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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The examiner also acknowledges that there are three groups as follows: Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a process for the production of zinc oxide concentrate and iron ecosinter. Group II, claim 12, drawn to a product of iron ecosinter. Group III, claim 12, drawn to a product of high zinc content.
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 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: 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 4, “mud ,” should be “mud,”.
In Claim 5, line 5, “of” after “cleaning” should be deleted.
In Claim 5, line 5, “that are also” is unnecessary to describe yard clearing materials with the recited iron content.
In Claim 7, line 4, chlorine and fluorine are not metals.
In Claim 11, the second period at the end of the claim should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "‘set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). MPEP § 2111.01 IV.A.
The term “ecosinter” is described in the specification at [0030-0036] as a mixture of steelmaking co-products, iron ore, and other reagents with a zinc content is less than 0.2% [0030].
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 1-12 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors. The examiner does not contend that the following rejections will completely address issues of indefiniteness and cautions that any amendments to the claims should conform to current U.S. practice to eliminate further rejections under this statute.
Claim 1 recites “using zinc ferrites as raw material, Electrical Arc Furnace (EAF) dust, with co-products from steelmaking” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear if EAF is a description of the source of zinc ferrites or another material with zinc ferrite; this clause is unclear. Also, Claim 1 does not recite clear active steps. For purposes of examination, the claim will be examined as follows: mixing zinc ferrite from EAF with coproducts from steelmaking and carbon sources; homogenizing and pelletizing the mixture; reducing the pelletized mixture in a pot furnace fed by insufflated air … to produce iron ecosinter, volatized metals and gases; sending the volatilized metals and gases comprising zinc oxide to a cyclone and bag filter to retain zinc oxide; and pouring iron ecosinter from the pot. This interpretation is not a suggestion of claim construction.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the volatilized metals" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gases" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the zinc oxide is retained" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear from what step the zinc oxide is produced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the iron ecosinter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear from what step the iron ecosinter is produced. Correction is required.
Claim 2 recites a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the total load" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
It is unclear whether or not all of carbon sources recited in Claim 4 are required to meet the claim limitation since there is no transitional phrase such as “comprising,” “containing,” or “consisting of.” Correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “it uses as carbon sources” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear what “it” represents.
Claim 4 recites a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 4 recites limitations (e.g. light slurry steelmaking co-products, heavy mud, iron scale, pre-lime) with further limitations in parentheses after each. It is not clear if the limitations in parentheses are optional or if they intend to modify the limitations. Correction is required.
It is unclear whether or not all of carbon sources recited in Claim 5 are required to meet the claim limitation since there is no transitional phrase such as “comprising,” “containing,” or “consisting of.” Correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “it employs the following contents by mass” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear what “it” represents.
Claim 5 recites a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 5 recites limitations (e.g. light slurry steelmaking co-products, heavy mud, iron scale, pre-lime) with further limitations in parentheses after each. It is not clear if the limitations in parentheses are optional or if they intend to modify the limitations. Correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the raw materials" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The only raw materials in Claim 1 are zinc ferrites in line 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the load" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reduction and volatilization process" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “smaller scale” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smaller scale” 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the metals that volatilized in the form of oxides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the zinc oxide concentrate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the bag filter generates the zinc oxide.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pot or reactor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for “the reactor.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the volatilization of the zinc oxide" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pot or reactor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for “the reactor.”
Claim 11 recites a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the zinc oxide concentrate obtained at the end of the process" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites that steelmaking co-products are added “as soon as the volatilization of the zinc oxide is complete.” However, Claim 1 recites that the steelmaking co-products are mixed with carbon sources and pelletized and reduced in the pot furnace. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) teaches agglomerating metallurgical dust included electric arc furnace dust and sludge from wet dusting of metallurgical fines (page 1). The dust includes zinc ferrite (page 2). Carbon fines are added (page 3). The agglomerates are in the form of pellets, briquettes, cylinders, or balls (page 5); the composition is controlled (page 4), which reads on homogenization. The agglomerates are treated in a cupola furnace, which reads on a pot furnace with added air enriched with oxygen (page 7). The temperature is 1200 °C (page 4). Zinc and lead are volatilized and reoxidized in the upper part of the furnace and entrained by smoke (page 3) and recovered by a cyclone and bag filter (page 7). The molten iron taken from the bottom of the furnace reads on iron ecosinter (page 1). WO ‘136 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, WO ‘136 teaches using 9% carbon (page 15 from original document) based on machine translation:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, lead is volatilized (page 3).
Regarding Claim 8, zinc and lead are volatilized and reoxidized in the upper part of the furnace and entrained by smoke (page 3) and recovered by a cyclone and bag filter (page 7).
Regarding Claim 10, the molten iron taken from the bottom of the furnace reads on pouring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, WO ‘136 teaches zinc is more than 5% by weight which overlaps the claimed range and as exemplified with 18.63% from the original document, page 14 (translation):
PNG
media_image2.png
256
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘136 teaches the total carbon content of the mixture corresponds to 70-200% of the carbon necessary to reduced iron, zinc and lead, and the carbon includes coke fines (page 6).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘136 does not teach the pelletization process as recited in Claim 6.
CN 109420662 A (CN ‘662) teaches processing municipal and metallurgical solid waste including waste incinerating fly ash of garbage and metallurgical dust. The dusts are stored in a stock bin and conveying to a granulator mill and pelletized (page 3). The pellets are roasted to recovery valuable metals such as lead and zinc (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of CN ‘662 to pelletize the dust in WO ‘136, since CN ‘662 teaches obtaining a product that can be used as iron making material, flue gas recycling, energy conservation, and emission reduction (page 11).
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) teaches preparing raw briquettes from a mixture containing iron-bearing waste, dry and oil fine-grained mill scale, and dust from an arc furnace as represented below in the translated drawing:
PNG
media_image3.png
762
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The briquettes are treated in a shaft furnace, which reads on a pot furnace, at 1100-1200 °C with air-combustion. Zinc oxide is recovered (abstract). The carbon source is coke breeze or coal dust (page 4) and sugar molasses (page 3). Final separation includes a cyclone and bag filter (page 5). Zinc occurs in the gas phase and oxidizes (page 3). However, PL ‘632 does not teach the iron ecosinter, or the remaining briquette, is poured form the shaft furnace. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the treated briquettes of PL ‘632 would read on the claimed ecosinter, since PL ‘632 teaches substantially similar reaction conditions and an ascending flow in a shaft furnace.
Regarding Claim 2, the carbon sources are 9-17% (page 3), a total amount of coke breeze and sugar molasses.
Regarding Claim 3, 40-56% of the dry dust from EAF smelting steel for rolling mills has a high content of zinc (33.2%) and 1-5% dry dust from EF smelting steel for forges with a low zinc content (7.10%) (pages 3 and 4 of translation and page 4 of original document). The total amount of zinc is about 13% to 19% zinc.
Regarding Claim 4, PL ‘632 teaches coke breeze or coal dust (page 4).
Regarding Claim 5, PL ‘632 teaches dry and oil fine-grained rolling scale at 63.5% and 69.09% (page 3 of the translation and page 5 of the original document).
Regarding Claim 7, lead is volatilized (page 5).
Regarding Claim 8, zinc and lead are captured in the bag filter (page 3).
Regarding Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover the remaining material that is not volatilized as described above.
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 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, PL ‘632 does not teach pelletization process as recited in Claim 6.
CN ‘662 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of CN ‘662 to pelletize the dust in PL ‘632, since CN ‘662 teaches obtaining a product that can be used as iron making material, flue gas recycling, energy conservation, and emission reduction (page 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is free from prior art rejections but is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d). 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 producing pig iron with the following composition (from page 22 of the original document with machine translation):
PNG
media_image4.png
478
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 116045682 A teaches sintered ore comprising 55-58% total iron, 6-10% FeO, 5-6% SiO2, and 1.5-2.5% Al2O3 in mass fractions (Claim 9). Frame et al (US 2003/0159540 A1) teaches producing an iron-rich product (IRP) that is useable with a positive market value and contains less than 1 wt% zinc and 55 wt% iron [0055]. A reducing agent is mixed with the material before processing, a reducing agent including carbon sources [0056].
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