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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumitomo Metal (JPH04224612A). Sumitomo Metal is cited in the IDS filed November 8, 2023. References to Sumitomo Metal are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Sumitomo Metal discloses a method for refining molten iron (claim 1, [0001], [0006-07], [0026-27]). Sumitomo Metal discloses placing untreated molten iron with a carbon concentration of 1.7 mass% (Table 4) into a vessel (melted in electric furnace and poured into converter) (example 4 [0026]). Sumitomo Metal discloses blowing oxygen onto the untreated molten iron (top-blown oxygen) [0027]. Sumitomo Metal does not disclose pressurizing the vessel or that the refining treatment occurs under vacuum, and Sumitomo Metal discloses that the refining occurs in a “top-and-bottom dual-flow converter” [0018], and within the examples Sumitomo Metal discloses maintaining gas flow [0026-27] thereby disclosing that the treatment apparatus does not accumulate pressure. An apparatus which is not pressured and blows oxygen without accumulating pressure or inducing a vacuum is a process which blows oxygen under atmospheric pressure. Sumitomo metal discloses blowing a hydrogen gas (H2) to perform a decarburization treatment of the molten iron [0026-27].
Sumitomo Metal is silent as to whether the treatment results in denitrification. Sumitomo Metal does not disclose adding nitrogen to the steel of example 4 [0026-27]. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition [or method] patentably new to the discoverer, thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable (MPEP 2112(I)). If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2112.02(I)). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. See MPEP2112(I). The difference in nitrogen concentration of inventive examples in the present disclosure between the product treated and the composition discharged from the treatment may be as low as 1 ppm (Inventive Examples No. 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 in Table 2; Inventive Examples No. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 in Table 3). Every example in the present disclosure which treats with hydrogen (H2) gas results in at least 1 ppm of denitrification (Tables 1-3). Considering Sumitomo Metal manipulates every active step recited in present claim 1, with feed iron composition, and blown gases which meet those recited in claim 1, and considering denitrification of the present disclosure is sufficiently broad to encompass a nitrogen change as low as 1 ppm, and considering every example in the present disclosure which blows hydrogen gas results in at least 1 ppm of denitrification (Tables 1-3), Sumitomo Metal establishes a sound basis for believing that example 4 of Sumitomo metal ([0026-27], Table 4) would result in at least some degree of denitrification.
Regarding claim 2, Sumitomo Metal does not disclose that the steel of example 4 comprises nitrogen either before or after treatment ([0026-27], Table 4). Sumitomo Metal discloses compositions of components as low as 5 ppm [0020]. The nitrogen concentration in treated iron is a material property that is inseparable from the chemical composition and processing conditions of the molten material. See MPEP2112.01(II). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. See MPEP2112(I). Considering Sumitomo Metal manipulates every active step recited in present claim 1, with a strep of treating molten iron with hydrogen gas ([0026-27], Table 4), considering Sumitomo Metal does not add nitrogen in example 4 [0026-27], and considering every inventive example of the present disclosure which treats with hydrogen gas meets the nitrogen content limitation of claim 2 (Tables 1-3), Sumitomo Metal establishes a sound basis for believing that a nitrogen concentration in treated molten iron of example 4 [0026-27] after being subjected to the decarburization and denitrification treatment is 30 mass ppm or lower.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Sumitomo Metal discloses that the untreated molten iron includes molten iron obtained by melting a cold iron source [0026].
Regarding claim 7, Sumitomo Metal discloses that the vessel is a converter [0026-27].
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(s) 2-3, 5, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo Metal (JPH04224612A), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 2, Sumitomo Metal does not disclose that the steel of example 4 comprises nitrogen either before or after treatment ([0026-27], Table 4). Sumitomo Metal discloses compositions of components as low as 5 ppm [0020]. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. See MPEP2112(I). Considering Sumitomo Metal manipulates every active step recited in present claim 1, with a strep of treating molten iron with hydrogen gas ([0026-27], Table 4); considering Sumitomo Metal does not add nitrogen in example 4 [0026-27], and considering every inventive example of the present disclosure which treats with hydrogen gas meets the nitrogen content limitation of claim 2 (Tables 1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that the treated molten iron of example 4 of Sumitomo Metal after being subjected to the treatment ([0026-27], Table 4) would have a very low nitrogen concentration [N]f, and a very low nitrogen concentration would meet or approach an amount of nitrogen of 30 mass ppm or lower.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 8, Sumitomo Metal discloses blowing Ar in the molten metal of Example 4 after that treated molten iron after being subjected to the treatment [0027]. Sumitomo Metal discloses a vacuum degassing treatment as an alternative to the step of blowing Ar gas in order to remove excess hydrogen [0020]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to subject the molten iron to a vacuum degassing treatment following the decarburization treatment with hydrogen because Sumitomo Metal presents a vacuum degassing treatment as an alternative to the Ar blowing following decarburizing with hydrogen [0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would predict such a vacuum degassing to result in reducing the content of hydrogen remaining in the molten iron, as taught by Sumitomo Metal [0020].
Regarding claims 5, 12, 13, and 14, Sumitomo Metal discloses that treating Mn steels, including that of example 4, comprises forming the molten iron by melting a, cold iron source in a melting furnace [0017], [0026-27]. Sumitomo Metal also discloses that treating Mn steel may comprise untreated molten iron which is a mixture of molten pig iron into which an Fe-Mn iron source is charged [0017]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the untreated molten iron in the process disclosed by Sumitomo Metal [0017], [0020], [0026-27] as a mixture obtained by melting a cold iron source in a melting furnace and molten pig iron because Sumitomo Metal discloses a mixture of pig iron and an Fe-Mn iron source as molten iron suitable for the decarburization treatment [0017], and Sumitomo Metal discloses that the composition of example 4, which is an Fe-Mn alloy may be provided by melting a cold iron source in a melting furnace [0026]. Providing such a mixture would predictably yield a molten iron material suitable for decarburization treatment, as taught by Sumitomo Metal [0017]. A mixture obtained by melting a cold iron source in a melting furnace and molten pig iron is a mixture of primary molten iron. Example 1 of Sumitomo Metal directly treats pig iron [0021]. Sumitomo Metal discloses that the exemplified pig iron has a carbon concentration of 4.0 mass% (Table 1). In forming the mixture from pig iron as taught by Sumitomo Metal [0017], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pig iron would have the concentration of pig iron taught by Sumitomo Metal; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide pig iron having a carbon concentration of 4.0 mass %, as taught by Sumitomo Metal ([0021], Table 1).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 11, Sumitomo Metal discloses that the untreated molten iron includes molten iron obtained by melting a cold iron source [0026].
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo Metal (JPH04224612A) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Millman (GB2553342A).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 15, Sumitomo Metal discloses adding a reducing agent to the molten iron after the decarburization treatment [0027], thereby disclosing that the provided iron can be reduced. Sumitomo Metal further discloses that the iron source may be a mixture of pig iron and an Fe-Mn source [0017]. Sumitomo Metal does not disclose that the cold iron source, which is melted, is reduced iron.
Millman teaches a method for refining molten iron (page 2 lines 9-15). Millman teaches blowing a hydrogen gas, to perform a denitrification treatment of the untreated molten iron (page 2 lines 12-15, 20-23; page 8 lines 26-31). Millman teaches that oxygen and hydrocarbons may be blown into the vessel (page 6 line 31 to page 7 line 10). Millman teaches that the source of the molten metal which can be treated can be one or more materials selected from: steel scrap; directly reduced iron; hot briquetted iron; pig iron: and hot blast furnace iron (page 2 lines 16-19, page 3 line 30 to page 4 line 1), thereby teaching a feed comprising a single iron source or a combination of iron sources for treatment.
Both Millman and Sumitomo Metal teach similar process for treating molten iron comprising a step of introducing hydrogen gas.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to provide reduced iron as the cold iron source in the process disclosed by Sumitomo Metal, applied above because Millman teaches that reduced iron either as an individual iron source or as a combination with pig iron is appropriate for molten iron treatments comprising introducing hydrogen gas (page 2 lines 12-23). As Millman teaches that reduced iron is an effective iron source for such a process (page 2 lines 12-23) the process of Sumitomo Metal, as applied to claim 4 or 5 above, wherein the cold iron source includes reduced iron will predictably result in providing a feed material from which nitrogen may be removed, as taught by Millman (page 2 lines 12-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR20000019210A discloses simultaneous denitrification and decarbonization by hydrogen gas under atmospheric pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738