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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the longitudinal development axis recited in claim 2, and also the cooling plates, ducts and the at least one interspace, recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification in page 4, line 21 makes reference to a specific claim number (i.e. claim 1), however during prosecution, claim numbers do change due to amendments, and therefore it is suggested to delete said specific claim number from said portion of the specification and any other portion(s) thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
indicated in an Office action.
Claim 9, line 4 recites the limitation “means for indirect cooling”, this limitation has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it has been modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. In this instant case the term “means” includes or modified by at least one of the following structures: a means for spraying and/or a means for dropping.
Claim 9, line 7 recites the limitation “means for spraying…..”, this limitation
has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for indirect cooling” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents
thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the recited means for spraying is described in the specification page 8 for example as nozzles.
Claim 9, line 9 recites the limitation “means for dropping…..”, this limitation
has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for dropping” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 18, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “a unit for sending a nebulized cooling fluid….”, this limitation does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 18 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents
thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the recited means for spraying is described in the specification page 6 for example as black slag treatment apparatus (15).
Claim 19, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “a module configured to generate….” , this limitation does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 19 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, it is suggested to replace “immediately after the back slag (1) exits from said electric furnace (2)” with -- immediately after the black slag (1) exits from said electric furnace (2) --.
In claim 2, line 5, it is suggested to replace “rotating around longitudinal
development axis (X) there” with --“rotating around longitudinal a development axis (X)
there--.
In claim 8, line 3-4, it is suggested to replace “black slag (1) is carried out in a cooling device (20) which is positioned or can be positioned at the electric furnace (2) to receive the black slag (1) leaving said furnace.” with --“black slag (1) is carried out in a cooling device (20) which is positioned at the electric furnace (2) to receive the black slag (1) leaving said furnace.--. The reason being that “or can be positioned” is not a positive recitation or is a passive action.
In claim 14, line 2-5, it is suggested to replace “wherein the black slag (1) thus cooled is then crushed (9) into pieces of various sizes and subsequently sieved (10), to thus separate into two or more groups (11) the pieces having a smaller size or greater than at least one predetermined size” with -- wherein the cooled black slag (1) is then crushed (9) into pieces of various sizes and subsequently sieved (10) to separate into two or more groups (11), the pieces having a size smaller or greater than at least one predetermined size--.
In claim 15, lines 2-4, it is suggested to replace “wherein the black slag (1) thus cooled is then crushed in/by a crushing module (9) and subsequently sieved in/by a sieving module (10),” with --wherein the cooled black slag (1) is then crushed in/by a
crushing module (9) and subsequently sieved in/by a sieving module (10), --.
In claim 15, line 5, it is suggested to replace “a same apparatus/machine (21)” with -- same apparatus/machine (21) --.
In claim 20, lines 1-4, it is suggested to replace “further comprising, downstream
of the cooling device (20), a crushing module (9) of the cooled slag into pieces of
various sizes and a sieving module (10) to separate the finer pieces from the larger ones into two or more groups (11)” with -- further comprising, downstream of the cooling device (20), are located a crushing module (9) to crush the cooled slag into pieces of various sizes and a sieving module (10) to separate the finer pieces from the larger ones into two or more groups (11) --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 9 and 19 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 9 recites “means for dropping a cooling fluid onto an external surface of
said wall” in line 9. The structure for dropping the cooling water onto said external
surface of said wall lacks support in the written description. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand applicant/inventor as having possession of the claimed
cooling fluid dropping means at the time of filing of the invention.
Claim 19 recites “module configured to generate and send a jet/spray of a mix of gas and drops of liquid directly against the black slag (1) exiting the electric furnace (2)” in lines 2-5. The structure to generate and send a jet/spray of a mix of gas and drops of liquid directly against the black slag (1) exiting the electric furnace lacks support in the written description. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand applicant/inventor as having possession of the claimed module at the time of filing of the invention.
9. 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.
10. Claims 9, 10, 19 and 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.
In claim 9 limitation “means for dropping” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the function of dropping the cooling fluid onto an external surface of said wall as claimed and/or clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite in that it is unclear as to what structure constitutes the claimed “means for dropping”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 9, recites the limitation “cooling plates fixed to said wall and including ducts for circulation of a cooling fluid, and/or at least one interspace which is externally defined around said wall and which defines a chamber permeated by a cooling fluid” in lines 10-14; however, because the cooling plate and the at least one interspace are not clearly defined in the specification or illustrated in the drawing showing, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand structurally and functionally how they should be interpreted for a prior art to be applied to. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of multiple instances of “and/or” appears to make the claim confusing, because, it is unclear which portion(s) of each of the limitation before, between, and after the multiple “and/or” are required or optional, and which limitations are linked together by the “and/or”. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 10, recites the limitation “wherein the black slag (1) coming out of the electric furnace (2) is cooled, and which is at a temperature Ti of about 1400-1800 °C, up to bring it at least to a temperature T2 which is lower than temperature Ti”. In particular, it is unclear what “up to bring it at least to a temperature T2 which is lower than temperature Ti” mean. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the scope of is unascertainable.
In claim 19, the limitation “modules configured to generate and send a jet/spray
of mix of gas and drops of liquid” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the function to generate and send a jet/spray of mix of gas and drops of liquid directly against the black slag exiting the electric furnace” as claimed and/or clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the finer piece" and “the larger piece” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR101242173, also see the Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”: Description, para [0001]-0072]) in view of De Coninck et al. (US Patent No. 11,708,302).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a method of treating a slag obtained from and electric arc furnace (see “EEMTV”: Description, para [0004]) and therefore adequately suggest a black slag and also a slag containing lime (CaO) or lime-based compounds; wherein the method comprises indirectly cooling said black slag by passing it through a rotating drum (110, see figure 2 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]), immediately after the black slag exits from the electric furnace (200, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]); wherein the indirect cooling means that the slag does not come into direct contact with the cooling fluid while being rotatably led through an inner drum part (110a, see figures 2 and 3, and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) of the rotating drum (110) while the cooling fluid flows through an outer drum part (110a, see figures 2 and 3 and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) of the rotating drum (110); or in other embodiments the black slag flows through an inner surface of the rotating drum (110) , while cooling water flows through cooling pipes install inside the rotating drum (110 see figures 2 and 3 and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037]) or a water jacket install on the outer surface of the rotating drum (110, see figures 2 and 3 and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037]).
Kim et al. teaches rapidly cooling the black slag immediately after exiting from the electric furnace (200) but is silent with respect to the time duration for cooling the black slag by the cooling device; and as such, Kim et al. fails to particular teach a cooling period of time between about 10 minutes and about 45 minutes as claimed.
De Coninck et al. teaches a method of cooling black slag (1, see De Coninck et al., figure 2 and see column 4, line 26-49), which contains lime (CaO) or lime-based compounds immediately after exiting the steel making device (2, see De Coninck et al., figure 2 and see column 1, lines 42-55, column 4, lines 15-21 and column 4, line 26-
column 5, line 32); wherein the cooling a of black slag is completed in a time period of
between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes (i.e., the time period lies within the
claimed cooling time range of between about 10 minutes and about 45 minutes, thereby showing the existence of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.) in order to achieve at least 60% or 75% of the free lime initially contained in the black slag being transformed into carbonates (see, De Coninck et al., column 4, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Kim et al. to immediately cool the black slag after exiting the electric furnace for a period of time between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes as taught by De Coninck et al. to gain the advantage of transforming at least 60% or 75% of the free lime initially contained in the black slag into carbonates which has a higher volume than free lime and as such better suited for road construction application.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method of
cooling a black slag immediately after exiting from an electric furnace (200, see Kim et al. figure 2 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]) by a cooling device comprising a tubular reactor or rotating drum (110, see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032], [0034], [0047]) rotatable about an axis (see Kim et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method
in which a black slag is indirectly cooled (see Kim et al. “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) by means of a cooling device (i.e., rotating drum, (110, see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]- [0037] and [0047]) until the black slag reaches a final temperature which is suitable for subsequent handling of the black slag , said final temperature being equal to or lower than about 300 °C (i.e., this temperature lies within the claimed temperature range 150 - 300 °C , thereby showing
the existence of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.; see De Coninck et al., abstract
column 3, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 4, De Coninck et al. teaches a method of cooling black slag in which the cooling device comprises a closed chamber (3, see De Coninck et al., figure 2) which by its simplicity in design could easily be transported from one location to another, meaning it can be towed in the same way as the claimed cooling device. Hence, Kim et al in view of De Coninck et al. reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method in which the black slag leaving the electric furnace (200 see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]); is discharged directly into a cooling device (rotating drum 110, see Kim et al., figure 1, EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) and De Coninck et al. , figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method in which the black slag is also cooled immediately after exiting from the electric furnace (200 see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]) by direct heat exchange with a nebulized cooling fluid (see Kim et al., EEMTV”: Description, para [0047]) or a jet/spray of a mix of gas with drops of liquid that come into direct contact with said black slag (see De Coninck et al., figure 3 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 28).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method of cooling black slag in which the indirect cooling (see Kim et al. “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) of the black slag is carried out in a cooling device (i.e., rotating drum 110, see Kim et al., figure 1, EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-
[0037] and [0047]) which is positioned at the electric furnace (200 see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]) to receive the black slag leaving said furnace.
Regarding claims 10-12, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a method cooling black slag in which the black slag coming out of the electric furnace (200 see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072]) or steel making device (2 see De Coninck et al., figure 2, abstract and column 3, lines 45-50 and column 4, lines 15-22) is cooled to about 300 °C, at which temperature at least 60% or 75% of the free lime initially contained in the black slag is transformed into carbonates which are much more suitable for subsequent handling (De Coninck et al., column 4, lines 15-21). The combined teachings of Kim et al. and De Coninck et al., therefore meets and/or encompasses the scope of these claims.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a cooling method of a black slag in which the indirect cooling (see Kim et al. “EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) of the black slag inside the cooling device (rotating drum 110, see Kim et al., figure 1, EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) is carried out for a time shorter than a duration of the melting cycle of the steel inside the electric furnace and, wherein the time period is between about 15 minutes and about 30 minutes (i.e., a time period that overlaps with the claimed cooling time range of less than about 30 minutes and about 45 minutes, thereby showing the existence of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.); see (see, De Coninck et al., column 4, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches a cooling
method in which black slag in which the cooled black slag is then crushed into pieces of
various sizes and subsequently sieved to separate into desired sizes or mesh (see Kim et al., EEMTV”: Description, para [0006], and De Coninck et al., column 4, lines 26-53).
Regarding claims 17 and 18 Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches an apparatus (see Kim et al. figure 1 and De Coninck et al., figures 1 and 2 and abstract) for treating the black slag comprising a cooling device (i.e., rotating drum 110 see Kim et al., figures 2 and 3 and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]) which is configured to cool the black slag exiting from the electric furnace (200 see Kim et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: Description, para [0072], or steel making device (2) see De Coninck et al., figure 2, abstract and column 3, lines 45-50 and column 4, lines 15-22) by indirect heat exchange (see Kim et al., EEMTV”: Description, para [0047]) with a cooling fluid or a nebulized cooling fluid which enters and/or passes through said cooling device (see Kim et al., figures 2 and 3 and EEMTV”: Description, para [0032]-[0037] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. teaches an apparatus that further comprises a module (i.e. atomizer 7, see De Coninck et al., figure 3 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 10) configured to generate and send a jet/spray of a mix of gas and drops of liquid directly against the black slag coming out of exiting the electric furnace (i.e., steel making device (2) see De Coninck et al., figure 3 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 28).
13. Claims 6, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Kim et al. (KR101242173, also see the Espacenet English Machine Translation
Version “EEMTV”: Description, para [0001]-0072]) in view of De Coninck et al. (US
Patent No. 11,708,302) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA, Applicant’s Specification (state of the art), page 1 and 2 and figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. fails to particular teach a method of treating in which the black slag leaving the electric furnace is discharged onto a cauldron before discharging directly into said cooling device.
However, AAPA teaches that the method of treating a black slag leaving the electric furnace is known in the art to be first discharged onto a cauldron (3, see AAPA, state of the art figure 1) before discharging directly into a cooling device or a cooling bay (5, see AAPA, state of the art figure 1 and Applicant’s specification pages 1 and 2); wherein the discharge of the black slag from the furnace into the cauldron and the subsequent transfer into the cooling device or the cooling bay is performed discontinuously and in batches (see AAPA, state of the art figure 1, and Applicant’s specification pages 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. to discharge the black slag leaving the electric furnace first into cauldron before discharging directly into said cooling device as exemplified by AAPA in order to ensure a safer and a much more controlled manner of transfer or pouring of the black slag into the cooling device for cooling.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. fails to particular teach a method of treating a black slag the comprises after cooling the black slag, crushing the cooled black slag in/by a crushing module and subsequently sieving in/by a sieving module, said crushing module and said sieving module being defined in sequence within same apparatus/machine which also comprises said cooling device. However, AAPA teaches that the method of treating a black slag leaving the electric furnace is known in the art to comprise after cooling crushing in/by a crushing module and subsequently sieving in/by a sieving module, said crushing module and said sieving module being defined in sequence within same apparatus/machine which also comprises said cooling device (see AAPA, state of the art figure 1 and Applicant’s specification pages 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Kim et al. in view of De Coninck et al. to further treat the cooled slag by crushing in/by a crushing module and subsequently sieving in/by a sieving module as exemplified by AAPA in order to achieve the desired slag particle size and distribution suitable for use in such applications as concrete making and road construction.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakatani (US 4,420,304), Roberti (EP2149615) and Detronde (US 7,381,365) are also cited in PTO-892.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759