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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 August 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are canceled and Claims 11-20 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “send” in line 2 should be “sent.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al in International Journal of Energy Research.
Wang et al teaches a model on CO2 emission reduction in integrated steelmaking by optimization methods. Steel production uses blast furnace (BF) and basic oxygen furnace (BOF), which reads on more than one steelmaking unit. The model is based on process integration to analyze CO2 emission by optimizing material and energy systems in the steel industry (page 1093). Multi-objective optimization is based on cost and CO2 minimization (page 1095). Different ferrous burden materials are used to analyze costs and CO2 emissions (see Table I and Table III). A crude steel demand has to be satisfied for all cases. A baseline for the BF and BOF is optimized (page 1097). It is permissible to use certified Emission Reductions from the European Union (EU). Four cases are simulated in the model including a reference cases (pages 1100-1101). When internal changes are taken, there is no emission gap at all (page 1102). The optimization model for CO2 emission can be simulated for different process units, the whole steel plant, or from a global point of view. Different technical solutions have been chosen to minimize CO2 emissions (page 1103).
Regarding the target definition step, the “overall expected level Eglob of CO2 emissions”, Wang et al teaches the optimization results including CO2 emission (page 1098). The steelmaking units Si, Wang et al teaches a BF and a BOF. Wang et al teaches optimization results including production of hot metal (page 1097). Regarding the calculation step and initial manufacturing route MRi, Wang et al teaches a model to produce steel in Figure 6 on page 1096. Regarding the comparison step and the calculated expected levels Eexpi and the predefined targets Emaxi, calculated expected levels were applied with the three cases on pages 1100-1101. Wang et al teaches predefined targets on page 1098 and teaches modifying the processes as identified in the three cases 1-3 on pages 1100-1101. The optimized manufacturing route OMRi is taught by the three cases. Regarding the production step, Wang et al teaches the three cases produce steel. Wang et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the BF process provides a product for the basic oxygen furnace.
Regarding Claim 13, the raw materials include coal, coke, iron ore, pellets, scrap, mineral additions (e.g. lime, quartz, limestone, dolomite), and oxygen (pages 1097-1098).
Regarding Claim 14, the raw material includes scrap, mineral additions, alloying elements taught by scrap, and oxygen.
Regarding Claim 16, energy is from the BF and BOF to a combined heat plant (page 1103).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al teaches using a BOF and scrap. Cavaliere in Clean Ironmaking and Steelmaking Processes teaches as evidence that BOFs are types of converters (page 275).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al teaches using certified emission reductions to meet the CO2 emission allowance with the model boundary as represented by Table IV (pages 1100-1101).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al teaches total CO2 emission allowance in Table IV. Figure 9 shows the allowed emission, estimated emission, and the emission gap (page 1102). In Case 1, the steel plant buys excess emission via the emission-trading market. In Case 2, purchasing allowance permits via ETS (EU cap and trade program) or Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) via CDM (one of the flexible mechanisms defined in the Kyoto Protocol) will fill the emissions gap. In Case 3, calculated CO2 emissions are reduced for all periods. Tgreen reads on an optional limitation based on the difference being less than zero (pages 1100-1102).
Regarding Claim 20, the reduced level of CO2 emissions associated with Tgreen reads on zero, since Wang et al does not teach a difference that was not emitted.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Muchová et al in JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
Wang et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Wang et al does not identify the types of scrap as recited in Claim 15.
Muchová et al teaches since teaches a comprehensive overview of iron and steel scrap recycling (page 5). The scrap includes new and old scrap (page 7); filings, turnings, dust, grinding bodies, and particles; packaging; construction and demolition waste (page 8); and municipal waste (page 9). 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 scrap sources taught by Muchová et al in the process of Wang et al, since Muchová et al teaches the energy use in processing ferrous scrap is much lower in comparison with the production of metal from ore; dust and air emissions from scrap processing are generally at a low level; and scrap metal poses no risk to the environment in transportation and storage (page 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Filippo Porzio et al in Applied Energy teaches providing a reference benchmark, average values of CO2 emissions of single processes and products of European iron and steel industry have been collected. Holappa in Metals teaches main improvements that could have a potential influence on the reduction of CO2 emissions. Kim et al in International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing teaches an aggregate model component of iron and steel industry in Fig. 1 and modeled the production and energy flow of Korean iron and steel industry using a system dynamics simulation. Xu et al in Journal of Iron and Steel Research, International teaches low CO2 emission technologies for iron and steel making.
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