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
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the instant case, the nonpatent literature document “Characteristic, hazard, and iron recovery technology of red mud – A critical review” have not been supplied with the IDS submitted on 02/09/2026, however the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Subsequent IDS documents are expected to conform to these aforementioned standards.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18: “the one or more motors configured” in line 2 should read “wherein the one or more motors are configured”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19 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.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the hopper" in lines 5 and 6 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the crusher" in lines 6 and 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarck (US 20130333383 A1, cited in IDS filed 02/09/2026) in view of Kemmetmuller et al. (US 3364009 A), and Shigematsu et al. (US 4846884 A).
Regarding claim 11, Schwarck teaches methods for passive heat extraction and electricity generation (title, abstract), comprising receiving heated heat transfer fluid from a subterranean heat energy (i.e., a geothermal system [0003, 0009], comprising a wellbore 22 extending from a surface ([0008, 0045-0046], Fig. 1) into an underground magma reservoir [0013, 0083]. Schwarck teaches the wellbore is configured to heat a heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with the underground magma reservoir to form the heated heat transfer fluid [0012-0013, 0045-0046].
Schwarck teaches the working fluid has enough thermal energy that the heat energy can be transferred by a heat exchanger for additional heating processes [0097], but does not teach a method of operating a geothermally powered iron production subsystem or a blast furnace.
Kemmetmuller teaches a method for the production of iron and steel (i.e., a method of operating an iron production subsystem) (title, abstract), comprising receiving iron ore and placing iron ore, limestone, and coke into a blast furnace 100 (Col. 1 lines 12-18, Col. 4 line 74 – Col. 5 line 6, Col. 5 lines 26-31, Fig. 1) and melting the crushed iron ore, limestone, and coke in the blast furnace using heat (Col. 5 lines 6-11, 51-56). Kemmetmuller teaches providing heat to the blast gas 102 using a heat exchanger 9 (Col. 5 lines 61-67), where as the blast gas 102 is supplied to the blast furnace 100 (Fig. 1, Col. 5 lines 3-6), the heat exchanger supplies heat to the blast furnace via the blast gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated a blast gas for a blast furnace using a heat exchanger as taught by Kemmetmuller to use the thermal energy in the working fluid that may be recovered by use of a heat exchanger as taught by Schwarck, as doing so would utilize the heat energy for additional heating processes as taught by Schwarck. Schwarck and Kemmetmuller are analogous as both are directed to heating fluids using heat exchangers. Therefore, Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller suggests using at least in part the heated heat transfer fluid to provide the heat, and would comprise a method of operating a geothermally powered iron production subsystem.
Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller does not teach crushing the received iron ore.
Shigematsu teaches a process for producing cold-bonded iron ore for use in a blast furnace (Title), where iron ore, limestone, and coke are added to a blast furnace (Col. 2 lines 64-66, Table 11, Example 6) thus Shigematsu and Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller are analogous as both are directed to charges comprising iron ore, limestone, and coke to a blast furnace. Shigematsu teaches the iron ore is molded into a block and then crushed which are then shaped and sized to be suitable for a blast-furnace charge (Col. 7 line 65 – Col. 8 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have crushed the received iron ore as taught by Shigematsu in the method of Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller as doing so would shape and size the iron ore to be suitable for a blast-furnace charge.
Regarding claim 12, Kemmetmuller teaches providing air to the heat exchanger 9 using a blower 15 (i.e., an air compressor system) (Fig. 1, Col. 5 lines 67-73), heating the provided air with the heat exchanger 9 (Col. 5 lines 61-67), and providing the heated provided air to the blast furnace 100 as the heat (Col. 5 lines 3-5, 61-63).
Regarding claim 16, Kemmetmuller teaches providing heat (Col. 5 line 61 – Col. 6 line 1), where the heat exchanger 9 is positioned around an exterior of the blast furnace (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kemmetmuller teaches tapping the blast furnace to remove molten pig iron from the blast furnace (Col. 5 lines 6-11), and tapping the blast furnace to remove molten slag from the blast furnace (Col. 6 lines 53-58).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Long (CN 107088450 A, original document and machine translation supplied herein).
Regarding claims 18-19, Schwarck teaches the method comprises generating electricity using one or more turbines 72 powered by the heated heat transfer fluid (Title, [0019,0090], Fig. 1) and Shigematsu teaches the iron ore is crushed with a jaw crusher (Col. 8 lines 45-49), however Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu does not teach powering one or more motors by geothermal power wherein the one or more motors are configured to perform mechanical operations of the geothermally powered iron production subsystem.
Long teaches a dust-free stone crusher for mechanical engineering (Title), which may be used for iron ore [0004], thus Long and Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu are analogous as both relate to crushing iron ore using a crusher. Long teaches the crusher is powered by electricity [0009-0010, 0027]. Long teaches the crushing machinery has advantages of high crushing ratio, large output, uniform particle size, simple structure, reliable operation, easy maintenance, and economical operating costs [0004].
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 the crusher of Long as the crusher for crushing iron of Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu, as doing so would incorporate advantages of high crushing ratio, large output, uniform particle size, simple structure, reliable operation, easy maintenance, and economical operating costs as taught by Long. Further, as Long teaches the crusher to be powered by electricity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electricity generated by Schwarck to power the crusher of the combination of Schwarck and others with Long, as doing so would utilize the electricity generated.
Therefore, Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller, Shigematsu, and Long teaches providing the generated electricity to power one or more motors configured to perform rotating the crusher, where as the electricity is produced by geothermal power, the Schwarck in view of others teaches powering one or more motors by geothermal power using the heated heat transfer fluid wherein the one or more motors configured to perform mechanical operations in the form of rotating the crusher of the geothermally powered iron production subsystem as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest identified prior art of record is Schwarck, Shigematsu, Kemmetmuller, and Dunham (US 2275515 A).
Regarding claim 13, Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu teaches a method of operating a geothermally powered iron production subsystem according to claim 11 as noted above. Kemmetmuller teaches a heat exchanger 9 which provides heat to the blast furnace 100 by heating incoming blast air 102 (Fig. 1, Col. 5 lines 3-6, Col. 5 lines 61-67), however Kemmetmuller does not teach providing the heat by positioning the heat exchanger within the blast furnace.
Dunham teaches a method of and apparatus for cooling blast furnaces (Title), which comprises heat exchangers 16 which may be placed in the wall of the blast furnace 10 (Fig. 1, pg. 1 right column lines 46-54) (i.e., positioning a heat exchanger within the blast furnace). Dunham discloses the heat exchangers cool the walls of the blast furnace (pg. 1 left column lines 8-15, right column lines 18-20) and does not teach providing heat to the blast furnace using the heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 17, Schwarck in view of Kemmetmuller and Shigematsu teaches a method of operating a geothermally powered iron production subsystem according to claim 11 as noted above. Kemmetmuller teaches a heat exchanger 9 which provides heat to the blast furnace 100 by heating incoming blast air 102 (Fig. 1, Col. 5 lines 3-6, Col. 5 lines 61-67), however Kemmetmuller does not teach providing the heat by the heat exchanger directly contacting the exterior of the blast furnace.
Dunham teaches a method of and apparatus for cooling blast furnaces (Title), which comprises heat exchangers 16 which may be placed in the wall of the blast furnace 10 (Fig. 1, pg. 1 right column lines 46-54) (i.e., comprising the heat exchanger directly contacting the exterior of the blast furnace). Dunham discloses the heat exchangers cool the walls of the blast furnace (pg. 1 left column lines 8-15, right column lines 18-20), but does not teach providing the heat by the heat exchanger directly contacting the exterior of the blast furnace.
Based on the above discussion, the closest prior art, taken singularly or in combination, does not fairly suggest or render obvious a method of operating a geothermally powered iron production subsystem according to claims 13 or 17. Claims 14-15 are also free from the art due at least to their dependency from parent claim 13.
Conclusion
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