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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 and 17 have been cancelled; Claims 16, 18-19, and 21 have been amended; Claims 16 and 18-30 remains for examination, wherein claim 16 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18, 22, and 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “the furnace” on line 4 of claim 16; line 2 of claim 18; line 2 of claim 22; line 2 of claim 24; line 2 of claim 25; in the instant claims should be amended as “the direct reduction furnace” to avoid the lake of antecedent basis in the claims Appropriate correction is required.
Allowance Subject matter
Claim 24 includes allowable subject matter.
Claim 24 is still objected to as depending from rejected independent claim(s), but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the cited prior art(s) does not specify rejecting alkanol product separately from the reducing gas. In a transition zone of the reduction furnace.
Notes: 1, Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 15-28 of copending application No. 18/290,078, (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263260 A1);
2, Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 13-24 of copending application No. 18/559901 (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263259 A1).
Previous Claim Objection/Rejections
Previous objection of Claims 16, 18-19, and 21 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 7/7/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 16, 18, 21-27, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Szego et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0155191 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, updated as US 10,351,423 B2, thereafter PG’191) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 7/7/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’191 in view of Kruger (US-PG-pub 2021/0123110 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, thereafter PG’110) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 7/7/2026.
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)(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 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Szego et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0155191 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, updated as US 10,351,423 B2, thereafter PG’191) in view of Huntington et al (CN 105008806 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’806).
Regarding claim 16, PG’191 teaches a manufacturing process be used in the direct reduction of minerals, in particular iron ores, in the synthesis of products such as methanol and/or derivatives thereof (Figs.1-3, Abstract, par.[0001], and examples of PG’191), which reads on the manufacturing method of direct reduced iron by gas reducing iron ore as claimed in the instant claim. PG’191 teaches obtain stream (exhausted gaseous stream) through the flow line (74) (Figs.1-3, and par.[0047] of PG’191) and PG’191 specify that the CO2 from the gaseous mixture be treated in a step (90), by means, for example, of membrane processes or process of the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) type, thus producing a fuel gas poor in CO2 (line (91) and a stream (92) rich in CO2 which can be joined again with the recycling (82) and sent to the process object of the invention. (Figs.1-3, and par.[0052] of PG’191), which reads on the steps of capturing the top reducing gas and dividing reduced CO2 into CO2-poor and CO2-rich stream as claimed in the instant claim. PG’191 specify operation the syngas (12) for converting, in particular CO2 and H2O, into reducing gas and carbon. (par.[0049] of PG’191) and PG’191 teaches feeding he CO2-rich stream to alkanol production step (Figs.1-3, and par.[0028]-[0031] of PG’191). PG’191 is then at least partly injected into the direct reduction furnace as claimed in the instant claim. However, injecting alkanol product to direct reduction furnace is a well-known technique as demonstrated by CN’806. CN’806 teaches a combustion chamber system and a recycle provided by exhaust gas (EGR) exhaust (Abstract, par.[0044] of CN’806). CN’806 specify methanol is included in the exhaust gas recirculation system (par.[0039] of CN’806). Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is injecting alkanol product to direct reduction furnace, as demonstrated by CN’806 in the process of PG’191 in order to recycle the exhaust gas. (Claims and par.[0039] of CN’806).
Regarding claims 18, PG’191 teaches the alkanol products (line (23) in Fig.1 of PG’191) and CO2-poor stream (line (91) in Fig.1 of PG’191) reinjected into the direct reducing furnace ((70) in PG’191).
Regarding claims 19-20, PG’191 teaches that the CO2 from the gaseous mixture be treated in a step (90), by means, for example, of membrane processes or process of the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) type, thus producing a fuel gas poor in CO2 (line (91) and a stream (92) rich in CO2 which can be joined again with the recycling (82) and sent to the process object of the invention. (Figs.1-3, and par.[0052] of PG’191). PG’191 does not specify the CO2 amount in the stream or rich-CO2 and poor-CO2 steam. However adjusting CO2 amount in the stream is a well-known technique as demonstrated by CN’806. CN’806 teaches a combustion chamber system and a recycle provided by exhaust gas (EGR) exhaust (Abstract, par.[0044] of CN’806). CN’806 teaches adjusting the purity of CO2 in the stream with enriched CO2 stream with 80, 85, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, or 99 % and less purity CO2 with 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20 % (par.[0044] of CN’806). Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is adjusting CO2 amount in the stream, as demonstrated by CN’806 in the process of PG’191 in order to obtain the desired CO2 streams.
Regarding claim 21, PG’191 specify apply H2 in the alkanol production step (par.[0029] of PG’191).
Regarding claim 22, PG’191 specify a product alkanol product being a gas which is mixed with the reduction gas before its injection into the furnace ((50) of Figs.1-3 of PG’191).
Regarding claim 23, PG’191 specify a product alkanol product being a liquid (par.[0045]-[0047] of PG’191).
Regarding claims 25, PG’191 teaches feeding the a product alkanol product through line (15) or line (62) back to the furnace (Figs.1-3 of PG’191), which read son the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 26-27, PG’191 teaches applying the reduced gaseous mixture for the synthesis of other chemical products of interest, such as methanol and/or derivatives thereof (par.[0052] of PG’191), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant c a for the synthesis of other chemical products of interest, such as methanol and/or derivatives thereof claims.
Regarding claim 29, PG’191 specify that it can be conveniently used as fuel gas (line 91) for feeding the burner (61), used for heating the equipment (60) before the recycling reducing gas supply to the reducing furnace (par.[0052] and Figs.1-3 of PG’191),
Regarding claim 30, PG’191 teaches feeding he CO2-rich stream to alkanol production step (12) (Figs.1-3, and par.[0028]-[0031] of PG’191), which reads on the claimed alkanol production unit as claimed in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’191 in view of CN’806 and further in view of Kruger (US-PG-pub 2021/0123110 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, thereafter PG’110).
PG’191 in view of CN’806 teaches applying the reduced gaseous mixture for the synthesis of other chemical products of interest, such as methanol and/or derivatives thereof (par.[0052] of PG’191). PG’191 in view of CN’806 does not specify the ethanol product as claimed in the instant claim. PG’110 teaches a manufacturing process of operating a furnace gas conduit system for a furnace gas quantity stream that comprises nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’110). PG’110 teaches preparation of ethanol from the furnace gas (cl.28 and par.[0111] of PG’110). Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include ethanol as alkanol product as demonstrated by PG’110 in the process of PG’191 since both PG’110 and PG’191 teaches the same process of treating furnace gas as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
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.
Claims 16 and 18-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 15-28 of copending application No. 18/290,078, (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263260 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-30, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the Claims 15-28 of copending application No. 18/290,078, (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263260 A1) teaches a manufacturing process of direct reduced iron by applying at least part of capturing reducing gas including CO2-rich as reducing gas as claimed in the instant claims. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims in view of the Claims 15-28 of copending application No. 18/290,078, (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263260 A1).
This a provisional obvious-type double patenting rejection since the conflict claims in the copending application has not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 and 18-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 13-24 of copending application No. 18/559901 (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263259 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-30, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the Claims 13-24 of copending application No. 18/559901 (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263259 A1) teaches a manufacturing process of direct reduced iron by applying at least part of capturing reducing gas including CO2-rich as reducing gas as claimed in the instant claims. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims in view of the Claims 13-24 of copending application No. 18/559901 (US-PG-Pub 2024/0263259 A1).
This a provisional obvious-type double patenting rejection since the conflict claims in the copending application has not in fact been patented.
Notes: Ginter (US 6,289,666 B1) is cited as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 16 and 18-30 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the amended features as claimed in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated above.
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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights