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 Status
An amendment, filed 6/9/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 29-39 are newly added. Claims 15-39 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 15-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 15, Moheseni teaches a method of manufacturing direct reduced iron, the method comprising steps of charging iron ore (thus, comprising oxidized iron) into a direct reduction furnace shaft, introducing a hydrogen-rich reducing gas to reduce the iron ore, the reduction deemed to take place in a “reduction zone,” carburizing the reduced iron at a portion of the furnace downstream from the reduction zone, and thus, constituting a “transition and/or cooling zone.” (para. 19-21, 32-33, 35, 73, 78, 93-94; Figs. 2b, 2c). Specifically, the reference teaches injecting a carbon-bearing material at a downstream portion of a single furnace shaft (such as in Fig. 2b) or at a downstream separate shaft/reactor (such as Figb. 2c) and where a cooling cone may be located downstream from the reduction and/or carburizing portions. (see, e.g., para. 78, 94). Accordingly, either arrangement of Mohseni comprises portions of a direct reduction furnace constituting a reduction zone and a cooling zone and a portion between or overlapping such zones may be assigned as a “transition zone.” Mohseni teaches that the carburizing step comprises injecting carburizing material, such as an alcohol or hydrocarbon, wherein the carburizing gas may be liquid at room temperature but becomes gaseous at the higher temperatures present in the furnace/reactor. (para. 73, 93).
Thus, Mohseni is deemed to teach a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron comprising reducing oxidized iron material in a direct reduction furnace by a reducing gas, the direct reduction furnace including a reduction zone, transition zone, and a cooling zone, and injecting a carbon-bearing liquid (e.g. an alcohol), that forms a gas, below the reduction zone. In other words, while Mohseni refers to injecting a carbon-bearing “gas” below the reduction zone, the reference teaches examples of carbon-bearing material that exists as a liquid at a room temperature, and thus, remains a liquid at the point of injection, but necessarily forms a gas when subjected to the temperatures present in the furnace. Accordingly, the reference is deemed to teach “injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone” anticipating the instant claim. (see also instant specification, recognizing that the injected carbon-bearing liquid is vaporized, para. 40 of PG Pub).
With respect to Claims 16-18, the claims recite one or more of a transition zone and cooling zone, but do not provide specific structure defining the zones. As Mohseni teaches injecting the carbon-bearing liquid at a portion of the furnace below/downstream the reduction zone, the injection site may be alternatively considered to be in the transition zone and/or the cooling zone, meeting the respective limitations of claims 16-18.
Additionally, Mohseni teaches an embodiment (see, e.g. Fig. 2b) wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is injected at a location between the reduction zone and a cooling cone, and thus, deemed to constitute a “transition zone” meeting claim 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least some of the carbon-bearing liquid (forming a gas within the furnace) would pass downstream and thus, may be considered as injected into transition zone and the cooling zone, as in claims 17 and 18. Claim 18 is not interpreted to require multiple, separate, injection sites.
With respect to Claim 19, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing material may comprise a biofuel, such as biomethane, deemed to meet the instant limitations of claims 19. (para. 93). Specifically, the instant specification explicitly enumerates methane as a liquid product comprising carbon (para. 39 of PG Pub) and therefore, the biomethane of Mohseni is deemed to meet the claim.
With respect to Claims 20-21, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing liquid may comprise ethanol, a liquid alcohol. (para. 93).
With respect to Claim 22, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing liquid may comprise a hydrocarbon, such as methane, LPG (liquid petroleum gas), or petroleum, and therefore is deemed teach a liquid carbon-bearing material comprising a hydrocarbon. (para. 73). (see also rejection of claim 19, discussing methane).
With respect to Claim 23, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing gas may include, for example, 80 vol% hydrogen or more, falling within the claimed range. (para. 80).
With respect to Claim 24, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing gas may “consist of” hydrogen, and thus consist of 100% hydrogen, falling within the claimed range. (para. 80).
With respect to Claims 25-26, Mohseni teaches wherein hydrogen gas (reducing gas) is at least partially obtained by electrolysis and is performed using renewable energy. (para. 82).
With respect to Claim 27, Mohseni teaches wherein top reduction gas is captured at the exit of the direct reduction furnace and subjected to a recycle stream and a bleed off stream, processing the bleed off stream through a separation unit to provide a hydrogen-enriched off-stream and in inert-enriched off-stream, and introducing the recycle stream and the hydrogen-enriched off-stream as constituent parts of the hydrogen-rich gas to the direction reduction shaft. (abstract; para. 84-87). Mohseni teaches wherein such separation includes separating carbon-containing stream, including CO2 from the H2 rich stream. (para. 29, 58). Therefore, the reference is deemed to teach wherein a top reduction gas is captured at the exit of the direct reduction furnace and subjected to at least one separation step so as to be split between a CO2-rich gas and an H2-rich gas, the H2-rich gas being at least partly used as the reducing gas.
With respect to Claim 29, Mohseni teaches wherein the direct reduction furnace comprises a shaft, wherein an inlet for providing iron ore is located at the top of the shaft, the reduction zone is located in an upper part of the shaft, and cooling cone (i.e. cooling zone) is located at a bottom part of the shaft and therefore, an area between the reduction zone and cooling zone is deemed to exist in a midpart of the shaft. (para. 78).
With respect to Claim 30, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing step includes charging the direct reduction furnace with oxidized iron via the inlet and reducing the oxidized iron by the reducing gas. (see rejection of claim 15 and 29; para. 78, 105).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 15-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 15, Moheseni teaches a method of manufacturing direct reduced iron, the method comprising steps of charging iron ore (thus, comprising oxidized iron) into a direct reduction furnace shaft, introducing a hydrogen-rich reducing gas to reduce the iron ore, the reduction deemed to take place in a “reduction zone,” carburizing the reduced iron at a portion of the furnace downstream from the reduction zone, and thus, constituting a “transition and/or cooling zone.” (para. 19-21, 32-33, 35, 73, 78, 93-94; Figs. 2b, 2c). Specifically, the reference teaches injecting a carbon-bearing material at a downstream portion of a single furnace shaft (such as in Fig. 2b) or at a downstream separate shaft/reactor (such as Figb. 2c) and where a cooling cone may be located downstream from the reduction and/or carburizing portions. (see, e.g., para. 78, 94). Accordingly, either arrangement of Mohseni comprises portions of a direct reduction furnace constituting a reduction zone and a cooling zone and a portion between or overlapping such zones may be assigned as a “transition zone.” Mohseni teaches that the carburizing step comprises injecting carburizing material, such as an alcohol or hydrocarbon, wherein the carburizing gas may be liquid at room temperature but becomes gaseous at the higher temperatures present in the furnace/reactor. (para. 73, 93).
Thus, Mohseni is deemed to teach a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron comprising reducing oxidized iron material in a direct reduction furnace by a reducing gas, the direct reduction furnace including a reduction zone, transition zone, and a cooling zone, and injecting a carbon-bearing liquid (e.g. an alcohol), that forms a gas, below the reduction zone. In other words, while Mohseni refers to injecting a carbon-bearing “gas” below the reduction zone, the reference teaches examples of carbon-bearing material that exists as a liquid at a room temperature, and thus, remains a liquid at the point of injection, but necessarily forms a gas when subjected to the temperatures present in the furnace. Accordingly, the reference is deemed to teach “injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone” anticipating the instant claim. (see also instant specification, recognizing that the injected carbon-bearing liquid is vaporized, para. 40 of PG Pub).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of the carbon-bearing carburizing materials disclosed by Mohseni, such as an alcohol or petroleum and known to form a liquid at room temperature and/or under pressure, and inject the material in a liquid state, wherein such material is vaporized forming a gas only when inside the furnace/reactor and exposed to an elevated temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store and transport the carbon-bearing material at room temperature and/or in the form of a pressurized liquid in order reduce costs associated with additional heating or cooling the material or to reduce the size of the container storing the material (e.g. pressurized material in the form of a liquid), where the material is sufficiently heated by the heat of the furnace/reactor to a desired temperature.
With respect to Claims 16-18, the claims recite one or more of a transition zone and cooling zone, but do not provide specific structure defining the zones. As Mohseni teaches injecting the carbon-bearing liquid at a portion of the furnace below/downstream the reduction zone, the injection site may be alternatively considered to be in the transition zone and/or the cooling zone, meeting the respective limitations of claims 16-18.
Additionally, Mohseni teaches an embodiment (see, e.g. Fig. 2b) wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is injected at a location between the reduction zone and a cooling cone, and thus, deemed to constitute a “transition zone” meeting claim 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least some of the carbon-bearing liquid (forming a gas within the furnace) would pass downstream and thus, may be considered as injected into transition zone and the cooling zone, as in claims 17 and 18. Claim 18 is not interpreted to require multiple, separate, injection sites.
With respect to Claim 19, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing material may comprise a biofuel, such as biomethane, deemed to meet the instant limitations of claims 19. (para. 93). Specifically, the instant specification explicitly enumerates methane as a liquid product comprising carbon (para. 39 of PG Pub) and therefore, the biomethane of Mohseni is deemed to meet the claim. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a liquid biofuel from the disclosed species of carbon-bearing biofuel of the reference.
With respect to Claims 20-21, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing liquid may comprise ethanol, a liquid alcohol. (para. 93).
With respect to Claim 22, Mohseni teaches wherein the carbon-bearing liquid may comprise a hydrocarbon, such as methane, LPG (liquid petroleum gas), or petroleum, and therefore is deemed teach a liquid carbon-bearing material comprising a hydrocarbon. (para. 73). (see also rejection of claim 19, discussing methane).
With respect to Claim 23, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing gas may include, for example, 80 vol% hydrogen or more, falling within the claimed range. (para. 80).
With respect to Claim 24, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing gas may “consist of” hydrogen, and thus consist of 100% hydrogen, falling within the claimed range. (para. 80).
With respect to Claims 25-26, Mohseni teaches wherein hydrogen gas (reducing gas) is at least partially obtained by electrolysis and is performed using renewable energy. (para. 82).
With respect to Claim 27, Mohseni teaches wherein top reduction gas is captured at the exit of the direct reduction furnace and subjected to a recycle stream and a bleed off stream, processing the bleed off stream through a separation unit to provide a hydrogen-enriched off-stream and in inert-enriched off-stream, and introducing the recycle stream and the hydrogen-enriched off-stream as constituent parts of the hydrogen-rich gas to the direction reduction shaft. (abstract; para. 84-87). Mohseni teaches wherein such separation includes separating carbon-containing stream, including CO2 from the H2 rich stream. (para. 29, 58). Therefore, the reference is deemed to teach wherein a top reduction gas is captured at the exit of the direct reduction furnace and subjected to at least one separation step so as to be split between a CO2-rich gas and an H2-rich gas, the H2-rich gas being at least partly used as the reducing gas.
With respect to Claim 29, Mohseni teaches wherein the direct reduction furnace comprises a shaft, wherein an inlet for providing iron ore is located at the top of the shaft, the reduction zone is located in an upper part of the shaft, and cooling cone (i.e. cooling zone) is located at a bottom part of the shaft and therefore, an area between the reduction zone and cooling zone is deemed to exist in a midpart of the shaft. (para. 78).
With respect to Claim 30, Mohseni teaches wherein the reducing step includes charging the direct reduction furnace with oxidized iron via the inlet and reducing the oxidized iron by the reducing gas. (see rejection of claim 15 and 29; para. 78, 105).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”), as applied to claim 27 above, in view of Szego (US 2018/0155191)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 28, Mohseni teaches wherein CO2 rich gas is separated from hydrogen rich gas as in claim 27 (see rejection above), but is silent as to a step of subjecting the CO2 rich gas to a hydrocarbon production step.
Szego teaches a method of using a gaseous mixture from the direct reduction of iron ore, wherein the method comprises production of a hydrocarbon using a CO2-rich gas stream. (para. 1, 22-25). The reference teaches that the process lowers the environmental impact of direct reduction processes by a reduction in CO2 emissions into the environment and allows for the beneficial use of such as CO2 rich gas stream. (para. 2, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni to use a CO2-rich gas stream from the direction reduction process in a hydrocarbon production step, as taught by Szego, in order to lower the environmental impact of the direct reduction method by a reduction in CO2 emissions into the environment.
Claim(s) 31 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”), as applied to claim 27 above, in view of Knop (DE 102011112093)(machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 31, Mohseni teaches, or makes obvious, wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is injected so as to carburize the direct reduce iron (see rejections of claim 15 above); however, Mohseni is silent as to whether the carbon-bearing liquid is cracked by heat released from the direct reduced iron.
Knop teaches a method of reducing iron ore wherein methanol (a carbon-bearing liquid) is injected into a furnace and is cracked by the heat of furnace (comprising heat released from the direct reduced iron), generating additional reducing gas, and thereby, necessarily results in at least some cooling and carburizing of the direct reduced iron. (abstract; para. 39). In particular, the reference teaches “Unlike the in 1 shown procedure is in the in 2 shown procedure provided that the methanol 1 from a methanol storage 18 the waste heat boiler 10 is fed, where it is in the waste heat boiler 10 for the catalytic cleavage of the methanol 1 comes, so that a substantially carbon monoxide and hydrogen-containing reducing gas 19 the waste heat boiler 10 leaves and to a reduction reactor 20 is directed. By heating the methanol 1 to about 200 °C in the presence of a suitable catalyst, which is not necessarily in the waste heat boiler 10 must be arranged, decomposes the methanol 1 in carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This reducing gas 19 is introduced into the reduction process as a so-called "make-up gas", wherein the reduction process per se is known to those skilled in the art. In the reduction reactor 20 become iron ores 21 with carbon monoxide and hydrogen to high metallized iron 22 reduced.” (para. 39). Mohseni teaches wherein the carburizing liquid/gas may comprise methanol. (see para. 93).
Thus, Mohseni and Knop are both drawn methods of reducing iron ore using methanol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni, to inject carbon-bearing liquid comprising methanol such that it is cracked by the heat of the furnace including heat released by the direct reduced iron and the direct reduced iron is carburized and cooled by the injected methanol which generates reducing gas, as taught by Knop, in order to efficiently and/or effectively carburize the direct reduced iron and provide reducing gas for the method.
With respect to Claims 33-34, Moheseni teaches a method of manufacturing direct reduced iron, the method comprising steps of charging iron ore (thus, comprising oxidized iron) into a direct reduction furnace shaft, introducing a hydrogen-rich reducing gas to reduce the iron ore, the reduction deemed to take place in a “reduction zone,” carburizing the reduced iron at a portion of the furnace downstream from the reduction zone, and thus, constituting a “transition and/or cooling zone.” (para. 19-21, 32-33, 35, 73, 78, 93-94; Figs. 2b, 2c). Specifically, the reference teaches injecting a carbon-bearing material at a downstream portion of a single furnace shaft (such as in Fig. 2b) or at a downstream separate shaft/reactor (such as Figb. 2c) and where a cooling cone may be located downstream from the reduction and/or carburizing portions. (see, e.g., para. 78, 94). Accordingly, either arrangement of Mohseni comprises portions of a direct reduction furnace constituting a reduction zone and a cooling zone and a portion between or overlapping such zones may be assigned as a “transition zone.” Mohseni teaches that the carburizing step comprises injecting carburizing material, such as an alcohol or hydrocarbon, wherein the carburizing gas may be liquid at room temperature but becomes gaseous at the higher temperatures present in the furnace/reactor. (para. 73, 93).
Thus, Mohseni is deemed to teach a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron comprising reducing oxidized iron material in a direct reduction furnace by a reducing gas, the direct reduction furnace including a reduction zone, transition zone, and a cooling zone, and injecting a carbon-bearing liquid (e.g. an alcohol or methanol), that forms a gas, below the reduction zone. In other words, while Mohseni refers to injecting a carbon-bearing “gas” below the reduction zone, the reference teaches examples of carbon-bearing material that exists as a liquid at a room temperature, and thus, remains a liquid at the point of injection, but necessarily forms a gas when subjected to the temperatures present in the furnace. Accordingly, the reference is deemed to teach “injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone” anticipating the instant claim. (see also instant specification, recognizing that the injected carbon-bearing liquid is vaporized, para. 40 of PG Pub).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of the carbon-bearing carburizing materials disclosed by Mohseni, such as an alcohol or methanol and known to form a liquid at room temperature and/or under pressure, and inject the material in a liquid state, wherein such material is vaporized forming a gas only when inside the furnace/reactor and exposed to an elevated temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store and transport the carbon-bearing material at room temperature and/or in the form of a pressurized liquid in order reduce costs associated with additional heating or cooling the material or to reduce the size of the container storing the material (e.g. pressurized material in the form of a liquid), where the material is sufficiently heated by the heat of the furnace/reactor to a desired temperature.
Mohseni is silent as to whether the carbon-bearing liquid is cracked by the direct reduced iron.
Knop teaches a method of reducing iron ore wherein methanol (a carbon-bearing liquid) is injected into a furnace and is cracked by the heat of furnace/furnace shaft, generating additional reducing gas, and thereby, necessarily results in at least some cooling and carburizing of the direct reduced iron. (abstract; para. 39).
Thus, Mohseni and Knop are both drawn methods of reducing iron ore using methanol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni, to inject carbon-bearing liquid comprising methanol such that it is cracked by the heat in the furnace/shaft, as taught by Knop, in order to efficiently and/or effectively carburize the direct reduced iron and provide reducing gas for the method.
Mohseni teaches wherein the method may comprise adjusting the carbon content of the direct reduced iron to a typical range of about 1% to about 3%, overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 33 and 34. (para. 94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, Mohseni teaches wherein a top reduction gas is captured by a top gas outlet in communication with a bleed-off valve arranged to divide top gas between a recycle stream out and a bleed-off stream outlet, wherein the separation comprises hydrocarbons, CO and/or CO2 to be removed and leaving H2-rich gas to be at least partly recycled as a reducing gas. (para. 19-25, 36-58, 69-75).
With respect to claims 35-38, the claims recite one or more of a transition zone and cooling zone, but do not provide specific structure defining the zones. As Mohseni teaches injecting the carbon-bearing liquid at a portion of the furnace below/downstream the reduction zone (see rejection of claim 33 above), the injection site may be alternatively considered to be in the transition zone and/or the cooling zone, meeting the respective limitations of claims 35-37. Further, the name “transition zone” may interpreted to imply overlap of two or more zones, and thus, carbon-bearing liquid injected in a region of overlap of the cooling zone and transition zone also meets the limitations of each of claims 35-37.
Additionally, Mohseni teaches an embodiment (see, e.g. Fig. 2b) wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is injected at a location between the reduction zone and a cooling cone, and thus, deemed to constitute a “transition zone” meeting claim 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least some of the carbon-bearing liquid (forming a gas within the furnace) would pass downstream and thus, may be considered as injected into transition zone and the cooling zone, as in claims 17 and 18. Claim 37 is not interpreted to require multiple, separate, injection sites.
With respect to Claim 38, Mohseni teaches wherein the cooling zone is located in a cone shaped bottom of the shaft. (see rejections of claims 15 and 33 above; para. 78, 94).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”), as applied to claim 27 above, in view of Ahrendt (US 4333761) and view of Voelker (US 2018/0119237).
With respect to Claim 32, Mohseni teaches a cooling zone and injection of a carbon-bearing liquid into the furnace below the reduction zone. (see rejection of claim 15 above). It is noted that the claims do not exclude wherein the cooling zone also comprises a carburizing zone, nor excludes overlap of one or more zones such as transition, cooling, and carburizing zones. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject carbon-bearing liquid, as taught by Mohseni, in a “cooling zone” in order to provide carburizing material/gas in the furnace; however, the reference is silent as to withdrawing a cooling gas from the cooling zone and recirculating the gas to the cooling zone.
Ahrendt teaches a method a method of direct reduction of iron in a furnace, wherein the furnace comprises a cooling zone, and wherein cooling gas is withdrawn from the cooling zone and recirculated to the cooling zone after being passed through a cooler-scrubber. (Figure; col. 3, ln. 1-10; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni, to withdrawn cooling gas from the cooling zone and recirculate the gas to the cooling zone after being passed through a cooler-scrubber, as taught by Ahrendt, in order to provide enhanced cooling to the cooling zone with reduced impurities.
Ahrendt teaches cooling gas inlets but is silent as to where a reducing gas/liquid is injected together with the cooling gas.
Voelker teaches a method of direct reduction of iron (DRI) wherein the method comprises a direct reduction furnace comprising a cooling zone having shaft and/or cone portions and including one or more gas injecti0n ports enabling reducing gas, transition zone gas, and/or cooling gas to be introduced near the center of the transition/cooling zone, allowing for better saturation. (para. 2, 57). Thus, the reference teaches wherein cooling gas and reducing gas may both be injected through the same one or more inlets in a cooling zone of a DRI furnace.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni in view of Ahrendt to inject the carbon-bearing liquid which forms a reducing gas with a cooling gas in an inlet provided to a cooling zone of the furnace, as taught by Voelker, in order to allow for better saturation of the reducing gas and iron material(s). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to couple the carbon-bearing liquid injection with the recirculated cooling gas in order to minimize the number of inlet ports in the furnace, thereby, reducing the number of points of failure of the furnace to issues such as leaking or contamination. See also MPEP 2144.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohseni-Morner et al. (US 2024/0084410)(hereafter, “Mohseni”), as applied to claim 38 above, in view of Voelker (US 2018/0119237).
With respect to Claim 39, Mohseni teaches wherein the cooling zone is located in a cone shaped bottom of the shaft (see rejection of claim 38); however, the reference is silent as to wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is injected into a cone-shaped portion of a cooling zone, as required by claim 39. (Note, other claims such as claims 17 and 36 require carbon-bearing liquid injection into a cooling zone but place no limits on the structure or properties of said cooling zone and therefore, are taught by Mohseni alone as detailed in the above rejections).
Voelker teaches a method of direct reduction of iron (DRI) wherein the method comprises a direct reduction furnace comprising a cooling zone having shaft and/or cone portions and including one or more gas injection ports enabling reducing gas, transition zone gas, and/or cooling gas to be introduced near the center of the transition/cooling zone, allowing for better saturation. (para. 2, 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mohseni to inject the carbon-bearing liquid which forms a reducing gas in a cone-shaped region of the furnace forming the cooling zone or nexus of transition and cooling zones, as taught by Voelker, in order to allow for better saturation of the reducing gas and iron material(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 15-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-23 of copending Application No. 18559901 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and related claims are both drawn to a method comprising direction reduction of iron ore comprising subjecting oxidized iron to a reducing gas in a furnace having a reduction zone, transition zone, and cooling zone, and injecting a liquid carbon product into the furnace at least in the transition and/or cooling zone. Additionally, both claims are drawn to wherein the carbon-containing liquid is a biofuel, liquid alcohol, or hydrocarbon, and also wherein the reducing gas contains 50% or 99% or more hydrogen.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15-18 and 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-29 of copending Application No. 18290551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and related claims are both drawn to a method comprising direction reduction of iron ore comprising subjecting oxidized iron to a reducing gas in a furnace having a reduction zone, transition zone, and cooling zone, and injecting a liquid carbon product into the furnace at least in the transition and/or cooling zone. Additionally, both claims are drawn to wherein the carbon-containing liquid is a liquid alcohol, such as ethanol.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Mohseni fails to teach injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone and separately argues with respect to claims 16-18 that the reference fail to each injecting carbon-bearing liquid into a transition zone and/or cooling zone. These arguments have been fully considered are not found persuasive.
As detailed in the previous rejection, Claim 15 recites “injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone” and dependent claims require wherein the carbon-bearing liquid is, for example, a liquid alcohol such as ethanol or a liquid hydrocarbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such carbon-bearing materials, such as ethanol, would be vaporized at the temperatures occurring within a direct reduction furnace. The instant specification in fact recognizes that the injected carbon-bearing liquid is vaporized. (para. 40 of PG Pub). Moreover, the instant specification lists methane as exemplary hydrocarbon (required by claim 22) which would exist as a gas even at room temperature. In view of the text of the claims, the structure required by the claimed direct reduction furnace, and in light of the specification, Claim 15 is interpreted such that the carbon-bearing material may exist in a liquid state prior to injection and/or during at least part of an injection process but does not require that the carbon-bearing liquid exist in a liquid state within the furnace for any material amount of time.
Mohseni is deemed to teach a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron comprising reducing oxidized iron material in a direct reduction furnace by a reducing gas, the direct reduction furnace including a reduction zone, transition zone, and a cooling zone, and injecting a carbon-bearing liquid (e.g. an alcohol), that forms a gas, below the reduction zone. In other words, while Mohseni teaches injecting a carbon-bearing gas below the reduction zone, the reference teaches examples of carbon-bearing material that exists as a liquid at a room temperature, and thus, remains a liquid at the point of injection, but necessarily forms a gas when subjected to the temperatures present in the furnace.
For example, Mohseni teaches “The carburizing gas may be any gas known or expected in the art to provide carburization. Gas in this respect refers to a substance that is gaseous at the high temperatures prevailing in the carburization reactor, although it may be liquid or solid at room temperature.” (para. 93 and see also para. 73). Thus, Mohseni is interpreted to teach that the phrase “carburizing gas,” as used in the reference, does not necessarily imply that it is in the physical state of a gas when stored, transferred, and/or injected into the furnace. Rather, the “carburizing gas” may be liquid when stored, transferred and injected into the furnace and transforms from a liquid to a gas at the prevailing temperature in the furnace.
Accordingly, the reference is deemed to teach “injecting a carbon-bearing liquid below the reduction zone” anticipating the instant claim. (see also instant specification, recognizing that the injected carbon-bearing liquid is vaporized, para. 40 of PG Pub).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of the carbon-bearing carburizing materials disclosed by Mohseni, such as an alcohol or petroleum and known to form a liquid at room temperature and/or under pressure, and inject the material in a liquid state, wherein such material is vaporized forming a gas only when inside the furnace/reactor and exposed to an elevated temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store and transport the carbon-bearing material at room temperature and/or in the form of a pressurized liquid in order reduce costs associated with additional heating or cooling the material or to reduce the size of the container storing the material (e.g. pressurized material in the form of a liquid), where the material is sufficiently heated by the heat of the furnace/reactor to a desired temperature.
Applicant fails to substantially address these rejections that specifically address Applicant’s argument, in particular, the obviousness rejection and therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant also argues that the rejection fails to correctly interpret the transition zone and cooling zone and points to structure in the drawings. These arguments are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific structure of the recited zones) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims provide no specific structure defining the recited zones and additional, non-recited, structure from the drawings may not be imparted to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights