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Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III claims 17-30 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17: “1,660”8 C” in line 21 should read “1660 °C”
Claim 18: “internal anode system” in line 3 should read “an internal anode system”
Claim 25: “apparatus” in line 1 should read “an apparatus”
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 17-30 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.
The term “low in magnesium and copper contents” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low in magnesium and copper contents” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, making unclear the magnesium and copper contents required of the aluminum granules.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a feed materials injection system" in lines 13-14. The limitation is indefinite as the use of the article “a” makes unclear whether the argon gas is fed through a different feed materials injection system, or if the use of the same terminology “feed materials injection system” as in line 10 indicates that argon gas is fed through the same feed materials injection system as the aluminum granules, burnt lime, and chromite ore.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said single transferred arc cathode electrode” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 discloses “a single transferred arc electrode” and a “cathode electrode” in lines 15-16, but does not previously disclose a “single transferred arch cathode electrode”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said scrubber" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gauvin et al. (US 4466824 A).
Gauvin teaches a transferred-arc plasma reactor for chemical and metallurgical applications (Title), where the plasma reactor may be used for the production of ferroalloys (Col. 12 lines 9-16), which comprises low carbon ferrochrome metal, thus Gauvin teaches a system for recovering low carbon ferrochrome metal as claimed. Gauvin teaches a conveyor 66 configured for carrying feed materials to a chamber of a direct current (DC) plasma arc furnace via a sleeve 26 (i.e., a feed materials injection system) (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 41-45). Gauvin teaches a conduit 44 (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 13-15) configured for carrying argon gas into said chamber via a sleeve 26 (i.e., a feed materials injection system) (Fig. 1, Col. 11 lines 28-33). Gauvin teaches said direct current (DC) plasma arc furnace comprises a cathode electrode 36 (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 6-15), an anode electrode (Fig. 1, Col. 6 lines 57-58) and a DC current rectifier connected to the cathode and anode (Col. 6 lines 56-61, Col. 7 lines 20-21), where as a rectifier converts an AC current to produce a DC current, the rectifier is equivalent to a direct current (DC) power supply. Gauvin teaches a cathode assembly (i.e., a support) holding said single transferred arc cathode electrode 36 extending into said chamber (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 7-10) and above (i.e., over) said anode electrode 22 (Fig. 1). Gauvin teaches said DC power supply being configured when said argon gas is in said chamber to provide electrical power to said DC arc cathode electrode (Col. 6 lines 56-61), to produce a plasma arc 64 (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 29-36).
Gauvin does not teach recovering low carbon ferrochrome metal from chromite ore using a source of aluminum granules low in magnesium and copper contents, a source of burnt lime, a source of chromite ore. Claim 1 only further limits the materials worked upon, as opposed to any physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. As Gauvin teaches an apparatus comprising all of the claimed components, Gauvin teaches an apparatus according to claim 1.
Gauvin does not teach the conveyor carrying aluminum granules, burnt lime, and chromite ore as a mix of feed materials; said feed materials of said mix being in a proportion as determined by thermochemical calculations for reduction of said chromium oxide and iron oxides to form low carbon ferrochrome metal; said DC power supply being configured to provide electrical power to said DC arc cathode electrode to produce a plasma arc thereby heating said feed materials in said chamber to a temperature in the range of approximately 1,660° C to 1850° C; wherein said aluminum in said aluminum granules acts as a reducing agent to produce an exothermic reaction reducing said chromium oxide and iron oxides in said chromite ore to produce a molten material bath in said chamber above said anode electrode; and said molten material bath comprising molten low carbon ferrochrome metal with molten slag floating on top of said molten low carbon ferrochrome metal. However, as claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, the choice and proportions of feed materials, aluminum acting as a reducing agent, and a molten bath comprising ferrochrome metal and metal slag results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Gauvin teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, Gauvin reads on claim 1 in its entirety.
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 18-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin under 35 USC 102 as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Dung et al. (US 5297159 A).
Regarding claim 18, Gauvin does not teach wherein said single transferred arc electrode or cathode is formed of graphite or wherein said anode comprises an external anode system formed of copper and internal anode system formed of conductive refractory.
Dung teaches a direct current-light arc furnace (Title), comprising a graphite cathode and a container bottom acting as an anode (Abstract), which works upon a melt 61 (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 63-65), where as the furnace comprises a single cathode, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the furnace operates as a DC arc furnace, thus Dung and Gauvin are analogous as both are directed to DC arc furnaces for acting upon molten metals. Dung teaches the container bottom acts as anode (Col. 2 lines 39-53), with a copper sheet steel base 222 (i.e., an external anode system formed of copper and (Fig. 2, Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 3) and a graphite layer on the refractory lining of bottom which improves current conduction from the base (i.e., an internal anode system formed of conductive refractory) (Col. 3 lines 5-9).
Because Gauvin is silent with respect to suitable materials for the cathode and anode of Gauvin, in order to carry out the invention of Gauvin one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching cathode and anode materials suitable for use within the process of Gauvin, such as those taught by Dung. As Gauvin and Dung both relate to furnaces using DC arcs for treating molten metals, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the graphite cathode and anode comprising an external anode system formed of copper and an internal anode system formed of conductive refractory of Dung.
Regarding claim 19, Gauvin teaches wherein said DC plasma arc furnace is configured so that a carrier gas injects said mix of feed materials into said chamber (Col. 7 lines 41-63).
Gauvin in view of Dung does not teach wherein said argon gas acts as a carrier gas to inject said mix of feed materials into said chamber, as claim 19 is directed to an apparatus, using argon gas as the carrier gas results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. As Gauvin in view of Dung teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 19, Gauvin in view of Dung teaches or suggests claim 19 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 20, Gauvin teaches wherein said support holding said single transferred arc graphite electrode or cathode is configured to move said single transferred arc graphite electrode or cathode (Col. 7 lines 27-29) so that a portion extends into said chamber (Col. 6 lines 13-16). Gauvin teaches said support being controllable for establishing the height of said single transferred arc graphite electrode or cathode with respect to said feed materials (Col. 6 lines 13-16).
Gauvin in view of Dung does not teach wherein the height of the cathode is established until a desired power is established to produce said molten material bath in said chamber, said power varying as a function of the feed rate at which said feed materials are introduced into said chamber by said argon gas, however as claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, establishing the cathode until a desired power is established results from a manner of operating the apparatus. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. As Gauvin in view of Dung teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 20, Gauvin in view of Dung teaches or suggests claim 20 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 24, Gauvin in view of Dung does not teach wherein said argon gas is provided under pressure higher than atmospheric pressure into said chamber to prevent air ingress into said chamber, however as claim 24 is directed to an apparatus, wherein said argon gas is provided under pressure higher than atmospheric pressure results from a manner of operating the apparatus. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. As Gauvin in view of Dung teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 24, Gauvin in view of Dung teaches or suggests claim 24 in its entirety.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 17 above, further in view of Nikolaenko et al. (SU 290715 A1, original document and machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claims 21-22, Gauvin teaches wherein said DC plasma arc furnace comprises bottom two tapholes 20 from which said molten low carbon ferrochrome metal can be caused to flow (Fig. 1, Col. 8 lines 41-52). Gauvin does not teach wherein said system additionally comprises an ingot caster or crusher apparatus.
Nikolaenko teaches a device for casting and crushing ferroalloys (Title), where ferroalloys are poured from a pouring machine 1 (paragraph 2), thus Nikolaenko and Gauvin are analogous as both are directed to production of ferroalloys including casting. Nikolaenko teaches the device comprises a casting machine 2 with multiple molds 7 (i.e., an ingot caster with plural moulds) (paragraph 2), configured for casting said ferroalloy (analogous to molten low carbon ferrochrome metal) (paragraph 2) into slabs (i.e., plural ingots) (paragraph 2). Nikolaenko teaches a crusher apparatus 8 for breaking and crushing said ingots into smaller pieces of low carbon ferrochrome metal (paragraph 2).
Because Gauvin is silent with respect to how the ferroalloy produced in the furnace should be further processed, in order to carry out the invention of Gauvin one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching further treatment equipment suitable for use on the ferroalloys produced by Gauvin, such as the plural moulds and crusher taught by Nikolaenko.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin under 35 USC 102 as applied to claim 17 above, further in view Kida of et al. (JPH 0788244 B2).
Gauvin teaches wherein said DC plasma arc furnace comprises a top taphole 20 from which said molten slag can be caused to flow (Fig. 1, Col. 8 lines 47-50). Gauvin does not teach wherein said system additionally comprises a water quencher configured for quenching said molten slag into quenched particles of slag.
Kida teaches a hydraulic composition mainly composed of ferrochrome slag fine powder (paragraph 1); thus, Kida and Gauvin are analogous as both are directed to processes comprising the production or use of ferroalloy slag. Kida teaches ferrochrome slag is rapidly cooled by water cooling by immersion in water (i.e., quenching using a water quencher) (paragraph 1), and is combined with an activator and organic acid to be used as a hydraulic composition (paragraph 1), which may be used as a spray material and various mold materials (paragraph 1), repair materials, toys, and building materials that require urgent attention (paragraph 5). Kida teaches the majority of ferrochrome slag is disposed of in landfills which is an issue from the standpoint of resource conservation and energy saving (paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a water quencher configured for quenching said molten slag into quenched particles of slag as taught by Kida to the apparatus of Gauvin as doing so would process the ferroalloy slag of Gauvin to produce a hydraulic composition that may be used for spray material, mold materials, repair materials, toys, and building materials, rather than being disposed of, as taught by Kida.
Claims 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin under 35 USC 102 as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Stocks et al. (US 4845334 A).
Regarding claim 25, Gauvin does not teach wherein said system additionally comprises apparatus configured for receipt of gases from said chamber to produce recycled argon gas therefrom.
Stocks teaches a plasma furnace inert gas recycling system and process (Title), where inert gases such as argon are recycled from a plasma furnace (Col. 1 lines 7-11, 23-34), thus Stocks and Gauvin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to plasma furnaces using argon gas as the plasma inducing gas. Stocks teaches wherein said system additionally comprises apparatus 14 configured for receipt of gases from plasma furnace 10 (analogous to said chamber) to produce recycled argon gas therefrom (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 47-55), and for providing said recycled argon gas for reintroduction into said chamber 10 (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 29-32). Stocks teaches the cost to put nonrecycled gas through the plasma torch can be approximately $300 per hour, or $600,000 per year based upon a process time of 2000 hours per year, thus the desirability of gas recycle is apparent (Col. 1 lines 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an apparatus for recycling inert gas comprising an apparatus for receipt of gases from the chamber as taught by Stocks to the system of Gauvin as doing so would desirably recycle inert gas, avoiding the cost of procuring new gas for operation of the plasma torch as taught by Stocks.
Regarding claim 26, Stocks teaches the recycling system comprises an inlet receiver 20 which has a basket filter 24 for removing small dust particles from the gas (i.e., a scrubber) (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 27, Gauvin does not teach wherein said arc furnace includes a hood or an associated conduit for collecting ejected furnace off-gas and other solid materials from said chamber.
Stocks teaches a plasma furnace inert gas recycling system and process (Title), where inert gases such as argon are recycled from a plasma furnace (Col. 1 lines 7-11, 23-34), thus Stocks and Gauvin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to plasma furnaces using argon gas as the plasma inducing gas. Stocks teaches output gas from the plasma furnace 10 is piped from the plasma furnace (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 37-40), thus the system intrinsically comprises components analogous to a hood and an associated conduit for collecting ejected furnace off-gas. Stocks teaches the presence of particles in the gas which are removed via cyclone 14 (i.e., the other solid materials from said chamber are collected using the hood and associated conduit) (Col. 2 lines 47-52), which collects particles at the bottom of the cyclone (Col. 2 lines 49-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to comprise a bin or receptacle of some nature to collect the solids (i.e., a dust recycling bin). Stocks teaches the cost to put nonrecycled gas through the plasma torch can be approximately $300 per hour, or $600,000 per year based upon a process time of 2000 hours per year, thus the desirability of gas recycle is apparent (Col. 1 lines 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an apparatus for recycling inert gas comprising a hood and associated conduit as taught by Stocks to the system of Gauvin as doing so would desirably recycle inert gas, avoiding the cost of procuring new gas for operation of the plasma torch as taught by Stocks.
Regarding claim 29, Gauvin teaches a gas inlet 44 for supplying argon gas (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 13-14), which would intrinsically comprise an argon source (analogous to a main argon supply tank) configured to provide said argon gas to said system. Gauvin does not teach a recycled argon supply tank.
Stocks teaches a plasma furnace inert gas recycling system and process (Title), where inert gases such as argon are recycled from a plasma furnace (Col. 1 lines 7-11, 23-34), thus Stocks and Gauvin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to plasma furnaces using argon gas as the plasma inducing gas. Stocks teaches a recycled argon supply tank 42 configured to provide said argon gas to said system 10 (Fig. 1, Col 4 lines 4-8). Stocks teaches the cost to put nonrecycled gas through the plasma torch can be approximately $300 per hour, or $600,000 per year based upon a process time of 2000 hours per year, thus the desirability of gas recycle is apparent (Col. 1 lines 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an apparatus for recycling inert gas comprising a recycled argon supply tank as taught by Stocks to the system of Gauvin as doing so would desirably recycle inert gas, avoiding the cost of procuring new gas for operation of the plasma torch as taught by Stocks.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 17 above, further in view of Feild et al. (US 2001016 A).
Gauvin does not teach a dryer for drying said chromite ore.
Feild teaches a production of iron-chromium alloys (title), where chrome ore is charged into a furnace along with iron scrap (pg. 2 right column lines 21-25), thus Gauvin and Feild are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of producing ferroalloys. Feild teaches drying the ore thoroughly at high temperature prior to charging, which assures the production of sound metal free from blow-holes, gas-pockets, and the like (pg. 2 right column lines 64-74), which would intrinsically include use of a dryer for drying said chromite ore.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a dryer for drying ore as taught by Feild to the system of Gauvin, as doing so would prevent ores used to produce ferroalloys from forming blow-holes, gas pockets, and the like in the produced metal.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvin as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 17 above, further in view of Ward (US 4870655 A).
Gauvin teaches the DC plasma arc furnace may be used for production of ferromolybdenum or other ferroalloys (such as ferrochrome) (Col. 12 lines 9-16). Gauvin teaches the furnace comprises lower two tapholes 20 from which said molten low carbon ferrochrome metal can be caused to flow (Fig. 1, Col. 8 lines 50-52) and a top taphole 20 from which said molten slag can be caused to flow (Col. 8 lines 48-50). Gauvin does not teach wherein said DC plasma arc furnace is mounted on a tiltable support configured to allow said DC plasma arc furnace to tilt with respect to a vertical axis.
Ward teaches an apparatus for recovery of metallics and non-metallics from spent catalysts (Title), comprising an arc furnace used to recovering metal (Abstract) with slag taphole 43 and metal taphole 46 (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 8-15), thus Ward and Gauvin are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to apparatuses for recovering metal using arc furnaces comprising slag and metal tapholes. Ward teaches wherein said arc furnace is mounted on a tiltable support 72 (Fig. 1 Col. 3 line 64 – Col. 4 line 3) configured to allow said arc furnace to tilt with respect to a vertical axis to enable controlled emptying of the chamber's contents (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 13-24). Ward teaches the tiltable furnace is more flexible with respect to operating in a continuous or batch process (Col. 8 lines 62-66), and slag may be removed periodically by simply tilting the furnace rather than requiring a taphole to be pierced, which is time consuming and hazardous (Col. 8 line 67 – Col. 9 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the DC plasma arc furnace of Gauvin tiltable to empty the furnace contents as taught by Ward, as doing so would avoid time consuming and hazardous piercing of tapholes to empty the furnace contents.
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
Prosecution Insights