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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, 21-22, 25, and 27 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 27 are examined herein. Claim(s) 21-22 and 25 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 27 is/are amended. Claim(s) 4, 8-9, 19-20, 23-24, and 26 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 1 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10, 11-14, 16-18, and 27, and the cancellation of claim 19, except as noted below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the instant claims, the phrase “relatively uniform bed of briquettes” is herein interpreted as:
“a relatively uniform layer of briquettes covering a base of the conveyor and typically having a consistent 'bed' depth, at least length ways, i.e. in the direction of briquette travel within the furnace.” as described at pg. 11 lines 10-14 of the instant specification.
Regarding the instant claims, the phrase “linear hearth furnace” is herein interpreted as: “a furnace that extends horizontally in a straight line” as described at pg. 9 lines 9-15 of the instant specification.
Regarding the instant claims, the phrase “segmented base” is herein interpreted as: any form of base that includes a plurality of segments that are separate or connected together to allow the base to move in an endless path” as described at pg. 9 line 30 – pg. 10 line 1 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "briquettes" in line 8. The limitation is indefinite as the lack of an article makes unclear whether “briquettes” refer to the same briquettes as in lines 2 or 4, or to different briquettes.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
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 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleifuss et al. (US 20080302211 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025) in view of Eisele et al. (US 20070209480 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025), Hwang et al. (US 20080087135 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025), and Kiesel et al. (US 20120198966 A1, cited in Office Action dated 01/26/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Bleifuss teaches a method for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) from briquettes of a composite of iron ore fragments and carbonaceous material (Title, Abstract, [0064, 0098]) in a linear hearth furnace (Title, [0040-0041]) including walls formed of refractory material 41 (i.e., a refractory-lined chamber) [0093]. Bleifuss teaches having the following zones along the length of the furnace between an inlet for briquettes of iron ore fragments and carbonaceous material and an outlet for the DRI (Fig. 1, 6B, [0084, 0087]): a feed zone 27 that includes the inlet (Fig. 1, [0042, 0084]), a preheat zone 28 [0042], a final reduction zone 30 [0042] and a discharge zone 22 that includes the outlet [0070]. Bleifuss teaches a container moving apparatus 24 that moves through the zones from the inlet to the outlet (Fig. 1, [0042-0044]) and a container return apparatus 14 that returns to the inlet (Fig. 1, [0044-0088]), where as the apparatuses together move containers 15 in a loop, Bleifuss teaches an endless conveyor as claimed. Bleifuss teaches the conveyor 24/14 comprises containers 15/80 having bases 82 (i.e., segments of the base) for receiving and supporting briquettes (Fig. 5A-D, [0050-0057]) which receive and support briquettes (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0050]), where the segments 15 are placed on the conveyor 24/14 (Fig. 1, [0043]), and are thus connected together, which allow the base to move along the endless path of the conveyor (Fig. 1, [0119, 0135]). Bleifuss teaches feeding briquettes onto the base of the conveyor in a charging end 20 (i.e., part of the feed zone) (Fig. 1, [0044]), transporting briquettes on the conveyor through the preheat zone 28 and heating briquettes [0131] and releasing volatiles in carbonaceous in briquettes [0042]. Bleifuss teaches the atmosphere to have a reducing atmosphere [0130], and that movement of gases occurs through the preheat zone 28 [0082], thus one of ordinary skill would expect at least some reducing of iron ore in briquettes in the preheating zone 28. Bleifuss teaches heating including generating heat by burning combustible gases in a top space of the preheat zone 28 via a plurality of air fed burners 38 (Fig. 1, [0079, 0094]). Bleifuss teaches the presence of carbon monoxide in the furnace [0130], which is not contained in natural gas fed to the burners 38 [0094], thus the gases burned would include CO combustible gas generated within the furnace.
Bleifuss teaches transporting heated briquettes on the conveyor from the preheat zone 28 through the final reduction zone 30 [0131], with the system (including final reduction zone 30) having a controlled atmosphere to prevent oxidation (i.e., being an anoxic environment) [0108], and heating briquettes [0060] and reducing iron ore in briquettes and forming DRI [0075]. Bleifuss teaches transporting DRI on the conveyor 24 to the discharge zone 22 at the outlet and discharging processed material (i.e., DRI) from the discharge zone 22 (Fig. 1, [0070]). Bleifuss teaches returning the unloaded containers 15 along container return apparatus 14 (analogous to an unloaded conveyor) from the outlet to the inlet of the furnace after discharging the DRI (Fig. 1, [0067]). Bleifuss teaches repeating feeding briquettes onto the segmented base of the conveyor [0051, 0118].
Bleifuss does not teach wherein the briquettes comprise biomass.
Eisele teaches production of iron using environmentally-benign renewable or recycled reducing agents (Title), where iron ore and a reductant of biomass material in particulate form is shaped into pellets and placed in a furnace to produce metallic iron directly from ore (Abstract), wherein the biomass comprises carbon [0009, 0042], therefore Eisele and Bleifuss are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods of direct reduction of pellets of iron ore and carbonaceous material to metallic iron in a furnace. Eisele teaches the invention has the advantage of allowing renewable and recyclable organics to be used as reducing agents without having to first process the organics to produce charcoal or otherwise prepare them for the smelting process, as biomass can be used in a raw form [0039], and that biomass is a surplus or waste product and thus has low costs [0039]. Eisele teaches the use of biomass material or other organic acts as a binder for the pellets holding them together until the reactions are completed, making it unnecessary to use additional binders such as bentonite clay, where the elimination of separate binders results in less contamination of the product, smaller quantities of slag and simplifies the control of slag properties [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used biomass as the carbonaceous material as taught by Eisele (i.e., to use a composite of iron ore fragments and biomass) in the briquettes of iron ore and carbonaceous material of Bleifuss as doing so would not require pretreatment of the biomass, benefit from lower costs, not require additional binders, and result in less contamination of the product, smaller quantities of slag, and simplify control of slag properties as taught by Eisele.
Bleifuss does not teach supplying electromatic energy into the final reduction zone.
Hwang teaches a microwave heating method for iron oxide reduction (Title), where iron oxides are reduced using microwave heating in a furnace chamber that is sealed against entrance of air and produces combustible gas (Abstract), where reduction may be performed in a linear conveyor furnace [0017] thus Hwang and Bleifuss are analogous to the instant application, as both are directed to methods of reducing iron oxides in linear conveyor furnaces that maintain non-oxidizing atmospheres within. Hwang teaches supplying microwave energy into primary zone 98 A (analogous to a final reduction zone) of a furnace chamber 98 of a linear conveyor furnace 88 (Fig. 10, [0061]), where the microwaves may be supplied in addition to further heating by burners [0063]. Hwang teaches microwave heating is selective, and only heats components of the material that needs to be heated, i.e., to reduce the hematite or magnetite and does not heat nonferrous components of the feed material directly, so that the energy is much more efficiently used and the maximum temperature reached can be much lower [0006], while air injection in conventional heating results in combustion of carbo which may waste useful combustibles and adds to the carbon footprint of the process [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied microwaves to reduce iron oxide in the final reduction zone as taught by Hwang to the process of Bleifuss as doing so would use energy more efficiently, reduce the temperatures the furnace must be able to operate at, and reduce the carbon footprint of the process by reducing the amount of heating performed by the use of burners as taught by Hwang.
Bleifuss teaches charging hot return containers (analogous to a segmented base of the conveyor) back to the feed zone 27 [0042, 0149], which would return heat to the furnace and therefore contribute to heating briquettes. Bleifuss does not teach the base of the conveyor having a hot face temperature of at least 500 °C when it returns to the feed zone and before it is loaded with briquettes.
Kiesel teaches a system and method for making metallic iron with reduced CO2 emissions (Title), where metallic iron nodules (i.e., reduced iron) are produced in a linear hearth furnace (Abstract) with a preheat zone 12 ([0023, 0036], Fig. 1-2), and a conversion zone 13 and a fusion zone 14 where iron is reduced and fused (i.e., a final reduction zone) (Fig. 1-2, [0036]), where the metallic iron is produced from compacts such as briquettes comprising reducible material such as iron ore and reducing carbonaceous material [0068], where the briquettes are conveyed on hearth cars 21 (Fig. 1-2, [0037]), thus Kiesel and Bleifuss are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods for producing reduced iron from briquettes of iron ore and carbonaceous material in a furnace with a preheat zone and final reduction zone where the briquettes are transported on a conveyor. Kiesel teaches after passing through the furnace, the conveyor 21 is returned to the transfer table 91 for returning the conveyor to the furnace [0038], where the conveyor is heated or at least the rate of cooling is reduced in shrouded return 30 by flue gas from the final reduction zone 13/14 (Fig. 1-2, [0039]), where as the conveyor is heated or cooling of the conveyor is slowed, the conveyor would retain at least some residual heat from passing through the furnace, which would intrinsically contribute to heating the briquettes when fed onto the conveyor. Kiesel teaches the shrouded return may be heated to about 540-1090 °C [0050], thus the conveyor, and a face of a base of the conveyor, may be heated to 540-1090 °C, which is within the claimed range. Kiesel teaches the use of a shrouded return improves energy efficiency in the system [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a temperature of 540-1090 °C on the conveyor as it returns to the inlet of the furnace as taught by Kiesel in the process of Bleifuss, as doing so would improve energy efficiency in the system as taught by Kiesel. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Bleifuss teaches its conveyor should be cooled to the degree that it may accept agglomerate (Bleifuss: [0060]), and Kiesel teaches the briquettes (i.e., agglomerates) are loaded onto the conveyor maintained at 425-650 °C (Fig. 1-2, [0053, 0077].
Thus, the disclosure of Bleifuss in view of Eisele, Hwang, and Kiesel is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the special technical feature as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 27, Bleifuss teaches wherein each segment 15/80 of the segmented base comprises a supporting substructure or tray 82 (i.e., a plate) made of stainless steel, carbon steel, Inconel metal, or other metals, alloys, or combinations thereof (i.e., a metal plate) [0052] upon which briquettes are received via the refractory material 84 ([0050], Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, and 10-18 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 01/26/2026. The amendments to claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, and 10-18 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 10, 12, and 13-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 18-19, 22-23, and 25 of copending Application No. 18/038,099 (the reference application) in view of Bleifuss et al. (US 20080302211 A1, cited in Office Action dated 10/01/2025) and Kiesel (US 20120198966 A1, cited in Office Action dated 01/26/2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the reference application contains every element of instant claim 1, except for including a refractory-lined chamber, an endless conveyor that is configured to move in an endless path through the zones from the inlet to the outlet and then returns to the inlet, the conveyor having a segmented base for receiving and supporting briquettes, returning the unloaded conveyor from the outlet to the inlet of the furnace, repeating step (a) of feeding briquettes onto the segmented base of the conveyor, and the base of the conveyor having a hot face temperature of at least 500 °C when it returns to the feed zone and before it is loaded with briquettes.
Bleifuss teaches a method for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) from briquettes of a composite of iron ore fragments and carbonaceous material (Title, Abstract, [0064, 0098]) in a linear hearth furnace (Title, [0040-0041]) including walls formed of refractory material 41 (i.e., a refractory-lined chamber) [0093], where doing so would have been obvious to preserve heat in the furnace and improve energy efficiency. Bleifuss teaches a container moving apparatus 24 that moves through the zones from the inlet to the outlet (Fig. 1, [0042-0044]) and a container return apparatus 14 that returns to the inlet (Fig. 1, [0044-0088]), where as the apparatuses together move containers 15 in a loop, Bleifuss teaches an endless conveyor as claimed, where using such a conveyor would’ve been obvious as ‘099 does not specify the type of the conveyor. Bleifuss teaches the conveyor 24/14 comprises containers 15/80 having bases 82 for receiving and supporting briquettes (Fig. 5A-D, [0050-0057]). (i.e., segments of a segmented base) which receive and support briquettes (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0050]), where the segments 15 are placed on the conveyor 24/14 (Fig. 1, [0043]), and are thus connected together, which allow the base to move along the endless path of the conveyor (Fig. 1, [0119, 0135]). Bleifuss teaches repeating feeding briquettes onto the segmented base of the conveyor [0051, 0118].
Kiesel teaches a system and method for making metallic iron with reduced CO2 emissions (Title), where metallic iron nodules (i.e., reduced iron) are produced in a linear hearth furnace (Abstract) with a preheat zone 12 ([0023, 0036], Fig. 1-2), and a conversion zone 13 and a fusion zone 14 where iron is reduced and fused (i.e., a final reduction zone) (Fig. 1-2, [0036]), where the metallic iron is produced from compacts such as briquettes comprising reducible material such as iron ore and reducing carbonaceous material [0068], where the briquettes are conveyed on hearth cars 21 (Fig. 1-2, [0037]), thus Kiesel and Bleifuss are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods for producing reduced iron from briquettes of iron ore and carbonaceous material in a furnace with a preheat zone and final reduction zone where the briquettes are transported on a conveyor. Kiesel teaches after passing through the furnace, the conveyor 21 is returned to the transfer table 91 for returning the conveyor to the furnace [0038], where the conveyor is heated or at least the rate of cooling is reduced in shrouded return 30 by flue gas from the final reduction zone 13/14 (Fig. 1-2, [0039]), where as the conveyor is heated or cooling of the conveyor is slowed, the conveyor would retain at least some residual heat from passing through the furnace, which would intrinsically contribute to heating the briquettes when fed onto the conveyor. Kiesel teaches the shrouded return may be heated to about 540-1090 °C [0050], thus the conveyor, and a face of a base of the conveyor, may be heated to 540-1090 °C, which is within the claimed range, where adding the shrouded return would have been obvious as doing so improves energy efficiency in the system (Kiesel: [0039]).
Further reference claims 3, 8, 9, and 11-14 contain every element of instant claims 2, 10, 12, and 13-16 respectively, and as such anticipate claims 2, 10, 12, and 13-16 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Bleifuss does not teach or suggest an endless conveyor having a segmented base consisting of a plurality of segments connected together to move along an endless path as the containers of Bleifuss are discrete separable containers that are individually inserted, processed, removed, transferred, and returned by separate mechanisms (see pg. 8-10 and 14 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The containers of Bleifuss, as noted by applicant, are individually inserted, processed, removed, transferred, and returned by separate mechanisms, however Bleifuss teaches conveyor 24 comprising containers 15/80 (i.e., segments of a segmented base) which receive and support briquettes (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0050]), where the segments 15 are placed on the conveyor 24 (Fig. 1, [0043]), and are thus connected together at least at certain points in time during operation of the furnace, and allow the base to move along the endless path of the conveyor formed by the container moving apparatus 24 and container return apparatus 14. Nothing in the instant claims or as defined by the instant specification requires that e.g., the containers are always or irreversibly connected together, that the containers are directly connected to each other, that the endless conveyor be a single component, or that containers travel an entire circuit of the endless conveyor continuously, as Applicant appears to suggest as necessary to teach the claimed limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Bleifuss discloses that the segments 15 are placed on the conveyor 24/14, and therefore the Examiner acknowledges that the conveyor of Bleifuss does not comprise the containers 15/80 as segments (see pg. 9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bleifuss, as noted above, discloses the segments to be removable from the endless conveyor, therefore it is the Examiner’s position that the containers comprise part of the conveyor (i.e., comprise segments as claimed) when placed onto the endless conveyor, as nothing in the instant claims requires e.g., that the segments must be placed on the conveyor at every point during the method or that the segments are fixedly attached and may not be removable.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the endless conveyor recited in claim 1 requires that the segmented base is structurally integrated, (see pg. 10 of remarks)
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the segments remain connected as they travel through the feed zone, preheat zone, final reduction zone, and discharge zone, and then return to the feed zone) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest “returning the conveyor from the outlet to the inlet of the furnace after discharging the DRI, and repeating step (a) of feeding the briquettes onto the segmented base of the conveyor, with the segments of the base of the conveyor having a hot face temperature of at least 500° C when the conveyor returns to the feed zone and before the conveyor is loaded with the briquettes and thereby returning heat to the furnace and contributing to heating the briquettes” (see pg. 10-12 and 14 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Bleifuss does not disclose any temperature of the returning containers, and instead performs may perform of the processed material (analogous to DRI), and therefore also of the containers 15 analogous to segments of the conveyor in a cooling zone, Bleifuss does not teach that a cooling zone is e.g., required (at paragraph [0042] of Bleifuss: “the one or more zones 26 may include… , a cooling zone 34”, emphasis added). Even if the cooling zone of Bleifuss were present, Bleifuss teaches cooling the containers such that containers are cool enough to accept wet or dry agglomerate (Bleifuss: [0060]), that the container return apparatus immediately returns the empty containers 15 (analogous to segments) without additional time for cooling [0089], and returning still hot containers [0149], as noted by Applicant. Therefore, Bleifuss does not appear concerned with intensively cooling the empty containers, but rather allows the containers to cool to a still elevated temperature at which agglomerates may be loaded.
Bleifuss is then taken in view of Kiesel to suggest adding the use of a shrouded return to Bleifuss as noted by Applicant. While “hearth sections” as noted by Applicant would not be analogous to segments of a conveyor, hearth cars (i.e., individual containers) which move in an endless loop as taught by Kiesel are analogous to the containers comprising segments of a conveyor of Bleifuss. As Kiesel teaches the hearth cars (analogous to the conveyor) after passing through the shroud the conveyor accepts briquettes (i.e., agglomerates), the shroud is clearly able to be used such that the conveyor segments are cooled to a temperature where agglomerates may be accepted as required by Bleifuss, thus Bleifuss in view of Kiesel would have a reasonable expectation of success and still suggest the claimed segmented base forming part of an endless conveyor loop. As Kiesel teaches the shrouded return to be heated to 540-1090 °C, at least the face of a base of the conveyor segments of Bleifuss would be heated to within the claimed temperature range, and as heat of the conveyor would intrinsically be to at least some degree transferred to the agglomerates by virtue of contacting the hot conveyor segments with the agglomerates (i.e., returning heat to the furnace and contributing to heating the briquettes), Bleifuss and Kiesel together suggest all of the claimed features.
While as Applicant notes Kiesel does not teach a base of the hearth cars, it is the Examiner’s position that faces of the bases of the segments of the conveyor of Bleifuss would have a temperature within the claimed range when adding the shrouded return of Kiesel to the method of Bleifuss, not that Kiesel e.g., alone suggests such a feature having the claimed temperatures.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not envision or recognize the inventive principles underlying the invention recited in the instant claims (see pg. 12-13 of remarks), the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II) and Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that to arrive at the claimed invention one would need to abandon Bleifuss' discrete container architecture, redesign the transport mechanism as an endless segmented conveyor, thermally manage the return path to preserve > 500 °C at the hot face of the conveyor, and integrate that preserved heat into the heating balance of the feed zone in a biomass-based DRI process (see pg. 14 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Bleifuss teaches a segmented base comprising a plurality of segments that are connected together to allow the base to move along the endless path of the conveyor as claimed (and thus would not require abandoning or redesigning Bleifuss’ transport mechanism), and Bleifuss in view of Geisel to suggest using a shrouded return, therefore managing the return path to preserve > 500 °C at the hot face of bases of the conveyor segments of Bleifuss and intrinsically preserving heat that would be returned to the feed zone and contribute to heating the agglomerates of Bleifuss.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 27 requires each segment of the segmented base comprises a metal plate upon which briquettes are received, which Bleifuss and Kiesel allegedly does not teach a metal plate upon which briquettes are received (see pg. 14-15 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bleifuss teaches wherein each segment 15/80 of the segmented base comprises a supporting substructure or tray 82 (i.e., a plate) made of stainless steel, carbon steel, Inconel metal, or other metals, alloys, or combinations thereof (i.e., a metal plate) [0052] upon which briquettes are received via the refractory material 84 ([0050], Fig. 4).
Regarding Applicant' s request that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until the claim language is finalized (see pg. 15-16 of remarks), the Examiner notes that MPEP 804. (I) B. 1. states a complete response to a non-statutory double patenting rejection requires either a showing that the instant claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer. As such a showing or a terminal disclaimer have not been filed, claims 1-2, 10, 12, and remain rejected as subject to non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights