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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 12 are canceled, Claim 11 is currently amended, and Claims 13-20 are as previously presented.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "Eoptim1 being lower than or equal to Emax1" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Eoptim1 is not defined before this recitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the optimized level Eoptimi of CO2 emissions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the cumulated value Σ(Eoptimi) of CO2 emitted in step d)” line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the different Δem" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the amount Enot of CO2" in line 7. 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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ba-Shammakh in Energy Fuels and as evidenced by Cavaliere in Clean Ironmaking and Steelmaking Processes.
Ba-Shammakh teaches cost minimization with optimal CO2 mitigation options for the steelmaking industry. The variables recited in Claim 11 are compared to the teachings in Ba-Shammakh:
Si = steelmaking units (Figure 1)
S1 = blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (Figure 1)
S2 = electric arc furnace (Figure 1)
Target Definition
Eglob = overall global expected CO2 = CO2 emission constraints (page 11442)
Tglob = overall global amount steel = ΣiΣf (Prod)if ≥ targeted demand (page 11442)
Prodif is supply of steel based on fuel selection from each plant
Calculation
Eexpi = expected CO2 emissions for steel i = CO2if (page 11442)
Emaxi = maximum CO2 emissions for steel i = less than current CO2 emissions (page 11442)
MRi = initial manufacturing route for steel i = result of Table 1 “applying different technologies” and traditional route (page 11442)
Comparison
OMRi = optimized manufacturing route for steel i = Zic (one control technology for each unit; page 11442)
OMR1 = blast furnace (Table 2)
OMR2 = electric arc furnace (Table 1, third option)
Ba-Shammakh teaches finding the least cost CO2 reduction strategy for the steelmaking industry at different reduction targets. The model can be extended to include more air emissions with different technologies (page 11444). Emissions are a function of energy consumption (page 11442). The overall expected level from all steelmaking units is described in column 1 of page 11442 and is based on the targeted demand from each steel production unit. The total CO2 emissions from each steel plant must satisfy a predefined reduction target, which reads on a maximum level. The total CO2 emissions from a steel plant must satisfy a predefined reduction target. Each steel plant unit i has a control technology installed (page 11442). The CO2 reduction options are based on using different techniques using different reduction targets, switching the steelmaking unit (rolling and piping), using natural gas instead of coal (page 11443), which read on modifying the final selection of the energy raw materials and processes. The optimization techniques in Ba-Shammakh were used to find the least cost CO2 reduction strategy. The model can be extended to include more air emissions with different technologies that may control several emissions. A stochastic approach can also be applied to account for uncertainty about the model variables. (page 11444). Ba-Shammakh anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, Ba-Shammakh teaches scrap.
Regarding Claim 14, Cavaliere teaches as evidence that blast furnaces are operated by reducing iron oxides using iron ores, sinter or pellets, limestone, and air enriched with oxygen. The top gas used to preheat the air entering the blast furnace (page 167).
Regarding Claim 15, Cavaliere teaches as evidence that the electric arc furnace is a scrap recycling process and scrap, direct reduced iron, pig iron, and additives are melted (page 303). Scrap includes obsolete scrap including appliances and shredded, industrial scrap generated during processing of strip or bars, and internal scrap including steel recovered from slag (page 316).
Regarding Claim 17, the processes include using an electric arc furnace, a blast furnace, and a basic oxygen furnace (page 11440). Cavaliere teaches as evidence that BOFs are types of converters (page 275).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba-Shammakh as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Cavaliere and as evidenced by GRI Standards Glossary (GRI Standards).
Ba-Shammakh discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Ba-Shammakh does not recite how the electricity is formed as in Claim 16 or establishing a certificate as in Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 16, Cavaliere teaches producing hot steam from electric arc furnace waste heat. The steam is used for power generation for electricity production (page 353). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate electricity from the electric arc furnace off gas in Ba-Shammakh as taught by Cavaliere, since Cavaliere teaches reducing CO2 emissions (page 353). Cavaliere teaches slag heat recovery from the blast furnace as represented in Fig. 4.61 on page 256 to generate power such as thermoelectric power (page 261). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate thermoelectric power from the waste heat of slag generated in the blast furnace of Ba-Shammakh as taught by Cavaliere, since Cavaliere teaches molten slag is one of the largest untapped energy sources in metal manufacturing operations (page 254).
Regarding Claim 18, Ba-Shammakh teaches an optimum amount of CO2 emissions as being less than or equal to (1 - % Red) × CO2 (Equation 6, page 11442), which reads on Eoptimi. However, Ba-Shammakh does not teach a certificate. Cavaliere teaches the slag heat recovery offers process credits such as any associated carbon credit (pages 261-62). GRI Standards Glossary defines a carbon credit as a transferable or tradable instrument that represents one metric ton of CO2 equivalent emissions reduction or removal that are uniquely serialized, issued, tracked, and canceled according to recognized quality standards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish carbon credits with the method of Ba-Shammakh to obtain carbon credits, since carbon credits results in potential savings (Cavaliere, pages 286 and 400).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba-Shammakh as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al in International Journal of Energy Research.
Regarding Claim 19, Ba-Shammakh teaches a cumulated value of CO2 as represented by the left side of Formula (6) on page 11442. However, Ba-Shammakh does not specifically teach a difference between expected emissions and emissions not actually emitted and allocating all or part of the not-emitted amount to a tonnage of steel as claimed.
Wang et al teaches a model on CO2 emission reduction in integrated steelmaking (page 1095). The European Union cap and trade program, ETS, curbs Europe’s industrial emissions. It is permissible to use certified emission reductions to meet the CO2 emission allowance for EU countries. The model is used to compare emissions before the Kyoto Protocol (BKP), during KP, and post KP (PKP) and assumed CO2 emission allowance. The model analyzes a reference case, ETS simulation to fill up emission gaps, and an optimized cost objection scenario (pages 1100-1102. 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 comparison model taught by Wang et al with the method of Ba-Shammakh, since the model used by Wang et al to compare emissions demonstrates how internal changes can play a major role in reducing abatement costs (page 1102).
Regarding Claim 20, Ba-Shammakh teaches the targeted demand can be the same as the produced supply in formula (2) and the CO2 emission constraints can equal the predefined reduction target in formula (6) (page 11442).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Muchová et al in JRC Scientific and Technical 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). 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).
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