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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/31/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 2 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 1, the limitation “fine flux” is interpreted as being less than 3 mm, based on page 1, line 21 of the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “to reduce CO2 emissions” in line 6 as a result of introducing the gas reducer from the bottom of the reactor. However, the disclosure as originally filed specifically does not recite the reduction of CO2 emissions is as a result of introducing the gas reducer from the bottom of the reactor.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 and 2 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.
In Claim 1, it is unclear what is undergoing combustion, natural gas (on pages 2 and 3 of the specification as originally filed and is a mixture of molecules) or methane (on pages 4 and 5 and is a single molecule). There is also no recited nexus between the presence of natural gas and the use of methane.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stoichiometry of the methane combustion process" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016108575 A.
JP 2016108575 A (JP ‘575) teaches producing steel ferrous raw material, 50% or more iron ore (abstract) as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
646
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The furnace top may be sealed (last paragraph of page 3), which reads on a closed metallurgical reactor. A hydrocarbon gas such as natural gas is supplied from the hollow portion 5. Is decomposed by oxidation to molecular H and C (page 3). The carbon concentration in the molten iron is more than the carbon concentration relative to the iron content in the iron-based material. Solid carbon such as pulverized coal can be blown with the hydrocarbon gas (page 4). The bottom blowing gas can contain H2 or CO (page 5). The actual carburizing speed is calculated (page 4). Regarding the limitation of “to reduce CO2 emissions” and the addition of fluxes, this limitation is in the preamble of the claim prior to “wherein.” If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. Though JP ‘575 does not specifically recite methane, JP ‘575 teaches the broader limitation of a hydrocarbon gas CmH-n and using natural gas (pages 4 and 5). As stated above under the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), it is not clear what reactions are occurring what which hydrocarbon (methane or natural gas) is being used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that JP ‘575 reads on using methane as a hydrocarbon gas CmHn, since methane is a type of hydrocarbon with m = 1 and n = 4.
Regarding Claim 2, the furnace is an arc type electric furnace.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant refers to the machine translation of JP ‘575 on page 2, paragraph 4, which states “the electric furnace is a substantially open system.” However, this citation is in the background of the machine translation. JP ‘575 further states as an embodiment of the present invention “the DC arc electric furnace 1 has a structure with as few openings as possible to in order to reduce the amount of air entering the furnace … the furnace top of the arc electric furnace 1 may be opened and closed, and after charging … the furnace top may be sealed (last paragraph of page 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 112227669 A teaches bottom-blown hydrogen-enhanced electric furnace smelting [0001] to reduce carbon emissions during steelmaking [0003]. The raw materials consist of molten iron, scrap steel, and slag [0013] and does not suggest using iron ore as claimed. CN 101519706 A (CN ‘706) teaches a method for bottom-blown hydrogen molten reduction of iron ore [0001] in a conventional reactor or induction furnace with pre-melted slag and a certain amount of pig iron [0010]. Iron ore is added and reduced to pig iron [0011]. The reactor can be electrically heated [0011]. CN ‘706 does not suggest forming steel as claimed.
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