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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/11/2025, only with respect to the non-patent literature document, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/11/2023, only with respect to the non-patent literature document, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/11/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of” should be deleted in line 14.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “having” should be deleted in line 16.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a” should be inserted before “reducing agent” in line 2.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the” should be inserted before both “actual composition” and “target composition” in line 6.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “give” in line 3 should be change to a word synonymous to “produce.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
The examiner does not contend that the following rejections will completely address issues of indefiniteness and cautions that any amendments to the claims should conform to current U.S. practice to eliminate further rejections under this statute.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slag" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the slag which deposits during the further heating” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no antecedent basis for “the slag which deposits” and, separately, “the further heating.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the composition of the slag" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the composition of the slag" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites an analysis unit in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or a different analysis unit as recited in Claim 1. If this is a different unit, it must be identified clearly, and “the analysis” in line 2 has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “compare it” in line 4. It is unclear what “it” represents in the claim.
Claim 7 recites a control unit in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or a different control unit as recited in Claim 6. If this is a different unit, it must be identified clearly.
In Claim 7, the limitation of “which is configured to take account, for the target characteristics of the slag, of any selection from the following features” is unclear. Correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the granulated slag" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites an analysis unit in line 3. It is unclear if this is the same or a different analysis unit as recited in Claims 1 or 5. If this is a different unit, it must be identified clearly.
Claim 9 recites a control unit in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or a different control unit as recited in Claims 6 or 7. If this is a different unit, it must be identified clearly.
Claim 10 recites a control unit in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or a different control unit as recited in Claims 6, or 9. If this is a different unit, it must be identified clearly.
Claim 12 recites “is configured a mineral building material” in line 2. It appears a word is missing between “configured” and “a.” Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 12, the phrase "more particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenwalt (US 5,397,376) and as evidenced by Hasanbeigi et al in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Greenwalt teaches making iron or steel pre-products as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
700
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Molten iron is the same as pig iron (column 3, line 51). The reduction furnace 126 produces hot reduced sponge iron particles (column 9, lines 17-20), which reads on the iron-containing intermediate as evidenced by Hasanbeigi et al. Hasanbeigi et al teaches sponge iron contains 85-95% reduced iron (page 647). The reducing gas is CO (column 6, line 43) and includes H2 (column 16, line 52). The sponge iron is heated in melter gasifier 116 to produce hot metal (pig) 111 and slag 113. The sulfur content in the slag is evaluated based on the ratio of oxygen partial pressure to sulfur partial pressure in the reactor zone where slag forms must be evaluated (column 11, lines 47-50). The analysis unit is taught by injecting an oxidizing coolant to maintain the temperature of the melter gasifier dome (column 9, lines 35-38) and selecting slags and gas composition to obtain and exceed slag sulfur solubilities (column 13, lines 22-26). High sulfur is handled by using ash free petroleum coke in the melter gasifier and substituting the slag with all or part of a calcium silicate slag in the melter gasifier (column 14, lines 9-51). Greenwalt anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the reducing gas includes H2 (column 16, line 52).
Regarding Claim 3, the melter gasifier reads on a smelter with a reducing atmosphere as evidenced by Hasanbeigi et al, which teaches the melter gasifier completes reduction (page 648).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlüter et al (US 2023/0175087 A1), which is in the same patent family as CA 3181620 A1 published 11/04/2021.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Schlüter et al teaches producing liquid pig iron from a DRI product. The DRI product is produced with natural gas and hydrogen-enriched reformer gas can be used for the reduction gas [0036]. The DRI product can be in the form of “DR-grade pellets” or “blast furnace pellets” with a higher slag content [0020]. The DRI product is added to a smelting unit [0012] to produce a liquid pig iron phase and a liquid slag phase [0014]. The slag is adjusted for vitrification capability [0022] based on a function of process parameters and a process model [0025] with slag formers added during smelting and amount of DRI supplied [0026], which reads on analyzing the slag. Schlüter et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, hydrogen is the reducing agent.
Regarding Claim 3, Schlüter et al teaches a smelting unit [0012] and the addition of carbon components [0064] reads on a reducing atmosphere for DRI.
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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlüter et al as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of WO 2020/245070 A1.
Schlüter et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, regarding Claim 4, Schlüter et al does not teach the reduction temperature as claimed.
WO 2020/245070 A1 (WO ‘070) teaches producing steel or molten iron by melting direct reduced iron in a direct reduction furnace (abstract). The reducing gas is mainly composed of hydrogen and reduces iron oxides in the range of 800-1000 °C (page 5), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature to produce DRI in Schlüter et al would be the range taught by WO ‘070, since WO ‘070 teaches this temperature range provides for the reduction reaction to take place (page 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Schlüter et al teaches a process model that is based on the mass and energy balances for the melt and slag and the thermodynamic description of the liquid slag phase. Automated addition ensures the necessary adjustments of the desired metal and/or slag parameters by adding slag formers, cold pig iron, or another carbon carrier [0025, 0026, and 0030].
Regarding Claim 6, Schlüter et al teaches a plant automation system [0025], which reads on a control unit. The process model can describe the saturation limits with respect to the oxides and mixed oxides as a function of the composition and temperature [0025] as exemplified in [0060].
Regarding Claim 7, Schlüter et al teaches the process model ensures the necessary adjustments of the desired metal and/or slag parameters [0025], and the slag is granulated [0068].
Regarding Claim 8, Schlüter et al teaches using a process model with automated addition [0026], which reads on a control unit. Slag formers and carbon components are added to the furnace [0062], which reads on an opening for raw material.
Regarding Claim 9, Schlüter et al teaches the slag basicity is 0.9-1.5 (abstract), which 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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlüter et al in view of WO ‘070 as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of DE 10340880 A1, based on the original document and machine translation.
Schlüter et al in view of WO ‘070 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 10, Schlüter et al teaches the first reactor as the smelter. However, Schlüter et al in view of WO ‘070 does not teach aa second reactor configured to receive the slag as claimed.
DE 10340880 A1 (DE ‘880) teaches pulverizing pig iron slag from a blast furnace (page 1) as represented in the drawing below:
PNG
media_image2.png
468
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DE ‘880 teaches before atomizing the slag, an additive is added to the slag after separation from pig iron. The additive is added with means 9 and 10 (page 3), which reads on having a control unit. An additive is added to the slag to increase or decrease the basicity to 1 to 5.5 (page 3).The second reactor is taught by tundish 7 and atomizer 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 slag treatment system of DE ‘880 to treat the slag in the process taught by Schlüter et al in view of WO ‘070, since DE ’880 teaches facilitating the process of atomizing slag to make higher quality binder (page 2).
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).
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, 7:30 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