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 without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/21/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-50, 52, 53, 60, 74-78, 82, 83, and 85-161 are canceled, Claims 51, 54-59, 61-65, 67, 70, 72, 73, 81, and 84 are currently amended, Claims 66 and 68 are as previously presented, Claims 69, 71, 79, and 80 are as previously amended, and Claims 166-193 are new.
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.
Claim 84 is 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.
The term “ high levels” in claim 84 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not provide the metes and bounds of “high levels of metal oxide in the slag layer” to perform the function of enhancing the hydrogen utilization.
Claim 84 recites the limitation "the reduction reaction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 84 recites the limitation "the hydrogen utilization" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62-64, 67, 71, 72, 79, 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eichberger et al (US 6,524,362 B1).
Eichberger et al teaches melting direct reduced iron (DRI) in an electric arc furnace (EAF) as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
515
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DRI contains metal oxides (column 4, lines 1 and 2) and is introduced in the lances 6 through the roof of the furnace. The furnace has a slag layer 9 and molten metal 8. The slag layer 9 comprises oxides (column 4, line 21). A carrier gas is introduced with the DRI (column 1, line 37). Carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the iron bath through submerged tuyeres 10 and 11 (column 2, lines 22-25; column 3, line 67 to column 4, line 2) in the side of the furnace. Oxygen is blown onto the bath via lateral injectors 14 (column 3, lines 6-8). At the end of the melting phase, hot metal or liquid steel is withdrawn (column 3, lines 30 and 31). Eichberger et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 54, the submerged tuyeres introduce gaseous fluid into the iron bath.
Regarding Claim 55, the lateral injectors blow oxygen onto the bath (column 3, lines 6-8), which reads on blowing into the foamy slag.
Regarding Claim 57, the lateral injectors are located at less than a 90° from a line that is tangent to each injector of a cross section of the furnace.
Regarding Claim 58, carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas are added at tuyeres 10, which would cause agitation. The weight ratio of the slag (column 4, lines 20 and 21) reads on a homogenous slag.
Regarding Claim 62, the furnace has roof electrode 5 and bottom electrode 4, which reads on first and second electrodes, respectively.
Regarding Claim 63, the electric arc is produced between the two electrodes.
Regarding Claim 64, carrier gas is introduced in the electrode 5.
Regarding Claim 67, DRI is added through the electrode 5 only, and Fig. 4 shows more than one electrode.
Regarding Claim 71, the molten metal is steel (column 31), which reads on metallic iron.
Regarding Claim 72, carbon-containing media is supplied through tuyeres 10 and 11.
Regarding Claim 79, the furnace could be AC or DC (column 1, line 60).
Regarding Claim 80, the furnace is operated batchwise (column 3, line 29).
Claims 177-179, 182-185, 190, 191 and 193 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eichberger et al.
Eichberger et al teaches melting direct reduced iron (DRI) in an electric arc furnace (EAF) as represented above in the annotated drawing. DRI contains metal oxides (column 4, lines 1 and 2) and is introduced in the lances 6 through the roof of the furnace, also represented in FIG. 2 as more than one lance. The furnace has a slag layer 9 and molten metal 8. The slag layer 9 comprises oxides (column 4, line 21). A carrier gas is introduced with the DRI (column 1, line 37). Carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the iron bath through submerged tuyeres 10 and 11 (column 2, lines 22-25; column 3, line 67 to column 4, line 2) in the side of the furnace. Oxygen is blown onto the bath via lateral injectors 14 (column 3, lines 6-8). At the end of the melting phase, hot metal or liquid steel is withdrawn (column 3, lines 30 and 31). DRI is added through the electrode 5 only, and Fig. 4 shows more than one electrode. The slag is foamy (abstract), which reads on gas bubbles. Eichberger et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 178, the lateral injectors blow oxygen onto the bath (column 3, lines 6-8), which reads on blowing into the foamy slag.
Regarding Claim 179, carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas are added at tuyeres 10, which would cause agitation. The weight ratio of the slag (column 4, lines 20 and 21) reads on a homogenous slag.
Regarding Claim 182, carbon-containing media is supplied through tuyeres 10 and 11.
Regarding Claim 183, the furnace has roof electrode 5 and bottom electrode 4, which reads on first and second electrodes, respectively.
Regarding Claim 184, the electric arc is produced between the two electrodes.
Regarding Claim 185, DRI is added through the electrode 5 only, and Fig. 4 shows more than one electrode and carbon-containing media is supplied through tuyeres 10 and 11.
Regarding Claim 190, the molten metal is steel (column 31), which reads on metallic iron.
Regarding Claim 191, the furnace could be AC or DC (column 1, line 60).
Regarding Claim 193, the lateral injectors are located at less than a 90° from a line that is tangent to each injector of a cross section of the furnace.
Claims 51, 54, 55, 57-59, 62-65, 68-73, and 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritz et al (US 5,611,838).
Fritz et al teaches producing an iron melt as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
426
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The feed to the tuyeres includes fine ores and metallurgical dusts (column 1, lines 56-58; column 2, lines 64 and 65). The dusts contain metal oxides (column 5), and the coal, lime, and fluorspar contain metal oxides (column 6). A foamed slag is maintained with the addition of solids and gases (column 1, lines 49-52). Fritz et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 54, gaseous fluid is introduced at 25.
Regarding Claim 55, gaseous fluid is introduced at 12, 22, 17, and 21.
Regarding Claim 57, the lance and tuyeres are introduced at less than 90°.
Regarding Claim 58, the bottom tuyeres 25 accelerate steel product by intensifying the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-65). The foamed slag reads on a homogeneous slag.
Regarding Claim 59, the gases introduced in the bottom tuyeres 25 that intensify the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-61) reads on swirls.
Regarding Claim 62, the hollow electrode is 3 and the counter electrode is 7.
Regarding Claim 63, the arc is formed between hollow electrode 3 and the counter electrode 7.
Regarding Claim 64, gases go through the hollow electrode 3.
Regarding Claim 65, the plasma is 4.
Regarding Claims 68-70, the feed includes fine ores and metal oxides.
Regarding Claim 71, the metal is a steel melt (column 1, line 5).
Regarding Claim 72, carbon is added (column 2, lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 73, CH4 is added (column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 79, the furnace can be AC or DC (column 7, line 58).
Regarding Claim 80, the process can be continuous or semi-continuous (column 7, line 62).
Regarding Claim 81, the process can be semi-continuous (column 7, line 62) with bottom tapping while interrupting supply of solids such that a certain amount of residual slag will remain for trouble-free continuation of melt reduction (column 7, lines 45-52).
Claims 166, 167, 169, 170, 172-186 and 188-193 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritz et al.
Fritz et al teaches producing an iron melt as represented above in the annotated drawing. The feed to the tuyeres includes fine ores and metallurgical dusts (column 1, lines 56-58; column 2, lines 64 and 65). The dusts contain metal oxides (column 5), and the coal, lime, and fluorspar contain metal oxides (column 6). A foamed slag is maintained with the addition of solids and gases (column 1, lines 49-52). Carbon is added (column 2, lines 16-18) and CH4 is added (column 7, line 3). Fritz et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 167, gaseous fluid is introduced at 12, 22, 17, and 21.
Regarding Claim 169, the gases introduced in the bottom tuyeres 25 that intensify the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-61) reads on swirls.
Regarding Claim 170, the bottom tuyeres 25 accelerate steel product by intensifying the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-65). The foamed slag reads on a homogeneous slag.
Regarding Claim 172, the arc is formed between hollow electrode 3 and the counter electrode 7.
Regarding Claim 173, gases go through the hollow electrode 3.
Regarding Claims 174 and 175, the feed includes fine ores and metal oxides.
Regarding Claim 176, the furnace can be AC or DC (column 7, line 58).
Claims 177-186 and 188-193 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritz et al.
Fritz et al teaches producing an iron melt as represented above in the annotated drawing. The feed to the tuyeres includes fine ores and metallurgical dusts (column 1, lines 56-58; column 2, lines 64 and 65). The dusts contain metal oxides (column 5), and the coal, lime, and fluorspar contain metal oxides (column 6). A foamed slag is maintained with the addition of solids and gases (column 1, lines 49-52); foamed slag reads on a slag with gas bubbles. Carbon is added (column 2, lines 16-18) and CH4 is added (column 7, line 3). Fritz et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 178, gaseous fluid is introduced at 12, 22, 17, and 21.
Regarding Claim 179, the bottom tuyeres 25 accelerate steel product by intensifying the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-65). The foamed slag reads on a homogeneous slag.
Regarding Claim 180, the gases introduced in the bottom tuyeres 25 that intensify the movement of the bath (column 2, lines 57-61) reads on swirls.
Regarding Claim 181, the metal is a steel melt (column 1, line 5).
Regarding Claim 182, CH4, which reads on carbon, is added (column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 183, the hollow electrode is 3 and the counter electrode is 7.
Regarding Claim 184, the arc is formed between hollow electrode 3 and the counter electrode 7.
Regarding Claims 185, 188 and 189, the feed includes fine ores and metal oxides, and carbon is added (column 2, lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 186, the plasma is 4.
Regarding Claim 190, the metal is a steel melt (column 1, line 5).
Regarding Claim 191, the furnace can be AC or DC (column 7, line 58).
Regarding Claim 192, the process can be semi-continuous (column 7, line 62) with bottom tapping while interrupting supply of solids such that a certain amount of residual slag will remain for trouble-free continuation of melt reduction (column 7, lines 45-52).
Regarding Claim 193, the lance and tuyeres are introduced at less than 90°.
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.
Claims 56, 61, 65, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al as applied to claims 51, 54, 62, 64, and 71 above, and further in view of GB 2 553 342 A.
Eichberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Eichberger et al does not teach decreased bubble diameter as in Claim 56, the gas comprises hydrogen gas as in Claim 61, generating a plasma as in Claim 65, and the carbon source includes natural gas as in Claim 73.
GB 2 553 342 A (GB ‘342) teaches developing a deep protective foamy slag around the electrodes by the injection of gaseous oxygen and fine carbon into the slag that resides on the liquid steel surface, using either a side wall injection modules or modules to inject the oxygen and fine carbon. The oxygen and carbon chemically react to generate a large number of small carbon monoxide gas bubbles that assist in the development of slag forming (page 6, lines 7-19). The gas can include hydrogen (page 8, lines 28 and 29). Nitrogen is introduced from ionized atmospheres forming a part of the plasma arcs produced at the tips of the electrodes (page 2, lines 3-6). Natural gas is injected with oxygen (page 7, line 12).
Regarding Claim 56, GB ‘342, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a large number of small CO gas bubbles in Eichberger et al as taught in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches limiting the amount of nitrogen in the liquid steel bath (page 6, lines 11 and 20-22).
Regarding Claim 61, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gas to include hydrogen in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches hydrogen results in a direct reaction with dissolved nitrogen to yield ammonia that is removed by the off-gas system (page 8, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 65, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate plasma in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches an ionized atmosphere in the form of a plasma is created around the tips of electrodes (page 6, lines 7 and 8).
Regarding Claim 73, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include natural gas in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches increasing the productivity (page 7, line 11).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al as applied to Claim 51, and further in view of GB 2 192 446.
Eichberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Eichberger et al does not teach the molten bath swirls within the furnace as in Claim 59.
GB 2 192 446 (GB ‘446) teaches bottom blowing gas in an electric arc converter (abstract). Bottom blowing causes agitating energy (page 2, line 3), which reads on swirls as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bottom blowing in Eichberger et al would have agitating energy as in GB ‘446, since GB ‘446 teaches causing the gas to work in the molten steel most efficiently, accelerates the metallurgical reaction between the metal and the slag, shortens refining time, causes uniformalization of the proper temperature of the steel bath, and increases energy efficiency (page 1, lines 1-5).
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al as applied to claims 51 and 62 above, and further in view of Elkoumy et al in Ain Shams Engineering Journal 9.
Eichberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Eichberger et al does not teach the electric arc agitates the molten bath as in Claim 66.
Elkoumy et al teaches refining molten steel in an EAF. The electric arc is used as the heat source, while the electromagnetic filed is applied to stir the melt (page 2781). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electric arc in Eichberger et al would stir the melt as in Elkoumy et al, since Elkoumy et al teaches optimizing EAF performance with effective stirring during refining to avoid hot spots and cold areas and achieve high-quality composition (page 2782).
Claims 166-168, 170-173 and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342.
Eichberger et al teaches melting direct reduced iron (DRI) in an electric arc furnace (EAF) as represented above in the annotated drawing. DRI contains metal oxides (column 4, lines 1 and 2) and is introduced in the lances 6 through the roof of the furnace, also represented in FIG. 2 as more than one lance. The furnace has a slag layer 9 and molten metal 8. The slag layer 9 comprises oxides (column 4, line 21). A carrier gas is introduced with the DRI (column 1, line 37). Carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the iron bath through submerged tuyeres 10 and 11 (column 2, lines 22-25; column 3, line 67 to column 4, line 2) in the side of the furnace. Oxygen is blown onto the bath via lateral injectors 14 (column 3, lines 6-8). At the end of the melting phase, hot metal or liquid steel is withdrawn (column 3, lines 30 and 31). However, Eichberger et al does not teach a natural gas as in Claim 73.
GB ‘342 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include natural gas in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches increasing the productivity (page 7, line 11).
Regarding Claim 167, Eichberger et al teaches gaseous fluid is introduced at 12, 22, 17, and 21.
Regarding Claim 168, GB ‘342 teaches adding natural gas and oxygen to the slag (page 6, lines 7-19; page 7, line 12).
Regarding Claim 170, Eichberger et al teaches carbon-containing media (liquid or gaseous) and oxygen-containing gas are added at tuyeres 10, which would cause agitation. The weight ratio of the slag (column 4, lines 20 and 21) reads on a homogenous slag.
Regarding Claim 171, GB ‘342 teaches hydrogen as stated above.
Regarding Claim 172, Eichberger et al teaches the electric arc is produced between the two electrodes.
Regarding Claim 173, Eichberger et al teaches carrier gas is introduced in the electrode 5.
Regarding Claim 176, Eichberger et al teaches the furnace can be AC or DC (column 1, line 60).
Claim 169 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 as applied to Claim 166, and further in view of GB ‘446.
Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Eichberger et al teaches a plurality of lateral injectors (column 3, lines 6-8) and GB ‘342 teaches adding hydrogen (page 8, lines 28 and 29). The injection would cause agitation in the bath. However, Eichberger et al GB ‘342 does not teach the molten bath swirls within the furnace as in Claim 169.
GB ‘446 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bottom blowing in Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 would have agitating energy as in GB ‘446, since GB ‘446 teaches causing the gas to work in the molten steel most efficiently, accelerates the metallurgical reaction between the metal and the slag, shortens refining time, causes uniformalization of the proper temperature of the steel bath, and increases energy efficiency (page 1, lines 1-5).
Claim 180 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 as applied to Claim 177, and further in view of GB ‘446.
Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Eichberger et al teaches a plurality of lateral injectors (column 3, lines 6-8) and GB ‘342 teaches adding hydrogen (page 8, lines 28 and 29). The injection would cause agitation in the bath. However, Eichberger et al GB ‘342 does not teach the molten bath swirls within the furnace as in Claim 180.
GB ‘446 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bottom blowing in Eichberger et al in view of GB ‘342 would have agitating energy as in GB ‘446, since GB ‘446 teaches causing the gas to work in the molten steel most efficiently, accelerates the metallurgical reaction between the metal and the slag, shortens refining time, causes uniformalization of the proper temperature of the steel bath, and increases energy efficiency (page 1, lines 1-5).
Claims 181 and 186 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al as applied to claims 177, 183, and 184 above, and further in view of GB ‘342.
Eichberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Eichberger et al does not teach the gas comprises hydrogen gas as in Claim 181 or generating a plasma as in Claim 186.
GB ‘342 is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 181, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gas to include hydrogen in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches hydrogen results in a direct reaction with dissolved nitrogen to yield ammonia that is removed by the off-gas system (page 8, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 186, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate plasma in Eichberger et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches an ionized atmosphere in the form of a plasma is created around the tips of electrodes (page 6, lines 7 and 8).
Claim 187 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger et al as applied to claims 177 and 182 above, and further in view of Elkoumy et al.
Eichberger et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Eichberger et al does not teach the electric arc agitates the molten bath as in Claim 187.
Elkoumy et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electric arc in Eichberger et al would stir the melt as in Elkoumy et al, since Elkoumy et al teaches optimizing EAF performance with effective stirring during refining to avoid hot spots and cold areas and achieve high-quality composition (page 2782).
Claims 56 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al as applied to claims 51 and 54 above, and further in view of GB ‘342.
Fritz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fritz et al does not teach decreased bubble diameter as in Claim 56 or the gas comprises hydrogen gas as in Claim 61.
GB ‘342 is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 56, GB ‘342, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a large number of small CO gas bubbles in Fritz et al as taught in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches limiting the amount of nitrogen in the liquid steel bath (page 6, lines 11 and 20-22).
Regarding Claim 61, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gas to include hydrogen in Fritz et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches hydrogen results in a direct reaction with dissolved nitrogen to yield ammonia that is removed by the off-gas system (page 8, lines 29-31).
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al as applied to claims 51 and 62 above, and further in view of Elkoumy et al.
Fritz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fritz et al does not teach the electric arc agitates the molten bath as in Claim 66.
Elkoumy et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electric arc in Fritz et al would stir the melt as in Elkoumy et al, since Elkoumy et al teaches optimizing EAF performance with effective stirring during refining to avoid hot spots and cold areas and achieve high-quality composition (page 2782).
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al as applied to claims 51 and 61 above, and further in view of CN 113337669 A.
Fritz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fritz et al does not teach enhancing hydrogen utilization as in Claim 84.
CN 113337669 (CN ‘669) teaches bottom blowing hydrogen in an electric furnace for steel metallurgy. Hydrogen replaces nitrogen or argon as the bottom blowing gas (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hydrogen as the bottom blowing gas as in CN ‘669, since CN ‘669 teaches strengthening electric furnace smelting, accelerating furnace material melting, shortening the smelting period, and reducing furnace material burning loss (page 2).
Claims 168 and 171 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al as applied to claim 166 above, and further in view of GB ‘342.
Fritz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fritz et al does not teach decreased bubble diameter as in Claim 168 or the gas comprises hydrogen gas as in Claim 171.
GB ‘342 is applied as discussed above. Regarding Claim 168, GB ‘342, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a large number of small CO gas bubbles in Fritz et al as taught in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches limiting the amount of nitrogen in the liquid steel bath (page 6, lines 11 and 20-22).
Regarding Claim 171, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gas to include hydrogen in Fritz et al as in GB ‘342, since GB ‘342 teaches hydrogen results in a direct reaction with dissolved nitrogen to yield ammonia that is removed by the off-gas system (page 8, lines 29-31).
Claim 187 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al as applied to claims 177 and 182 above, and further in view of Elkoumy et al.
Fritz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fritz et al does not teach the electric arc agitates the molten bath as in Claim 187.
Elkoumy et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the electric arc in Fritz et al would stir the melt as in Elkoumy et al, since Elkoumy et al teaches optimizing EAF performance with effective stirring during refining to avoid hot spots and cold areas and achieve high-quality composition (page 2782).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights