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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of II (claims 2-5 and 9-11) in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The no-elected claims 1 and 6-8 are withdrawn from prosecution in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification makes reference to a specific claim number for example claim 1 in page 2, par [0007], however during prosecution , claim number(s) do change due to amendments, it is therefore suggested to amend the specification to delete said specific claim number from said portion of the specification and any portions of the specification thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities: The
specification is informal in it’s arrangement and should be amended to place the
specification in a form more in accordance with current U.S. practice. The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application.
These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB).
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37
CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 1-3, it suggested to replace “Method according to claim 1,
wherein the blast furnace converter route is used, wherein, to carry out the method,” with -- A method for operating a steelwork by a blast furnace converter route, wherein, to carry out the method,--.
In claim 2, line 7, it is suggested to replace “at least CO2 and slag are emitted as the accompanying product material flow” with --at least CO2 emitted, and slag generated as the accompanying product material flow --.
In claim 2, lines 24-25, it is suggested to replace “and/or equivalent starting materials with different initial CO2 footprint values are temporarily stored” with -- and/or equivalent starting materials with different initial CO2 footprint values which are temporarily stored--.
In claim 3, line 1, it suggested to replace “Method according to claim 2, wherein, for one or more of the” with --The method according to claim 2, wherein, for one or more of the --.
In claim 4, line 1, it suggested to replace “Method according to claim 2, wherein” with --The method according to claim 2, wherein--.
In claim 5, line 1, it suggested to replace “Method according to one of claims 2,”
with --The method according to one of claim 2,--.
In claim 9, line 1, It is suggested to replace “Method according to claim 3, wherein” with --The method according to claim 3, wherein--.
In claim 10, line 1, It is suggested to replace “Method according to one of claims
3, wherein the blast furnace converter” with --The method according to claim 3, wherein
the blast furnace converter--.
In claim 11, lines 1, it is suggested to replace “Method according to one of claims
4, wherein the blast furnace converter” with –The method according to claim 4, wherein the blast furnace converter--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2, recites the following limitation imitation: (i) “wherein the CO2 footprint initial value is determined for each starting material flow and energy flow, wherein the CO2 footprint initial values of the starting materials are determined on the basis of database data or on the basis of values provided by the supplier” in lines 9-12; and (ii) “wherein a calculation of the CO2 footprint connection value of the accompanying product material flow is carried out at least for slag, taking into account the further use of the slag” in lines 18-20. However the specification as filed does not provide any clear details, such as figures, graphical representation(s) and/or tables of content how the values provided by the supplier or database data are used to determine the CO2 footprint initial values of the starting materials as in recitation (i); and also how the further use of slag generated is incorporated or used in the calculation of the CO2 footprint connection value of the accompanying product material flow as in recitation (ii). Thus, the present specification does not include sufficient details to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the invention including how CO2 footprint initial value is determined for each starting material flow and energy flow based on database data or on the basis of values provided by the supplier and how the footprint connection value of the accompanying product material flow is based on further use of the slag.
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 2-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the starting materials" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the starting materials" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least the starting materials of iron ore, coke, and air are supplied in a blast furnace method step, and at least the starting materials of calcium oxide and oxygen are supplied in a converter method step" in lines 4-6 or section (A) of the claim. Claim 2 also recites the limitation “at least CO2 and slag are emitted as the accompanying product material flow, electrical energy is used to operate the plant, wherein the CO2 footprint initial value is determined for each starting material flow and energy flow” in lines 7-10 or sections (B) and (C). While section (A) appears to capture the stated blast furnace converter route by showing an integrated method steps depicting a sequence from a blast furnace process to a converter process, it is unclear when or which of the blast furnace process stage and the converter process stage, sections (B) and (C) are connected to and/or flow from, particularly since the blast
furnace stage does not require the use of electrical energy.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the accompanying product material flow " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plant" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent
basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the CO2 footprint" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the predetermined threshold" in line 23. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the energy" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example", recited at the end of line 26 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2, recites the limitation “
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the proportion" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the proportion" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the aggregate" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the gases" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the proportion of natural gas" in line 7. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the proportion of natural H2" in line 7. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Art Rejection
Besides the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, claims 2-5 and 9-11 are free from art rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blostein et al. (US 11,377,700) and DUARTE ESCAREÑO (US 2022/0235426) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights