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 § 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 19-24 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 19 recites “at least intermittently” in Line 10. It is unclear what time interval is established by “at least intermittently,” as it is particularly unclear how “at least” modifies any intermittent return of gas. It is further unclear the extent of any temporal period beyond the extent of “intermittently.” For example, it is unclear whether a continuous return of gas, or no return of gas, would be encompassed by the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “by means of the bypass” in Lines 11-12. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bypass” as no “bypass” has been established as being present in the independent claim. Further, it is unclear what is encompassed by the language “by means of the bypass” and whether “means” imparts some additional positive active method step or whether a portion of gas compressed by a compressor is actually returned by a bypass.
Claim 19 recites in Line 9 “preservation of the amount of CO2” for which there is a lack of antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. Further, the presence of CO2 has not been established in the Claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “a compressor” in Line 10 and “the relevant compressor” in Line 11. This presents the following issues:
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the relevant compressor” in Line 11. There is no previous mention of a “relevant” compressor and it is unclear to which compressor the term “relevant compressor” refers.
In addition to a lack of antecedent basis for “the relevant compressor,” it is unclear whether these references to “compressor” are connected with the limitation “one or more compressors” in Line 3. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish method steps with positive active claim language as they pertain to the use of any “compressor.”
Claim 20 recites “at least intermittently” in Line 1. It is unclear what time interval is established by “at least intermittently,” as it is particularly unclear how “at least” modifies any intermittent conduction of gas. It is further unclear the extent of any temporal period beyond the extent of “intermittently.” For example, it is unclear whether a continuous conduction of gas, or no conduction of gas, would be encompassed in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “by means of the bypass” in Lines 2-3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bypass” as no “bypass” has been established as being present in Claim 19 on which Claim 20 depends. Further, it is unclear what is encompassed by the language “by means of the bypass” and whether “means” imparts some additional positive active method step or whether a portion of compressed gas is actually conveyed past the gas cooler through a bypass.
Claim 20 recites “a portion of a compressed gas conducted to a gas cooler” in Lines 1-2. This recitation presents the following issues:
It is unclear whether the reference to “a gas cooler” is connected with the limitation “at least one gas cooler” in Claim 19 Line 4. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish method steps with positive active claim language as they pertain to the use of any ‘gas cooler.’
It is unclear where compressed gas is “conducted” to a gas cooler and whether this is a method step separate from the compression of gas in the gas compression plant, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus between actionable and repeatable method steps as they relate to the flow of gas from any of the components of the direct reduction plant.
Claim 21 recites in Lines 1-2 “water vapor content in the gas stream obtained during the gas compression.” There is no introduction of “water vapor” and therefore there is a lack of antecedent basis for “water vapor content.”
Claim 21 recites “is controlled” and as used, this is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of “control” are unclear and a tangible and repeatable method step has not been established. It is further unclear the nexus between control and the presence of an “open-loop and/or closed loop.” Even further, the phrase “open-loop and/or closed loop fashion” renders unclear whether an open-loop or closed-loop is even present. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method steps are taken by the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 21, the term “preferably” in Line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps.
Claim 22 recites “at least one compression stage” and it is unclear whether this is intended to reference the “at least one compression stage” in Claim 19 on which Claim 22 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “by means of” in Line 2. It is unclear what is encompassed by the language “by means of” and whether “means” imparts some additional positive active method step or whether gas is actually compressed in a variable-frequency-drive positive-displacement compressor.
Claim 23 recites “at least after the last gas compression” which presents the following issues of clarity:
It is unclear when cooling of the portion of the compressed gas takes place and whether cooling of the compressed gas takes place at all.
It is unclear what “last gas compression” references, as any temporal method step relating to gas compression has not been established.
Further, it is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is intended by “as viewed in the direction of the reduction unit.” It is unclear whether a viewing step is meant to be imparted or whether this recitation is a subjective conjecture.
Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish a concrete tangible and repeatable method step with positive active claim language.
Claim 24 recites in Lines 1-2 “water vapor content in the gas stream obtained during the gas compression.” There is no introduction of “water vapor” and therefore there is a lack of antecedent basis for “water vapor content.”
Claim 21 recites “is controlled” and as used, this is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is further unclear the nexus between control and the presence of an “open-loop and/or closed loop.” Even further, the phrase “open-loop and/or closed loop fashion” renders unclear whether an open-loop or closed-loop is even present. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method steps are taken by the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 19-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zampa et al. US 20220098686 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, Zampa et al. ‘686 discloses a method for operating a direct reduction plant comprising: a reactor (meeting the limitation for a reduction unit), a reforming unit (12) (meeting the limitation for a catalytic reformer), and a pumping device (24)(meeting the limitation for a gas compression plant, which provides compressed gas by gas compression and has on or more compressors [0109], wherein the gas compression plant comprises at least one compression stage, wherein cooling unit (31) (meeting the limitation for at least one gas cooler for gas compressed in the compression plant) is present, wherein reduction gas is introduced into the reactor through feeding line (11) (meeting the limitation for gas being introduced into the reduction unit) after gas compression, and wherein at least a portion f the compressed gas is cooled, and a compressed gas from the gas compression plant is introduced directly into the reformer and notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, preserves the amount of CO2 present in the iron oxide reduction reaction [0006-0007].
A portion of a gas compressed by the compressor is returned unchanged to the compressor via a bypass duct [0019-0020]. A regulation valve allows intermittent gas flow [0063], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Zampa et al. ‘686 discloses a portion of a compressed gas conducted to the cooling unit (meeting the limitation for a gas cooler) is conveyed past the cooling unit by means of a bypass [0066], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 23, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Zampa et al. ‘686 discloses a portion of the compressed gas is cooled at least after the last gas compression takes place as can be seen in Figure 1. Regarding a view from the direction of the reduction unit, feed streams exit and enter the reactor (meeting the limitation for a reduction unit) and may be reconfigured or arranged to regulate reducing gas flow [0114], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 21 and 24, Zampa et al. ‘686 discloses a cooling water injection device, [0067] meeting the limitations of the instant claims for water vapor content in the gas stream obtained during the gas compression being controlled in open-loop and/or closed-loop fashion by spraying water into a gas stream to be compressed.
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.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampa et al. US 20220098686 A1 in view of Johnson et al. US 20180356139 A1.
Regarding Claim 22, Zampa et al. ‘686 discloses the limitations set forth above and teaches the use of a compressor but does not expressly teach the use of a variable-frequency-drive positive-displacement compressor.
However, Johnson et al. ‘139 teaches supplying gas through a compressor via a variable-frequency-drive positive-displacement in order to increase control and efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a variable-frequency-drive positive-displacement compressor in the method of Zampa et al. ‘686 in order to increase the efficiency and control of gas flow from the compressor, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 3748120 A teaches a method and apparatus for reducing iron by catalytic reforming.
US 20140217653 A1 teaches a system for energy optimization for a direct reduction plant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights