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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on 11/13/2025 is duly acknowledged.
Claims 1-25, 34-42, 44, 45, 54 and 57 were previously canceled by the applicant.
Claims 48, 53 and 56 have now been canceled by applicant’s current claim amendments.
Claims 60-73 have been newly presented (taken as elected Group I).
Claims 26-32 (non-elected species C of group I), and claim 33 (drawn to non-elected product of Group II) remain withdrawn.
Claims 26-33, 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55 and 58-73, as currently amended/presented, are pending in this application.
Claims 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55 and 58-73, as currently amended/newly presented (taken as elected invention of Group I, rejoined species A-B; directed to “A method for employing a process gas for use at a direct reduction facility that produces direct reduced iron…”) have been examined on their merits in this action.
Priority
This application has been accorded an effective filing date of 08/17/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Withdrawn
In view of current amendments to claim 50, 58 and 59, the 112(b) rejections as previously made by the examiner, has been withdrawn.
The following contains new grounds of objection/rejection over pending claims, as currently amended by the applicant.
Claim Objections - New
1. Claim 60 (newly recited) is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 60 recites the limitations on page 9, last line “(CH4 + CO2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2CO + 2H2;”, which is missing the closing bracket, and should be corrected to “(CH4 + CO2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2CO + 2H2);”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- New
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.
1. Claims 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55 and 58-73 (as currently amended/presented) 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 43, as currently amended recites the limitations “retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;” (see lines 11-12), which appears to be incomplete and ambiguous because it is not clear as to what exactly the term “as formed” is referring to. Does it refer to “at least a major part of carbon dioxide” of the biogas, or does it refer to the biogas itself “that has been formed from corn plant residue…” (see 3rd paragraph, claim 43). The recitation appears to be confusing and incomplete also because claim 43 recites later in the claim limitations “reacting, in said reformer, the methane from said biogas with (a) the retained carbon dioxide from said biogas…”, and does not refer to the “biogas as formed” that has the retained the major part of the carbon dioxide. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed process does not appear to be properly defined.
Likewise, instant claim 55 that also recites the limitations “retaining at least a major part of said carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;”, also deemed indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above.
Similarly, newly recited independent claims 60, 64 and 69 also recite the same limitations “retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;” which render the claimed processes indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above.
Since, none of the dependent claims specifically clarify this point, they are also rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
NOTE: 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103- New Grounds
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.
1. Claims 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55 and 58-73 (as amended/newly presented) are/remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyendra 2017 (NPL cited in applicant’s IDS dated 08/17/2023) when taken with Chartone et al 2013 (BR PI 1102449 A2; English machine translation, previously made of record), Keph et al (2000; English translation of UA 27018 C2 previously made of record), and Ludmila et al (WO 2022/104443 A1; English machine translation, previously made of record).
Independent claims 43, 55, 60, 64 and 69, as currently amended/newly presented, are as follows:
“43. (Currently Amended) A method using biogas in the production of direct reduced iron (DRI), said method comprising the steps of:
providing an iron-making plant having a direct reduction facility, for producing DRI, and comprising a catalytic reformer and a vertical shaft furnace that receives iron ore and emits a top gas comprising (i) carbon dioxide (CO2) and (ii) unreacted carbon monoxide (CO) and gaseous hydrogen (H2);
providing a biogas that has been formed from corn plant residue at a biogas processing facility that is located upstream of said reformer, said biogas consisting essentially of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide, each being present in double-digit percentages;
retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;
introducing said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide into said reformer, for use there as processing gas and as one of a plurality of sources of carbon dioxide employed there, there being no provision for the removal of said carbon dioxide from said biogas;
introducing, into said reformer, top gas comprising [[(i)]] carbon dioxide
reacting, in said reformer, the methane from said biogas with (a) the retained carbon dioxide from said biogas and (b) the carbon dioxide from said top gas, to produce a biosyngas comprising carbon monoxide and gaseous hydrogen (CH4 + CO2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2CO + 2H2); and,
introducing said biosyngas into said vertical shaft furnace for use there as reducing gas to convert said iron ore to iron and produce DRI.
“55. (Currently Amended) A method using biogas in the production of direct reduced iron (DRI), said method comprising the steps of:
providing a biogas processing facility that is (a) accessible to a plurality of corn plant fields that provide corn plant residue and is (b) located upstream of and physically associated with an iron-making plant that is accessible to said plurality of corn plant fields and has a direct reduction facility for producing DRI and that comprises (i) a catalytic reformer for producing biosyngas on a from biogas and (ii) a vertical shaft furnace that employs said biosyngas as a reducing gas to convert iron ore to DRI and that emits a top gas comprising carbon dioxide;
subjecting said corn plant residue to processing at said biogas processing facility to form, upstream of said reformer, biogas consisting essentially of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), each being present in double digit percentages;
retaining at least a major part of said carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed; and
directing said biogas, with the retained carbon dioxide, for use at said reformer as one of a plurality of sources of carbon dioxide employed there to produce biosyngas, there being no provision for the removal of said carbon dioxide from said biogas.
“60. (New) A method using biogas in the production of direct reduced iron (DRI), said method comprising the steps of:
providing an iron-making plant having a direct reduction facility, for producing DRI, and comprising a catalytic reformer and a vertical shaft furnace that receives iron ore and emits a top gas comprising carbon dioxide (CO2);
providing a biogas that has been produced from grain plant residue at a biogas processing facility that is located upstream of said reformer, said biogas consisting essentially of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide, each being present in double-digit percentages;
retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;
introducing said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide into said reformer, for use there;
there being no provision for the removal of said retained CO2 from said biogas;
reacting, in said reformer, the methane from said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide from said biogas to produce a biosyngas comprising carbon monoxide and gaseous hydrogen (CH4 + CO2 [Wingdings font/0xE0]2CO + 2H2;
introducing said biosyngas into said vertical shaft furnace for use there as reducing gas to convert said iron ore to iron and produce DRI;
said vertical shaft furnace comprising, in descending order, from an upper end, a heating zone, a reducing zone and a transition zone, and said method further comprises:
introducing iron ore into said vertical shaft furnace at said upper end;
introducing reducing gas into said reducing zone;
converting said iron ore to direct reduced iron (DRI) as the iron ore descends through said vertical shaft furnace, by gravity, to produce DRI at said transition zone;
providing said transition zone with a temperature at which methane breaks down, in the presence of a catalyst, into carbon and gaseous hydrogen (CH4[Wingdings font/0xE0] C + 2H2);
providing said transition zone with a catalyst in the form of iron from said DRI;
and internally generating carbon monoxide (CO) at said transition zone by introducing, into the transition zone, said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide (CO2).”
“64. (New) A method for using biogas in the production of direct reduced iron (DRI), said method comprising the steps of:
providing a biogas consisting essentially of methane and carbon dioxide (CH4 + CO2), each being present in double-digit percentages;
providing a direct reduction facility comprising a catalytic reformer physically associated with a vertical shaft furnace having an upper end and comprising in descending order from said upper end, a heating zone, a reducing zone, a transition zone and a cooling zone;
retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;
introducing said biogas into said catalytic reformer;
producing biosyngas (CO + H2) in said reformer;
introducing iron ore into said vertical shaft furnace at its upper end;
introducing said biosyngas, as a reducing gas, into the reducing zone of said vertical shaft furnace;
converting said iron ore to iron as the iron ore descends, by gravity, through said vertical shaft furnace, to produce direct reduced iron (DRI) in the transition zone;
providing said transition zone with a temperature at which methane breaks down, in the presence of a catalyst, into carbon and gaseous hydrogen (CH4[Wingdings font/0xE0] C + 2H2);
providing said transition zone with a catalyst in the form of iron from said DRI;
and internally generating carbon monoxide (CO) at said transition zone by introducing, into the transition zone, said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide (CO2).”
“69. (New) In a method for producing direct reduced iron (DRI) employing a direct reduction facility comprising a catalytic reformer physically associated with a vertical shaft furnace having upper and lower ends and, in descending order from said upper end, a heating zone, a reducing zone, a transition zone and a cooling zone, wherein said method comprises the steps of:
introducing, into said catalytic reformer, a biogas produced from grain plant residue and consisting essentially of methane and carbon dioxide (CH4 + CO2), each being present in double-digit percentages;
retaining at least a major part of the carbon dioxide that was in said biogas as formed;
there being no provision for the removal of said retained CO2 from said biogas;
converting said biogas to biosyngas (CO + H2) in said reformer;
providing said transition zone with a temperature at which methane breaks down, in the presence of a catalyst, into carbon and gaseous hydrogen (CH4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] C + 2H2);
providing said transition zone with a catalyst in the form of iron from said DRI;
introducing said biosyngas into the reducing zone of said vertical shaft furnace, for use there as a reducing gas;
introducing iron ore into said vertical shaft furnace at its upper end;
and converting said iron ore to iron as the iron ore descends, by gravity, through said vertical shaft furnace to produce direct reduced iron (DRI) at said transition zone;
the improvement comprising a process for generating carbon monoxide (CO) internally, in said transition zone, by introducing, into said transition zone, a gas consisting essentially of said biogas with the retained carbon dioxide.”
See also limitations of dependent claims 46, 47, 49-52, 58, 59, 61-63, 65-68, 70-73, as currently amended/newly presented.
Satyendra (2017) discloses detailed steps of Midrex process that is used for direct reduction of iron ore in order to produce direct reduced iron (DRI, also known as “sponge” iron in the art; see also instant disclosure, [0007]-[0008], for instance), a commercially proven process (Satyendra 2017, page 2, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, for instance; see also applicant’s own disclosure, specification page 3, entire [0020] paragraph, for instance) that employs natural gas as reducing gas/agent and as fuel for process heat (see Satyendra 2017, entire section on “Process description”), and a vertical saft furnace that is designed on the principle of counter flowing reducing gas and solids (here, iron ore moves downward by the force of gravity) in order to maximize reduction efficiency (see Satyendra 2017, Fig. 2, “Midrex flow sheet”, and details of the chemical reactions taking place in the shaft furnace); wherein the exhaust gas (top gas) emitted from the top of the shaft furnace is cleaned and cooled by a wet scrubber (top gas scrubber) and recirculated for reuse. The top gas containing CO2 and H2O is pressurized by a compressor, mixed with natural gas, preheated and fed into a reformer furnace; wherein the reducing gas consisting mainly of H2 (gaseous hydrogen) and CO (carbon monoxide) can be generated from a wide variety of energy sources, including natural gas that mainly contains methane varying from 83 % to 96 %; wherein the feed gas to the catalytic reformer (having solid nickel-based catalyst) is the fresh natural gas blended with the off gas for the shaft furnace which is being recycled in order to reform the reductant gas consisting of CO and H2 in order to reduce iron ore; wherein the characteristics of the Midrex catalytic reformer include “(i) no steam system is needed for reforming, (ii) no CO2 removal system is required for operation, (iii) hot reducing gas can be directly used in the shaft furnace without quenching and reheating, (iv) no O2 needed for reforming, (v) by using CO2 for reforming, less natural gas is required, and (vi) enables Midrex process to be a simple closed loop system minimizing energy consumption and the number of moving parts within the plant”; wherein the DRI produced (in the form of HDRI) can be used in downstream processes such as supplied to the electric arc furnace (EAF) as per demand (see Fig. 2, for instance); and wherein the reactions taking place in the shaft furnace include exothermic carburizing reactions wherein the CO generated reacts with iron in an exothermic manner (i.e. generates heat) to form Fe3C (i.e. cementite, or iron carbide), additional CO2 and water (see Satyendra, 2017, section “Process description”, on p.4).
However, a method or an improvement thereof that employs a process gas for use in a commercial direct reduction facility that- (1) produces direct reduced iron (DRI) using catalytic reformer physically associated with a vertical shaft furnace, wherein the process gas is biogas (such as produced from anaerobic fermentation of corn plant residues, a renewable source, from locally accessible “corn plant fields”), and (2) that is employed as is, without removal of CO2 (i.e. at least a major part of CO2 is retained in the biogas used) for reacting the methane from the biogas with “(a) the retained carbon dioxide from said biogas and (b) the carbon dioxide from said top gas, to produce a biosyngas comprising carbon monoxide and gaseous hydrogen” (CO and H2; see instant claims 43, 55, 60, 64 and 69, as currently amended/newly presented) in the process of DRI production, has not been explicitly disclosed by the cited reference of Satyendra 2017, as discussed above.
NOTE: It is noted that applicant had previously introduced the term “biosyngas” in claims (see also applicant’s remarks dated 05/30/2024, page 10), that has been interpreted as “syngas” that comprises CO and H2 (albeit made from a biomass) which is used as part of “reducing gas” in the claimed/disclosed process.
Chartone et al (2013; citation per English translation already of record), while teaching a process for obtaining sponge iron and pig iron (see title and Abstract; and claims on page 12, for instance) disclose the fact that biogas produced from anaerobic formation of various waste materials (such as animal, agricultural, and organic waste; see page 7, last paragraph, for instance) can be efficiently employed in the process for making direct reduction of iron ore (such as DRI; see pages 7-10; page 10, step 7, in particular) and can be a functional alternative or a substitute for natural gas and/or pulverized coal and charcoal (see Abstract, and page 2 regarding advantages thereto); wherein biogas produced from anaerobic biodigesters, for instance, is known in the art to be essentially a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane, including 60-70 % of methane, 30-40% of CO2, and other minor contaminating gases (such as hydrogen, H2S, oxygen, nitrogen; see disclosure on pages 3-4); wherein the use of biogas in steel industry represents “not only an economic gain but also an environmental gain” (see page 1, last paragraph; and page 5, for instance), and “can be used to replace natural gas or LPG (cooking gas)” (see page 3), especially in steel industry including the process for producing reduced iron/sponge iron in direct reduction reactors (see page 12, claims 1-9, for instance).
Keph et al (2000; see English translation, already of record), while teaching a method for prevention of metal corrosion during DRI of materials containing ferric oxides (see title and Abstract on page 1), disclose the method that employs a mixture of syngas and natural gas (or flue gas, as reduction gas) in the process of production of DRI, wherein a ratio of CO to CO2 between 1 to 3 is maintained in the reduction gas, and wherein at least a part of the top gas volume is added directly to the reducing gas and used without removal/scrubbing of CO2 (see page 3, and claims 4-6, for instance).
Ludmila et al (2022; citations per English translation already of record), while teaching sustainable agro-industrial complex with various industrial facilities needed for producing pig iron and co-products (see Title, Abstract, and Claims), disclose biogas production from anaerobic digestion of biomass sources such as corn plant residues (see [0013], [0022]-[0024], [0033], for instance), and its use in downstream processes; wherein the agro-industrial complex comprises various facilities (located adjacent to each other; see [0030]), including corn farms, and such network generates “environmental benefits with very positive impacts such as carbon sequestration, reduction of greenhouse gases and recovery of degraded soils, as well as social benefits such as generation of taxes and jobs” (see [0030], [0033], for instance).
Thus, given the detailed disclosure and motivation for using biogas (as a functional alternative or substitute for natural gas; i.e. an art-recognized functional equivalent) in direct reduction process for making sponge iron/DRI (as disclosed and suggested by Chartone et al, above), and for employing reducing gas or syngas that retains at least a part of CO2 from biogas and/or from top gas at the reformer, without removing CO2 from the process gas mix (as taught by Keph et al, discussed above), as well as for situating the various industrial plants, including biogas producing facility, corn plant field/farms, pig iron production facility, etc., in close proximity to each other (see teachings for “agro-industrial complex” from Ludmila et al, above), it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, to successfully substitute, in the commercial scale process disclosed by Satyendra 2017, the natural gas with biogas without removal of CO2, in order to efficiently produce direct reduced iron (DRI). Since, Chartone et al already disclose that the reduction step is “responsible for most of the energy consumption of a power plant”, such substitution with use of biogas, would clearly help reduce CO2 emission, and environmental impact including “greenhouse effect”, thereof, as already suggested by the cited reference of Chartone et al (see entire disclosure on pages 1-2), discussed above. Since, all the other industrial device components and method steps for employing process/reducing gas in making DRI (as recited in independent claims 43, 55, 60, 64 and 69, and claims dependent therefrom) are already known in the prior art of Satyendra 2017 for use in commercially successful Midrex process for reduction of iron ores (such as HDRI), unless evidence/data provided to the contrary, such substitution in process gas/feed gas employed in direct reduction reactors/facilities without removal of CO2, would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art. Since, the process gas employed, for instances either natural gas alone, or as mixtures of syngas, flue gas, etc., have already been known to be used in direct reduction process for iron, and also without removal of CO2 (as disclosed by Keph et al, discussed above), such substitution/modifications in the process (that would benefit from reducing the energy cost, as well as the environment, for instance) would have been fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed, unless evidence/data provided to the contrary. Given the detailed disclosure and/or suggestions in the cited prior art references, as discussed above, the specific source of the biogas, or specific percentages of the retained carbon dioxide in said biogas employed in the DRI process would have been obvious to an artisan in the art, unless evidence/data provided to the contrary, which is currently lacking on record (see instant specification, [0072]-[0085], and Fig. 1-5). Also, since the Midrex process disclosed by Satyendra 2017 is already a commercially proven process for producing DRI (albeit using natural gas as a reducing gas/agent), when taken with the combined disclosure and motivation provided from Chartone et al and suggestions from Keph et al as discussed above, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have fully contemplated the method for employing functionally equivalent biogas as a carbon neutral process/reducing gas that is not a fossil fuel (and without removal of CO2), as already eluded by Keph et al, as discussed above. The limitations of “physical association” of corn plant fields or biogas processing and/or DRI facilities having specific capabilities (see instant claims 46, 49), would have been deemed obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art given the combined teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art references as discussed above, especially in view of the teachings/suggestions provided for various associated benefits of such “agro-industrial complex” where most of the required parts or industries (for making and/or using end products and/or starting raw materials) are situated locally (i.e. in reasonably close proximity to each other) in order to increase efficiency and/or cost-effectiveness, as already suggested by Ludmila et al, as discussed above. Also, since the efficient cracking of hydrocarbons in the processing gas comprising methane at high temperatures in the presence of metal catalysts has been already been shown to release additional hydrogen (that flows upwards in the transition zone of the furnace) to act as reducing component (see Satyendra, 2017, p. 8, 2nd paragraph, for instance), such limitations as currently recited in instant claims (see instant claims 50-52, 60-63, and 68-73) would have been deemed intrinsic to the process when using the biogas (that comprises about 60-70 % methane and 30-40% of CO2) as processing gas as suggested by the cited references of Chartone et al taken with Keph et al and Ludmila et al, as discussed above. Similarly, since Satyendra, 2017 already discloses the reactions taking place in the shaft furnace that include exothermic carburizing reactions wherein the CO generated reacts with iron in an exothermic manner (i.e. generates heat) to form Fe3C (i.e. cementite, or iron carbide), additional CO2 and water (see Satyendra, 2017, section “Process description”, on p.4), the limitations of internal generation of CO in the transition zone by introducing biogas as processing gas, as currently recited in instant claims would have been deemed intrinsic and obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, in the absence of any disclosed criticality on record, the process invention as generically claimed (for essentially substituting the biogas in place of natural gas that is currently being used as reducing process gas in commercial production of DRI), fails to distinguish itself over the combined teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art references of record.
Thus, the claim as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed.
As per MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/13/2025 with respect to claim(s) of record as currently amended and newly presented (see REM, pages 15-21, as it pertains to the 103a rejection of record) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of objections/rejections made in this office action, as discussed above, and at least for the following reasons of record:
Regarding the 103(a) rejection of record, applicant mainly appear to argue the following (see REM, dated 11/13/2025, p. 16-17):
PNG
media_image1.png
207
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First, it is noted that syngas (denoted as “biosyngas” by applicant; see (ii) as it is produced from plant biomass) mainly comprises CO and H2. Applicant’s arguments as presented are duly noted and considered. However, it is noted that the rejection of record as discussed above pertains to an obviousness rejection, and not to an anticipation rejection based on solely on the cited prior art reference of Satyendra, 2017 itself. As already noted in the rejection of record above, Keph et al disclose the method employing a mixture of syngas and natural gas (or flue gas, as reducing or processing gas) in the process of production of DRI, wherein a ratio of CO to CO2 between 1 to 3 is maintained in the reduction gas, and at least a part of the top gas volume is added directly to the reducing gas and used without removal/scrubbing of CO2 (see Keph et al, translation, page 3, and claims 4-6, for instance), and therefore, the argument that the cited art does not have a disclosure and/or motivation to use the biogas without removal of CO2, is duly noted but is not found to be persuasive. The additional arguments regarding the claims reciting “internally generated carbon monoxide” (see REM, p. 17-20) is also noted and fully considered. However, given the detailed teachings from Satyendra, 2017 (see teachings discussed above) for the reactions taking place in the shaft furnace that include exothermic carburizing reactions wherein the carbon monoxide (CO) generated reacts with iron in an exothermic manner (i.e. generates heat) to form Fe3C (i.e. cementite, or iron carbide), additional CO2 and water (see Satyendra, 2017, section “Process description”, on p.4), the limitations of internal generation of CO in the transition zone by introducing biogas as a processing gas (that mainly comprises methane and carbon dioxide in double digit percentages), as currently recited in instant claims would have been deemed intrinsic and would have been fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed. It is noted that applicant has not shown and/or provided any evidence/data in order to demonstrate any particular criticality for such limitations on record to be considered persuasive. Since, the advantages of the exothermic carburizing reactions undergoing at the transition zone with methane along with generated carbon monoxide in the presence of iron has already been disclosed by Satyendra, 2017, the arguments as presented by the applicant is duly considered, but is not found to be persuasive. Additionally, the arguments regarding “Lungen” (see REM, p. 19, 3rd paragraph; and p. 20, 4th paragraph, for instance) is not found to be pertinent because such a reference has not been cited as prior art of record in the 103(a) rejection discussed above. Thus the arguments based on the absence of any provision for removing retained CO2 from biogas, and internally generated CO in the transition zone as currently made by the applicant, are duly noted and considered, but are not deemed to be persuasive.
Thus the rejection, as discussed above, under 103(a) of record is still deemed proper.
Conclusion
NO claims are currently allowed.
Pertinent Prior Art:
1. AHMED ET AL (2022; NPL cited as ref. [U] on PTO 892 form)- “Effect of carbon concentration and carbon bonding type on the melting characteristics of hydrogen-reduced iron ore pellets”, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2022, vol. 21, pages 1760-1769 (disclose carburization reaction and its advantages in hydrogen-based direct reduced iron, and mechanisms thereof for forming Fe3C/cementite, which has been known for its desirable energy saving properties; see Abstract, and Introduction, page 1761, left column, for instance, and cited references therein).
2. YANG ET AL (2011; CN 201762319 U; English translation previously made of record)- “A commercial biomass pool” (disclose a commercial biomass pool that uses excrement of human and livestock, organic garbage and other types of waste as raw material in order to continuously produce “commercial fuel gas” in the form of biogas; see Abstract, [0001]-[0002], and claim 1, in particular).
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 SATYENDRA K. SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached on 571-272-5543. 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.
SATYENDRA K. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1657
/SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657