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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Brazil on 05/03/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Brazilian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/28/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 9, “volatized” should be “volatilized” for consistency.
In Claim 8, line 2, “that” should be deleted or “that are” should replace “that.”
In Claim 9, line 2, “comprising” should be “wherein” should be deleted,
In Claim 9, line 4, “comprising” should be “comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Both Claims 9 and 10 recite “a reactor” as an alternative to the pot furnace. The specification describes a reactor as the “reactor pot furnace” and does not support a separate apparatus.
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 1-12 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 "gases generated" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Gases generated” reads on a step that has not been recited, i.e. “generating gases.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the volatized metals and gases comprising zinc oxide" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no support for gases comprising zinc oxide.
In Claim 4, it is not clear in which step the carbon sources are applied in Claim 1.
In Claim 5, it is not clear how the “following contents by mass” is used in Claim 1. These contents need to be clearly recited as being either additional ingredients or are further limiting of the steelmaking co-products of light mud, heavy mud, iron scale, and pre-lime and yard cleaning material rich in iron. For instance, “light slurry steelmaking co-products” is not recited in Claim 1, but heavy mud and iron scale are recited. “Pre-lime and yard cleaning material rich in iron” appear to be one material in Claim 1 but is recited as being two different materials in Claim 5. Finally, “above 30% iron by mass” and “70% CaO” reads on greater than 100%.
In Claim 6, the limitation “raw materials” does not have any connection to the materials that are homogenized, pelletized, and recited in Claim 1. The limitation of “a load” also does not have connection to the materials in Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reduction of zinc" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no recitation that zinc ferrite is reduced in Claim 1. The reaction of zinc ferrite to zinc oxide could be considered as a decomposition reaction if zinc does not change oxidation states.
In Claim 9, the one or more additional iron-rich steelmaking co-products are already recited in Claim 1. It is not clear how the option of “one or more additional iron-rich steelmaking co-products … added into a reactor” relates to the steps recited in Claim 1
In Claim 10, lines 2 and 3, not clear how “a reactor” relates to the steps recited in Claim 1.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 02/33136 A1, based on the machine translation.
WO 02/33136 A1 (WO ‘136) is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/28/2026.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘136 as applied to claim 1 above.
WO ‘136 is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/28/2026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘136 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 109420662 A, based on the machine translation.
WO ‘136 in view of CN 109420662 A (CN ‘662) is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/28/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 225632 B1, based on the original document and machine translations.
PL 225632 B1 (PL ‘632) is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/28/2026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL ‘632 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN ‘662.
PL ‘632 in view of CN ‘662 is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/28/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is free from prior art rejections but is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The cited prior art above teaches adding steelmaking co-products before volatilization of the zinc oxide as recited in Claim 1. The cited prior art does not suggest adding steelmaking co-products as soon as the volatilization of the zinc oxide is complete.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. PL ‘632 teaches the zinc content is 81% in the baghouse filter (page 5), but PL ‘632 does not teach or suggest a composition of the agglomerated granules that are treated in the shaft furnace and does not suggest the composition of Fe and FeO as claimed. WO ‘136 teaches a zinc content of at least 45 % (page 4), but WO ‘136 does not suggest the pig iron comprises 5-10% FeO as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The response to the examiner’s interpretation of “ecosinter” is noted. “Ecosinter” is described in the specification without a limitation of a zinc content of less than 0.2% based on at least Table 2 on page 11.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not rely on predefined compositional contrasts as taught in WO ‘136 and that WO ‘136 “does not teach or suggest this functional combination of steelmaking co-products …” Claim 1 recites “steelmaking co-products comprising” which reads on one of light mud, heavy mud, iron scale, pre-lime and yard cleaning material rich in iron. All of those co-products do not need to be recited by prior art. Sludge from wet dusting of metallurgical fines reads on mud. The presence of a binder and SiO2/CaO does not teach against the claim as recited. The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP § 2111.03. 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 are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Applicant argues WO ‘136 does not clarify or define “molten lava,” a zinc content of less than 0.2%, or a temperature lower than 200 °C. These limitations are not claimed; see above regarding MPEP § 2111.03. Regarding the zinc content, applicant argued that zinc ecosinter is not limited to less than 0.2% zinc.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues that CN ‘662 does not teach treatment of low zinc EAF dust in the range of 8-22% by mass; see above regarding MPEP § 2111.03. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding PL ‘632, applicant argues the claimed invention does not depend on briquetting chemistry or process conditions. See above regarding MPEP § 2111.03. The sintered and reduced briquettes read on the claimed ecosinter, since the ecosinter is not recited as containing zinc. Applicant argued that the zinc content in ecosinter is not limited. Regarding applicant’s argument that PL ‘632 does not disclose or suggest “the deliberate dual valorization concept,” the briquette is formed and zinc as a metal oxide occurs in the gas phase. The limitations “economic viability under low zinc conditions” and “EAF dust with 8-22% by mass zinc” are not claimed. The combination of steelmaking co-products is listed in the alternative. See above regarding MPEP § 2111.03.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights