nozzle of Nippon Steel to the furnace of modified Tchen to prevent intrusion of charge material in the nozzle tip and to enable an easy and economical removal of the nozzle once worn or melted, as taught by Nippon Steel.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
As seen in Fig. 2 of Nippon Steel, the second nozzle (10, reads on claimed base member comprising a peripheral mounting portion) supports and surrounds the (7, reads on claimed nozzle body).
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said base member is configured to support said injector body; and said peripheral mounting portion surrounds said nozzle body over a part of its rear portion of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Tchen teaches special tuyeres (5, reads on claimed nozzle body) for injecting the ore fines, etc. are located above the main tuyeres and below the zone, the tuyere is constituted by several smaller tubes with common water-jacket (6), the tube (7) is for injecting the fuel, (8) is for injecting the mixture of ore fines, flux etc. and (9, reads on the claimed inner tube to guide process gas) is for air or enriched air where the interior tube is destined for injecting ore fines, fuel, flux etc. and the exterior one for injecting air or enriched air under pressure to form an air screen around the injected materials to prevent their escaping, projecting elsewhere (page 2, lines 1-27, Figs. 1-5, parts 6-9 are part of the special tuyere). As seen in Fig. 5, the tubes are extending axially from the wall towards the inside of the furnace.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said nozzle body includes an inner tube extending axially from the base member towards the tip, in axial continuation of said central passage, said inner tube being configured to guide process gas from said inlet port to said injection holes of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 8 as described above.
Tchen teaches a common water-jacket (6, reads on the claimed coolant inlet and outlet channel). As seen in Fig. 4, there is a closed annular gap between water-jacket 6 and the outline of the nozzle which represents the peripheral wall. Regarding the limitation “to supply a coolant fluid to the annular gap, respectively withdraw coolant fluid therefrom”, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. In this case, the water-jacket of Tchen allows for water flow and therefore reads on the instant limitation regardless of the flow direction.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein a closed annular gap is formed between said inner tube and peripheral wall; and said base member comprises a coolant inlet channel and a coolant outlet channel arranged to supply a coolant fluid to the annular gap, respectively withdraw coolant fluid therefrom of claim 9.
Additionally, or alternatively, regarding the coolant channels, Nippon Steel teaches cooling water enters through a water supply inlet (5, Figs. 1-2, reads on claimed coolant inlet channel) passes through the cooling chambers 4 to cool, and is discharged from the drainage outlet (6, reads on the claimed coolant outlet channel) (page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the coolant channels of Nippon Steel to the furnace of modified Tchen to form a cooling system that allows for easy nozzle replacement as taught by Nippon Steel.
Regarding claim 10, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 9 as described above.
The water supply inlet and drainage outlet of Nippon Steel necessarily have a channel that allows for coolant flow despite not being explicitly taught or shown. As seen in Fig. 2, the water supply inlet (5) and drainage outlet (6) are shown in an L-shape, which reads on the claimed bent passage. Additionally, Nippon Steel teaches a curved pipe that supplies gas to the furnace (G, Fig. 1). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the coolant passages and guide channels to accommodate the various components of the blast furnace as needed, as evidenced by the curved pipe G of Nippon Steel.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said coolant inlet channel comprises an inlet guide channel in said side wall of said outer element and a bent passage leading from the first sealing surface to an opening in a front side of said inner element and communicating with said annular gap; and said coolant outlet channel comprises an outlet guide channel in said side wall of said outer element and a bent passage leading from the first sealing surface to an opening in said front side of said inner element and communicating with said annular gap of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 10 as described above.
While modified Tchen and Nippon Steel in particular do not explicitly disclose cooling pipes mounted in the coolant channels, it is well known in the metallurgical arts that coolant supply involves pipes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the water of Nippon Steel to be supplied from a source and use piping and ducts to enable the water flow through the water supply inlet (5) and drainage outlet (6). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein a first cooling pipe is sealing mounted in the coolant inlet channel and a second cooling pipe is sealing mounted in the coolant outlet channel, each of said first and second cooling pipes having a coupler for connection to respective coolant supply and collecting ducts of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Nippon Steel teaches the first nozzle (7, Figs. 1-2, reads on claimed nozzle body) is inserted into the through hole (3, reads on claimed aperture in a cooling element) of the cooling box (2, reads on claimed cooling element) with cooling chambers (4, further reads on claimed cooling element) (page 2). As seen in Fig. 2, the nozzle protrudes from the cooling chambers.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said nozzle body is further inserted through an aperture in a cooling element or adjacent cooling elements or ceramic/refractory lining, whereby the front portion protrudes by a predetermined length from a hot side of the cooling element(s), from a ceramic layer covering the cooling element front side, resp. from said ceramic/refractory lining of claim 12.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Tchen teaches the injecting tubes’ axes of the special tuyere must be all convergent downward and meet together on one common point (page 1, lines 69-77). As seen in Fig. 5, the injection holes from the tubes inside special tuyere 5 allow for gas to flow downstream since the tuyere is shaped to point downwards at an angle.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said injection holes are configured to permit process gas injection generally along the longitudinal axis and/or transversally thereto; and/or wherein at least some injection holes are arranged laterally in the front portion to inject gas downstream in the furnace or tangentially of claim 14 and wherein said injector is arranged through said metal shell so that its longitudinal axis is directed generally towards a center of said furnace or is tangentially oriented of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Tchen teaches special tuyere includes a tube for injecting air (9, Figs. 2-4; 11, Fig. 3, reads on claimed process gas feed branch). As seen in the figures, the tubes surround a central passage. While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the tube is connected in a manner that allows for gas flow and will therefore extend from one opening to another and may be fixed with a coupler or similar fastener. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said injector comprises a process gas feed branch that is connected at one end to a rear face of said inner member, surrounding said central passage, said feed branch extending through an opening in said outer member bottom wall, and comprising at its other end a coupler of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 16 as described above.
Tchen teaches the special tuyeres (5, reads on claimed means for injecting process gas) for injecting the ore fines, etc. are located above the main tuyeres and below the zone, the tuyere is constituted by several smaller tubes with common water-jacket (6), the tube (7) is for injecting the fuel, (8) is for injecting the mixture of ore fines, flux etc. and (9, reads on the claimed inner gas channel for guiding process gas since air is a gas) is for air or enriched air where the interior tube is destined for injecting ore fines, fuel, flux etc. and the exterior one for injecting air or enriched air under pressure to form an air screen around the injected materials to prevent their escaping, projecting elsewhere (page 2, lines 1-27, Figs. 1-5, parts 6-9 are part of the special tuyere and further read on the claimed means for injecting process gas). While Tchen does not explicitly disclose a peripheral pipe surrounding the metal shell, it is well known in the metallurgical arts that pipes are used to supply material, process gas, flux, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the furnace of modified Tchen to include a feed pipe and for the multiple tubes of Tchen’s special tuyeres to be connected to its supply pipe via a fastener or coupler. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said means for injecting process gas include a peripheral pipe surrounding the metal shell, each injector being connected to said peripheral duct by an individual feed pipe connected to the coupler of the injector feed branch of claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
As best understood given the 112(b) rejections in this Office action, the nozzle of Tchen as seen in special tuyere 5 of Fig. 1 reads on the instant claim since the upper surface is shaped horizontally closest to the wall and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the shape of Tchen’s nozzle to slow down descending material.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein an upper surface of said nozzle body is shaped to promote stagnation of descending material, in particular by way of a flattened upper surface with upward peripheral ribs of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Tchen teaches special tuyere (5, reads on claimed injector) has a tube for injecting flux, etc. (8, Figs. 2 and 4; 10 in Fig. 3, reads on the claimed feed channel for filling material; flux reads on the claimed filling material). Regarding the limitation “for filling material opening in a front, upper region of said peripheral wall”, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. In this case, the tube for injecting flux allows for material flow and therefore reads on the instant limitation.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said injector includes a feed channel for filling material opening in a front, upper region of said peripheral wall of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Tchen teaches the invention is not, of course, limited solely to the embodiment illustrated and the form, arrangement and construction of some of the elements used to embody the invention can be varied in many ways within the scope of the claims (page 2, lines 28-33). While Tchen does not disclose the dimensions of the nozzle and aperture, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the nozzle diameter has to be smaller than that of the aperture to be installed inside the furnace shell, as seen in Fig. 5 of Tchen. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Additionally, a change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably adjust the dimensions of the nozzle body to allow for installation onto the aperture of the metal shell and would not perform differently to the claimed device since the furnace of Tchen operates in a gas-tight manner.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein outer dimensions of said nozzle body and said inner member are, by design, inferior to the cross-section of said aperture in said metal shell, such that they can be forced into the furnace of claim 24.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JPS4863935A (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation, hereafter JP’935).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 2 as described above.
Tchen does not explicitly disclose wherein said mounting unit includes a sleeve surrounding said aperture and fixed in a sealed manner to the metal shell; the sleeve being provided with a first annular flange that cooperates with a second annular flange on said peripheral mounting portion of said base member of claim 3.
Regarding the sleeve structure, JP’935 teaches a device for injecting a preferably reducing hot gas into a shaft furnace, in particular a blast furnace (Title). JP’935 and Tchen are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with blast furnaces and comprise a shell, tuyeres, and nozzles.
JP’935 teaches an annular flange (6, both figures) forms the end member of the main body, annular flange (10, reads on the claimed first annular flange) is secured to outer tube (4) by means of a frusto-conical connection and annular flange (11, reads on claimed second annular flange) is connected to a feed pipe (page 5). JP’935 teaches a very well defined internal shape ensures a uniform and regular inflow of hot gas into the furnace (pages 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the furnace of modified Tchen with the annular flanges of JP’935 to provide a will defined internal shape that ensures uniform and regular inflow of hot gas into the furnace. Since the furnace of Tchen is sealed and JP’935 teaches the annular flanges, modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said mounting unit includes a sleeve surrounding said aperture and fixed in a sealed manner to the metal shell; the sleeve being provided with a first annular flange that cooperates with a second annular flange on said peripheral mounting portion of said base member of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 3 as described above.
Nippon Steel teaches second nozzle (10, Fig. 2, reads on claimed base member) has an engagement portion 9' at its tip that engages with the engagement portion 9 of the first nozzle 7, and this nozzle is inserted into the through hole 3 of the cooling box 2, allowing both engagement portions 9 and 9' to engage within the through hole 3 (page 2). Nippon Steel further teaches a flange (12, reads on claimed first annular flange) with a through hole (13, reads on claimed inner element) for the reduction gas, and between this flange 12 and the housing 1, the supply and drainage port of the cooling box 2 and the small rear flange (11, reads on claimed second annular flange) of the second nozzle 10 are interposed, which are tightened and fixed with bolt nuts 14 (page 2). As seen in Fig. 2, second nozzle 10 has a cup shape with a bottom wall and side wall. While Nippon Steel does not explicitly teach “annular sealing surfaces”, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the components of Nippon Steel necessarily have a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the second nozzle of Nippon Steel to the furnace of modified Tchen to prevent intrusion of charge material in the nozzle tip and to enable an easy and economical removal of the nozzle once worn or melted, as taught by Nippon Steel.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said base member comprises: a cup-shaped outer element with a bottom wall surrounded by a side wall, said outer element comprising said second annular flange; and an inner element received inside the outer element; said inner element having a first annular sealing surface cooperating with a second annular sealing surface of said outer member of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 4 as described above.
Nippon Steel teaches through hole (13, reads on claimed inner element) for the reduction gas, which implies the gas flows through part 13. As seen in Fig. 2 of Nippon Steel, the through hole 13 is ring-shaped and forms a central passage where gas flows.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said inner element is ring-shaped and defines a central passage extending along said longitudinal axis, said central passage forming said inlet port for the process gas of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 4 as described above.
While Nippon Steel does not explicitly disclose “peripheral surfaces”, the components necessarily have inner and outer surfaces.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said inner element has an outer peripheral surface including said first sealing surface; and said side wall has an inner peripheral surface including said second sealing surface of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 6 as described above.
Nippon Steel teaches first nozzle is shaped by cutting its tip diagonally to form a tip portion 8 cutting the rear end stepwise to form the engagement portion 9 (page 2). As seen in Fig. 2, the nozzle and its adjacent components taper off towards the tip portion 8. While modified Tchen does not explicitly disclose a frusto-conical surface, Tchen (5, Figs. 1 and 5) and Nippon Steel (7, Fig. 2) both show a typical nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art understands nozzles are commonly shaped as a cone with a cut-off tip, which reads on the claimed frusto-conical tip. The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the surrounding elements to accommodate the nozzle shape.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein second sealing surface is a frusto-conical surface tapering towards said bottom wall of the outer element; and the first sealing surface is a cooperating frusto-conical surface of claim 7.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2012/159247 A1 of Wang (with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Modified Tchen does not explicitly disclose a protruding cover of claim 13 nor a heat protection layer of claim 19.
Wang teaches a small wear resistant sleeve for tuyeres of blast furnaces (Title) and is similarly concerned with blast furnaces and solving the problem of protecting nozzles.
Wang teaches a small sleeve of a wear-resistant blast furnace tuyere (reads on claimed protruding cover since it protrudes above the tuyere of claim 13 and also reads on the claimed peripheral wall clad with a heat protection layer of claim 19), comprising a tuyere cap, a tuyere seat and a water channel, wherein the tuyere cap is made of copper, wherein the front end and the outer wall of the tuyere cap are provided with inlays, and the inlay is provided with a plurality of holes and the inlay is made of wear-resistant, high temperature resistant material (Description, pages 1-2). Wang teaches the sleeve improves wear resistance and improves the service life (Description, pages 1-2). While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the sleeve will protect the nozzle from descending material.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein a protruding cover is arranged above the injector(s) and configured to protect the nozzle body front portion that protrudes inside the furnace from a descending burden material of claim 13 and wherein said peripheral wall is cladded with an outer heat protection layer and/or said inner tube is provided with an inner heat protection layer); and/or wherein said peripheral wall is covered with anti-abrasion protection like welding, abrasion resisting material of claim 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2006/233313 A of Fukumoto (with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Modified Tchen does not explicitly disclose thermocouple and/or wear detectors.
Fukumoto teaches a blast furnace repair method (Abstract). Fukumoto and Tchen are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with blast furnaces, both comprise tuyeres, and are both concerned with solving the problem of detecting wear.
Fukumoto teaches a camera (15, Fig. 2, reads on claimed wear detector) and thermocouple (16, reads on claimed thermocouple) are installed inside a metal protective tube 12 ([0012]). Fukumoto teaches installing the observation device at a predetermined position in the blast furnace tuyere section ([0013]). Fukumoto further teaches inserting a camera into the tuyere to observe the wear state ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the thermocouple and wear detector of Fukumoto to the nozzle of the furnace of modified Tchen to observe the wear state of the tuyere and enable repair, as taught by Fukumoto.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said injector includes one or more thermocouples and/or wear detectors of claim 21.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 101649365 B of Wang (hereafter CN’365, with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claim 25, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Modified Tchen does not explicitly disclose a filling nipple for injecting grouting material, insulating material or similar material in an annular space surrounding said peripheral wall of claim 25.
CN’365 teaches a blast furnace grouting method aims to improve the success rate of blast furnace grouting (Abstract). Tchen and CN’365 are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with blast furnaces and similarly solve the problem of injecting grouting material.
CN’365 teaches drilling a hole using a hollow drill which needs to penetrate the furnace shell and packing layer between the furnace shell and the cooling wall ([0011]). CN’365 teaches the same grouting hole can be reused for grouting multiple times which can reduce the number of openings in the furnace shell and maximize structural strength and airtightness of the furnace shell ([0019], grouting hole reads on the claimed filling nipple for injecting grouting material, insulating material or similar material in an annular space surrounding said peripheral wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the furnace of modified Tchen with the grouting hole of CN’365 to improve the success rate of blast furnace grouting and provide a reusable grouting hole that reduces openings in the furnace shell and maximizes airtightness of the furnace, as taught by CN’365.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on the limitation wherein said mounting unit or mounting portion include a filling nipple for injecting grouting material, insulating material or similar material in an annular space surrounding said peripheral wall of claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733