DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. The Examiner notes that a prior Amendment was filed on 06/26/2026 and the Amendment filed on 07/07/2026 responded to a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment mailed 07/07/2026 due to an abstract not presented on a separate sheet. The claims, drawings, and specifications of both amendments mailed 06/26/2026 and 07/07/2026 are the same with the difference that Amendment of 07/07/2026 presented the abstract on a separate sheet.
Claims 1, 7-14, 16-18, 21-25, and 27 remain pending in the application. Claim 27 has been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 2-6, 15, 19, 20, and 26 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 7-14, 16-18, 21-25 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant's amendments to the drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/26/2026 with the exception of the objection included in this Office action. Applicant's amendments to the abstract and specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/26/2026. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/26/2026. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/19/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are 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: “B” in Fig. 3.
Reference character “B” appears on the left side of Fig. 3 between reference characters “50” and “30”. Reference character “B” is not mentioned in the instant specification.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Amended claims 17 and 18 now contain the limitation “process gas feed branch”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “process gas feed branch”. The instant specification recites “a first peripheral duct 36 (similar to bustle pipe 18) that carries the syngas/process gas. In practice the peripheral duct is thus connected to a source of process gas (not shown). Each injector 50 is connected to duct 36 via a feed branch 38”. Since feed branch 38 carries a process gas, amending the specification to read “process gas feed branch” instead of “feed branch” would not constitute new matter, and would more clearly provide support for the claimed “process gas feed branch”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-12, 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 prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and further in view of JPS4863935A (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation, hereafter JP’935).
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 since a blast furnace is a type of shaft 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 comprising hot reducing gas into the shaft furnace at an injection level above said tuyeres level; wherein said means for injecting process gas includes 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 hole(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 through an aperture in said shell in such a way that the front portion 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, wherein the base member comprises a 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, wherein said base member is configured to support said nozzle body; and said mounting portion surrounds said nozzle body over a part of its rear portion of claim 1, 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 mounting portion of said base member of claim 1, 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 of claim 1, 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 cup-shaped outer element of claim 1, 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 1, and 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 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 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 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 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.
Further regarding the base member of claim 1, as seen in Fig. 2 of Nippon Steel, the second nozzle (10, reads on claimed base member comprising a mounting portion) supports and surrounds the (7, reads on claimed nozzle body). 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 and is part of the claimed outer element) 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 and is part of the claimed outer element) 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 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 1 and 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 1.
Regarding the sleeve structure of claim 1, 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 mounting portion of said base member of claim 1.
Regarding the inner element and outer element of claim 1, 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. 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 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 1 and 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 1.
Modified Tchen therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 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 and one of ordinary skill in the art understands both sealing surfaces should have a “corresponding” cone angle to ensure a gas-sealed operation of the furnace of Tchen. 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 said second sealing surface is a frusto-conical surface tapering towards said bottom wall of the outer element; and the first sealing surface is a frusto-conical surface having a cone angle corresponding to a cone angle of said second sealing surface of claim 7.
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 front portion, 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 coolant pipe is sealing mounted in the coolant inlet channel and a second coolant pipe is sealing mounted in the coolant outlet channel, each of said first and second coolant 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 panel) of the cooling box (2, reads on claimed cooling panel) with cooling chambers (4, further reads on claimed cooling panel) (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 extends through the aperture in said metal shell and through a corresponding aperture in a cooling panel 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 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 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 an inner member, surrounding said central passage, said feed branch extending through an opening in said 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 includes a peripheral pipe surrounding the metal shell, each injector being connected to said peripheral pipe by an individual feed pipe connected to the coupler of the process gas feed branch of claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
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 describe this shape as having a “flattened upper surface” and would also 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 comprises a flattened upper surface 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 an 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.
Claim 13 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 prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and further in view of JPS4863935A (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation, hereafter JP’935), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2012/159247 A1 of Wang (as cited in prior Office action, with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tchen teaches the furnace of claim 1 as described above.
Modified Tchen does not explicitly disclose 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.
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), 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over GB 1019135 A of Tchen (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2013/168784 A1 of Kitagawa (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and further in view of JPS4863935A (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation, hereafter JP’935), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2006/233313 A of Fukumoto (as cited in prior Office action, 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 prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and JPS4827166 of Nippon Steel (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation) and further in view of JPS4863935A (as cited in prior Office action, as cited in IDS mailed 09/04/2025 and with reference to its English machine translation, hereafter JP’935), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 101649365 B of Wang (as cited in prior Office action, 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 wherein said mounting unit or mounting portion includes a filling nipple for injecting grouting material, or insulating 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 or insulating 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 includes a filling nipple for injecting grouting material, or insulating material in an annular space surrounding said peripheral wall of claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tchen fails to disclose the specific claimed mounting arrangement, including a mounting unit with a shell-mounted sleeve (68.1) and cooperating flanges (68.2, 70.1), and a base member comprising a cup-shaped outer element (72) that receives a separate, ring-shaped inner element (74) with cooperative sealing surfaces (remarks, page 14). Applicant argues that Kitagawa fails to disclose a mounting unit with a separate sleeve fixed to the shell, and it fails to disclose the claimed internal two-part structure of the base member (remarks, pages 15-16). Applicant argues that Nippon Steel fails to teach the claimed mounting unit comprising a sleeve fixed to the shell with a first annular flange and also fails to teach a base member comprising a cup-shaped outer element receiving a separate ring-shaped inner element with the specific cooperative sealing surfaces as claimed (remarks, page 16).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, instant claim 1, as currently amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 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) 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), as set forth in this Office action. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, the combination of Tchen, Kitagawa, Nippon Steel, and JP’935 teach the limitations of claim 1 as currently amended, as set forth in this Office action. The Examiner notes that Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the structure of the furnace of modified Tchen differs from the instant invention.
Applicant argues that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if a single prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention (remarks, page 18).
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the prior art rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/26/2026 and in this Office action are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 and not 35 U.S.C. 102 as argued by Applicant.
Applicant argues that Tchen is directed to a different purpose and injects a different medium than that required by the claims (remarks, page 18). Applicant argues that because Tchen fails to teach, at a minimum, the claimed type of injected medium and the specific structural arrangement of the base member and mounting unit, it does not anticipate amended claim 1 (remarks, page 18).
In response, the argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The instant claims are directed to an 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. In this case, the structure of the apparatus of modified Tchen reads on the instant claims as currently amended, as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action. Furthermore, Tchen explicitly teaches injecting air through the special tuyeres (page 1, lines 40-53, air reads on claimed process gas). The combination of Tchen, Kitagawa, Nippon Steel, and JP’935 teach the limitations of claim 1 as currently amended, as set forth in this 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 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.
Contact Information
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
Prosecution Insights