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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are currently amended, Claims 2-4 and 8-14 are as previously presented, Claims 5 and 6 are canceled, and Claims 16-21 are new.
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 1-4 and 7-21 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.
In Claim 1, the limitation of “a closed-loop control” is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 16, the limitation of “a liquid pig iron phase” is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 16, the limitation of “in real time” is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 16, the limitation of “a vitreous solidification fraction” is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 17, the limitation of the analysis unit determining the chemical composition by measuring concentration ratios in the iron-containing intermediate is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 18, the limitation of the control unit determining at least one property for CaO, SiO2, MgO, and Al2O3 is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
In Claim 21, the limitation of “a closed-loop control” is not recited in the specification as originally filed.
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 7-21 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 7 recites the limitation "the target characteristics a granulated slag" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not provide for the formation nor existence of granulated slag, so the target characteristics has no support.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the thermal treatment of the slag in the second reactor” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the desired mineral building material” in lines 26 and 27. 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memoli et al (US 2021/0214812 A1) in view of Kirshcen et al in Processes.
Memoli teaches producing cast iron as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “molten iron” reads on pig iron, since the molten iron is further refined. However, Memoli et al does not teach the steps in c), d1), and d2) as in Claim 1.
Kirshcen et al teaches production characteristics of electric arc furnace (EAF) production characteristics with direct reduced iron/high briquetted iron (DRI/HBI). DRI at least is produced by direct reduction to produce metallized iron (see Table 1). DRI reads on the claimed “iron-containing intermediate.” The DRI is charged to the EAF, which reads on “a reactor arrangement” as claimed and melted in the EAF to produce metal (page 2 and Table 2). Kirschen et al further teaches analyzing the slag to monitor, control and improve EAF operation by frequent slag sampling and analysis. The slag composition is determined based on the DRI composition (Table 3). A target composition of MgO-SiO2-FeO is determined (see Figure 1). The slag basicity is controlled. Regarding step c), Kirschen et al teaches analyzing the slag in the EAF to a target composition and adjusting the properties of the additive in the form of the amount of CaO, SiO2, MgO, and SiO2 (page 4). The addition of precisely defined mixtures of lime and dololime or another MgO-carrier (page 5) read on altering the actual composition of the slag with an additive. MgO saturation can be efficiently monitored and controlled (page 6). Regarding step d1), Kirschen et al teaches determining a property of an additive to be added (CaO and MgO in lime and dololime; SiO2 and FeO in DRI, pages 7 and 8). Analyzing the slag leads to controlling the basicity by “precisely defined mixtures of lime and dololime.” The analysis and controlling read on an analysis unit and control unit. 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 control process of Kirschen et al with the process of Memoli et al, since Kirschen et al teaches improved slag foaming and decreased FeO losses by slag during DRI charging (page 8).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memoli et al in view of Kirschen as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinsey & Company in “Hydrogen Insights.”
Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al does not teach the production of DRI is with hydrogen as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 2, McKinsey & Company teaches decreasing carbon emissions using hydrogen in the DRI-EAF route. Hydrogen is used as a reductant to produce DRI (pages 32 and 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce DRI using hydrogen in the process of Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al, since McKinsey & Company teaches producing clean steel with lower production costs (page 33). Clean hydrogen is producible in a carbon neutral way and has higher energy density (page 35).
Regarding Claim 3, Memoli et al teaches a reducing atmosphere condition [0046].
Regarding Claim 4, Kirschen et al teaches direct reduction a 900-1100 °C (page 1). Reduction of iron oxide occurs (page 189 and Fig 1), when reads on a reducing atmosphere in the slag fluid.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al and McKinsey & Company as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vallomy (US 2001/0046251 A).
Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al and McKinsey & Company discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Kirschen et al teaches obtaining a target composition of slag, which reads on the slag obtaining altered characteristics of the slag. Kirschen et al in Figure 3 teaches a CaO/SiO2 as low as 1.2. However, Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al and McKinsey & Company does not teach granulated slag as in Claim 7.
Vallomy teaches processing liquid slag from a steelmaking furnace such as an EAF (abstract). Untreated slag is collected from the EAF [0028]. The slag is treated [0029] and then granulated [0036]. 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 slag granulation process of Vallomy with the process of Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al and McKinsey & Company, since Vallomy teaches recovering metals from the slag and minimizing pollution [0009].
Regarding Claim 8, Vallomy teaches a charging port to the EAF as “introduction port 6” [0027]. Kirschen et al teaches adding DRI and HBI and then analyzing the slag (page 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Kirschen et al teaches a slag basicity of 1.2 to over 2.4 in Figure 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Vallomy teaches a first reactor (EAF) and a second reactor as a treatment vessel as 32 that receives the slag [0024, 0029]. That silicon dioxide is added [0029] reads on a control unit since the slag lime/silica ratio is obtained.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al, McKinsey & Company, and Vallomy as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of DE 10340880 A1 based on the original document and machine translation.
Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al, McKinsey & Company, and Vallomy discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Though Vallomy teaches granulating the slag, Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al, McKinsey & Company, and Vallomy does not teach the size of the atomized slag as in Claim 11.
DE 10340880 A1 (DE ‘880) teaches pulverizing pig iron slag (page 1) as represented in the drawing in the office action mailed 01/16/2026, page 11. DE ‘880 teaches before atomizing the slag, an additive is added to the slag after separation from pig iron. The particle size is 1 to 100 microns (page 3) and atomizing occurs in 8. 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 atomizing process of DE ‘880 with the process of Memoli et al in view of Kirschen et al, McKinsey & Company, and Vallomy, since DE ‘880 teaches facilitating atomizing slag to make higher quality binder (page 2).
Regarding Claim 12, DE ‘880 teaches mixing the ground slag with cement in a ratio of 36:64 to 95:5 to form a binder whose 28-d standard strength is at least 30 N/mm2 (page 3).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0134852 A1 in view of Kirschen et al.
EP 0134852 A1 (EP ‘852) teaches producing liquid iron in an electric melter or furnace as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
532
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The molten iron is pig iron (page 26, line 6). The direct reduction plant is represented above and on page 6, lines 5 and 6. Slag is produced in the iron melter as represented above. Samples of slag or liquid iron can be taken at any time. However, EP ‘852 does not teach the steps in c), d1), and d2) as in Claim 1.
Kirschen et al is applied as discussed above. 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 control process of Kirschen et al with the process of EP ‘852, since Kirschen et al teaches improved slag foaming and decreased FeO losses by slag during DRI charging (page 8).
Claims 2-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golberger et al (US 2011/0247457 A1).
EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al does not teach direct reduction comprises hydrogen as a reducing agent as claimed.
Golberger et al teaches direct reduction (DRI) of iron oxides from pellets composed of iron oxide and carbonaceous material (abstract). The carbonaceous material includes coal [0025]. Solid particles are fluidized with a gas including hydrogen; the presence of a gaseous reductant in the fluidizing gas increases the rate of DRI pellet reduction [0040]. Sponge iron and DRI are analogous. 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 reduction process of Golberger et al in the process of EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al, since Golberger et al teaches higher reduction and production rates [0016].
Regarding Claim 3, EP ‘852 teaches the melter has a reducing atmosphere (page 24, lines 23-25).
Regarding Claim 4, Golberger et al teaches reduction occurs between 850-1100 °C (abstract), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5, EP ‘852 teaches determining the composition of the metal and slag and a “desired target composition” (“GOOD OPERATION,” page 30). It is desirable to maintain the slag between 2-4% Fe (page 28, lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 6, EP ‘852 teaches a controlled feed of carbon (page 28, line 14) based on the amount of carbon that is contained in char (page 26, lines 1-3), which reads on a control unit being present.
Regarding Claim 7, EP ‘852 the control of reduction within the slag to provide the liquid iron with required levels of dissolved oxides (page 24, lines 23-27) reads on a desired chemical composition of the slag.
Regarding Claim 8, EP ‘852 teaches an opening for introducing raw material as represented in 11 in FIG. 2. The control occurs after the introduction of material, since samples of the slag or liquid iron can be taken at any time (page 23, lines 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 13, EP ‘852 teaches the smelter is an electric furnace (page 1, line 3).
Regarding Claim 14, EP ‘852 teaches 2-3% and 3-6% FeO in the slag (page 31).
Regarding Claim 15, EP ‘852 teaches 2-3% and 3-6% FeO in the slag (page 31), which partially overlaps the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected over EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and of Golberger et al as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Saleh et al in Indonesian Mining Journal.
EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and of Golberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and of Golberger et al does not teach the slag basicity as in Claim 9.
Saleh et al teaches a study on basicity in direct reduced iron smelting, where the iron smelting produces pig iron and slag (abstract). The best conditions were at a basicity of 1.1 8 (page 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the slag basicity in EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and of Golberger et al to be 1.18 as taught by Saleh et al, since Saleh et al teaches high iron content (page 64).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al, Golberger et al and Sahel et al as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of DE ‘880 A1.
EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al, Golberger et al and Sahel et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 10, EP ‘852 teaches the electric furnace as the first reactor. However, EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al, Golberger et al and Sahel et al does not teach a second reactor configured to receive the slag as claimed.
DE ‘880 is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 11, DE ‘880 teaches the particle size is 1 to 100 microns (page 3), and atomizing occurs in 8. Regarding Claim 12, DE ‘880 teaches mixing the ground slag with cement in a ratio of 36:64 to 95:5 to form a binder whose 28-d standard strength is at least 30 N/mm2 (page 3). 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 atomizing process of DE ‘880 with the process of EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al, Golberger et al and Sahel et al, since DE ‘880 teaches facilitating atomizing slag to make higher quality binder (page 2).
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and DE ‘880.
EP ‘852 teaches producing liquid iron in an electric melter or furnace as represented above in the drawing. The molten iron is pig iron (page 26, line 6). The direct reduction plant is represented above and on page 6, lines 5 and 6. Slag is produced in the iron melter as represented above. Samples of slag or liquid iron can be taken at any time. The melter has a reducing atmosphere (page 24, lines 23-25). The FeO content in the slag is 2-3% and 3-6% (page 31). “Vitreous solidification” is not recited in the specification as originally filed. However, EP ‘852 does not teach the steps of analyzing, comparing, determining, and introducing, producing a granulated slag, and obtaining a mineral building material as claimed.
Regarding the steps of analyzing, comparing, determining, and introducing, Kirschen et al is applied as discussed above. 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 control process of Kirschen et al with the process of EP ‘852, since Kirschen et al teaches improved slag foaming and decreased FeO losses by slag during DRI charging (page 8).
Regarding producing a granulated slag, DE ‘880 is applied as discussed above. DE ‘880 teaches mixing the ground slag with cement in a ratio of 36:64 to 95:5 to form a binder (page 3). 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 atomizing process of DE ‘880 with the process of EP ‘852, since DE ‘880 teaches facilitating atomizing slag to make higher quality binder (page 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Kirschen et al teaches measuring the ratios of CaO/SiO2 and (CaO + MgO)/(SiO2 + Al2O3) (page 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Kirschen et al teaches determines at least one property of CaO, SiO2, MgO, and Al2O3 (page 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Kirschen et al teaches the thermal treatment is the tap temperature (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 20, EP ‘852 teaches the first reactor as the electric furnace. DE ‘880 teaches pulverizing pig iron slag from a blast furnace (page 1) in a tundish 7, which reads on a second reactor. Before atomizing the slag, an additive is added after separation from pig iron to increase or decrease the slag basicity (page 3).
Regarding Claim 21, EP ‘852 in view of Kirschen et al and DE ‘880 does not teach a closed loop. This limitation is not supported in the specification as originally filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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, 7:00 am to 3:00 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