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 1-9 and 20 in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 November 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of S301-S317 and S401 to S415 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
In this case applicant has merely provided the details by themselves without any explanation of what the steps are. The drawings amount to a blank flow chart, which fail to demonstrate the invention details enumerated in the specification.
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 6, and 8-9 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation about 100 mbar or less, and the claim also recites about 10 mbar or less and about 1 mbar or less which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the arrangement for charging iron ore according to ;". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether applicant intended this claim to depend from claim 1 or not.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230235418 A1 (hereinafter “Murray”).
Regarding claim 1, Murray teaches a device for producing direct reduced metal (See title). Murray teaches that the material produced is sponge iron (See Background/Summary). Murray teaches that the invention handles iron ore (see [0056]-[0058]).
Murray teaches a system for the direct reduction including a device for charging and discharging the iron ore (Fig 6 and [0105]-[0118]). Murray teaches that the arrangement includes at last two input collectors 181 and 182, meeting the limitation of a ore charging vessel. Murray teaches that the arrangement has a source of vacuum V, and source of hydrogen gas H (Fig 6 and [0111]-[0112]). The hydrogen gas is a “seal gas” as claimed in instant claim 3. Murray teaches that the sources are in direct connection to the vessel, and that they are operated to evacuate and flush on command ([0111]-[0112]). Murray teaches a furnace space 120 (Fig 6), meeting the limitation of a “shaft.”
Regarding claim 2, Murray teaches that the vessels are sealed, evacuated and flushed on command ([0111]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 3, Murray teaches hydrogen (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 4-5, Murray teches that the gas is alternatively inert gas such as nitrogen (See [0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Murray is applied to the claim as stated above. Murray teaches a discharging vessel 191 and 192 (Fig 6, [0111]-[0112]). Murray teaches that the arrangement has a source of vacuum V, and source of hydrogen gas H (Fig 6 and [0111]-[0112]). The hydrogen gas is a “seal gas” as claimed in instant claim 3. Murray teaches that the sources are in direct connection to the vessel, and that they are operated to evacuate and flush on command ([0111]-[0112]). Murray teaches a furnace space 120 (Fig 6), meeting the limitation of a “shaft.”
Regarding claim 8, Murray teaches that the furnace 120 may be connected to a source of hydrogen and/or carbon containing gas for the reduction (see [0067]-[0073] ad Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, Murray teaches that the furnace 120 may be connected to a source of hydrogen and/or carbon containing gas for the reduction (see [0067]-[0073] ad Fig 3).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray.
Regarding claim 6, Murray is applied as stated above. Murray teaches that the arrangement includes at last two input collectors 181 and 182, meeting the limitation of a ore charging vessel. Murray teaches that the arrangement has a source of vacuum V, and source of hydrogen gas H (Fig 6 and [0111]-[0112]). The hydrogen gas is a “seal gas” as claimed in instant claim 3. Murray teaches that the sources are in direct connection to the vessel, and that they are operated to evacuate and flush on command ([0111]-[0112]). Murray teaches a furnace space 120 (Fig 6), meeting the limitation of a “shaft.” Murray does not disclose the level of the vacuum that is pulled in the vessels.
Murray teaches that the air is evacuated ([0112]). Thus the level of vacuum in the vessels would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have adjusted through a routine investigation in order to evacuate the air to a required extent. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray, further in view of US 20120149789 A1 (hereinafter “Greenbaum”). Murray is applied to the claim as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, Murray teaches that the carbon containing gas is provided in the system by any suitable means (see [0037]-[0039] and Fig 1b). Murray does not describe any electrolyzer.
Greenbaum teaches an electrolyzer for generation of hydrogen (See title), Greenbaum teaches that the electrolyzer provides the same benefits as an array of other electrolyzing features (See SUMARY OF THE INVENTION). Greenbaum teaches that the electrolyzer is particularly suited for iron ore reduction processes (see [0098]-[0099]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the invention of Murray as by adding the electrolyzer of Greenbaum, because Greenbaum teaches that the electrolyzer is particularly suited for iron ore reduction processes (see [0098]-[0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights