DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II (claims 12-21 and 23 in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden for the Examiner to examine the claims of Group II (claims 12-21 and 23) related to the direct smelting method and/or a method of forming pig iron using the quench system along with the claims of Group I (claims 1- 11 and 22) related to a direct smelting system and/or the quench system. This is not found persuasive because as indicated in the restriction requirement, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as aluminum smelting which requires an aluminum ore, primary bauxite; and in addition, the inventions I and II have acquired different and separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. The nonelected group I, claims 1-11 and 22 have been withdrawn from prosecution in this application by Applicant in the response filed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structure for duct cooling recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled
from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification as originally filed lacks a clear description of the follow: (i) how the process offgas within the dogleg duct is maintained at a gas temperature that is greater than or equal to 1400 °C (2552 °F) before the rapid cooling by the quench nozzle system as required in claim 14; (ii) how an average process
gas particle time-of-flight in the quench nozzle system of less than or equal to 1 second is achieved as in claim 15; and (iii) how the outlet rim aids in fracturing the solid slag into solid slag piece, particularly how is the outlet rim structured to allow it to perform said claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 17 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, at the end of line 7, it is suggested to replace “injected into a topspace to” with -- injected into a topspace of the SRV to--.
In claim 12, lines 14-15, it suggested to replace “solid slag that fractures into solid slag pieces for removal” with -- solid slag that fractures into removable solid slag pieces--.
In claim 17, it suggested to replace “600° C (1112932°F) with --“600° C (1112°F)
In claim 23, line 8, it suggested to replace “solid slag that fractures into solid slag pieces for removal” with -- solid slag that fractures into removable solid slag pieces--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 16 and 21 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 14, is indefinite in that its recites the limitation “wherein the process offgas within the dogleg duct is maintained at a gas temperature that is greater than or equal to 1400 °C (2552 °F) before the rapid cooling by the quench nozzle system” without reciting how and by what means the offgas within the dogleg duct is maintained at said claimed temperature, particularly since the specification provides no direction as to how and by what means said claimed action is achieved.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein a majority of the cooling of the process gas in the quench system occurs through the quench nozzle system with a minority of the cooling occurring through duct cooling. It is unclear what this limitation means, in that it is unclear if the limitation is intended to mean a quenching system equipped with more cooling nozzles than cooling ducts or the main cooling of the process offgas occurring in the quenching system or chamber and auxiliary cooling of the process offgas occurring in the duct. The claim is deemed indefinite due to the ambiguity in meaning.
In claim 21, it is unclear how the outlet rim of the quench system aids in fracturing the solid slag into solid slag pieces, particularly since said outlet rim as recited in the claimed in not defined by any specific structure or configuration that allows it to aids in fracturing the solid slag into solid slag pieces as claimed; furthermore the specification does not provide any clear description as to said claimed function of the outlet rim for fracturing the solid slag into solid slag pieces. The claim is therefore
rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
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 12, 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Dry (US Patent No. 6,440,195).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Dry teaches a direct smelting system for production of molten metal and slag (see abstract and column 1, lines 1-20 and lines 32-61), the direct smelting system comprising: a smelt reduction vessel (SRV)( 7, see figure1 and column 4, lines 36-60) wherein the SRV is configured to contain a bath (15, see figure 1 and column 4, lines 42-47) of the molten metal and the slag, receive carbonaceous material (typically coal , see figure 1 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 8) injected and metalliferous ore (i.e., iron ore , see figure 1 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 8) injected or fed by gravity into the slag from above, smelt the metalliferous ore in the bath to produce carbon-containing molten metal and molten slag (column 4, line 36-column 5, line 8), and receive oxygen-containing gas received from an oxygen plant (19, see figure 1) injected via the lance (13, see figure 1 column 4, lines 48-53 and column 5, lines 47-53) into a top space of SRV to partially combust bath-derived gas and provide heat to the SRV (see figure 1 and column 5, lines 29-42); and a quench system (i.e., water cooling assembly 9, see figure 1 and column 5, lines 53-67) operatively coupled to the SRV (see figure 1), wherein the quench system comprises a dogleg duct (17, see figure 1 and column 5, lines 53-67) and a quench nozzle system (i.e. water panels , see column 5, lines 53-58) operatively coupled to the dogleg duct (see figure 1), wherein process offgas from the SRV containing entrained molten slag (i.e., entrained solids see, column 5, lines 53-58) passes through the dogleg duct to the quench nozzle system.
Dry teaches a system that is configured to cool an SRV process offgas rapidly using a quench nozzle system (9) to form pieces of solid slag removable from the bottom of the quenching vessel of the quenching system (see column 5, lines 53-58) but fails to particularly teach the temperature at which the offgas is cooled down to form the solid slag pieces as being less than or equal to 600 °C (1112 °F) as claimed. However, said selected cooling temperature is drawn to the manner of operating the claimed quenching system, and would also be dictated by the composition of the slag entrained in the offgas. Furthermore, it has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." And that A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Also see MPEP 2114.II. In this instant case the apparatus of Dry is capable of cooling the offgas down to less than or equal to 600 °C (1112 °F) for the entrained slag to form solid pieces in the same manner as claimed by merely controlling the water panels or nozzles (see column 5, lines 53-58) of the quenching system (9) to spray a sufficient or an optimal amount of water on to the offgas in the quenching system (9, see figure 1). Note, because the scope of claim 12 encompasses the quenching system as recited in claim 23, claim 23, therefore is also deemed rejected by the presentation above.
Regarding claim 13, Dry teaches a direct smelting system (see figure 1) further comprises a cyclone converter furnace (CCF) (5, see figure 1, column 4, lines 35-47, and column 5, line 20-column 6, line 9) connected to the SRV (7, see figure 1), wherein the CCF receives the process offgas from the SRV (see figure 1 and column 4, lines 35-47and column 5, lines 43-46), wherein the metalliferous ore (i.e., iron ore , see figure 1 and column 4, line 54-column 5, line 8), a portion of the oxygen-containing gas (see figure 1 column 4, lines 48-53 and column 5, lines 47-53) and a flux material (see figure 1) are injected into the CCF (5, see figure 1), and wherein the metalliferous ore is substantially melted and partly pre-reduced before entering the SRV (see column 4, lines 36-53), and wherein the dogleg duct (17) receives the process offgas from the
CCF (see figure 1 shows as such).
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.
Claims 14, 15 and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry (US Patent No. 6,440,195) a s applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 17 and 19, Dry teaches a system in which the process
offgas is extracted through the dogleg duct (see 17, see column 5, lines 53-67) before being rapidly cooled by the quench nozzle system (i.e., water cooling assembly 9, see figure 1 and column 5, lines 53-67), but fails to particularly teach a system in which the process offgas within the dogleg duct is maintained at a temperature that is greater than or equal to 1400 °C (2552 °F); an average process gas particle time-of-flight in the quench nozzle system being less than or equal to 1 second, the quench system injecting 0.8-2.0 tonnes of water per 1000 Nm3/h of the process offgas, and a final gas temperature after water vaporization being greater than or equal to 150 °C (302 °F) and less than or equal to 600 °C (1112 °F) and a quench nozzle system injecting 2-6 tonnes of water per 1000 Nm3/h of the process offgas, and a final gas temperature being approximately equivalent to a local water saturation temperature at prevailing process pressure; however all these claimed limitations are drawn to the manner of operating the claimed system. Furthermore, it has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." And that A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Also see MPEP 2114.II. In this instant case, the system of Dry, absent any evidence to the contrary, would reasonably be expected to execute these claimed actions or functions by a mere process control and optimization since Dry teaches substantially all the structural features of the system recited in these instant claims
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Dry teaches a system that is configured to quench the process offgas resulting in the entrained solids settling at the bottom of the quenching chamber as removable solid slag pieces that can be collected from an attached collection vessel (see figure 1) either in a dry state or in a wet state, and the water content separated as water vapor (see figure 1 and column 5, lines 54-58). Dry discloses, therefore reads on both claims 18 and 20.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US Patent
No. 6,440,195) a s applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brunn (US Patent
No. 3927627).
Regarding claim 16, Dry teaches a system in which the cooling of the process offgas in the quench system (9, see figure 1 and column 5, lines 53-58) is done using quench nozzles or cooling panels system (see column 5, lines 54-58) but fails to teach cooling of the process gas predominantly in the quench system using quench nozzle and also providing an auxiliary cooling using duct cooling as the claim appear to suggest.
However, Brunn teaches a system for recycling furnace process offgas back to the furnace, wherein the system is configured for cooling the process offgas by using a duct cooling prior to recycling into the furnace, wherein the cooling comprises injecting air at ambient temperature into a duct connecting the process offgas out from the furnace and cooling the offgas in said duct before recycled back to the furnace (see Brunn, column 1, lines 41-61 and figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Dry to use in the auxiliary cooling of the process offgas, a duct cooling as exemplified by Brunn since said duct cooling is considered to be less expensive or cost effective
than the tradition nozzle spray quenching (see Brunn, column 1, lines 30-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Davis et al. (US 10,451,348), Meijer (US 12,018,340), Pekkala (USA 2014/0124993), Schwab (US 6,328,790) and Selway (US 3,456,928) 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
