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 with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden in examining all claims. This is not found persuasive because of the difference in their classification and the large number of references to be considered in this crowded art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Qin, Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2019.
Qin teaches direct reduced iron columns with inlet and outlet for wastewater treatment – see the figure copied herein from page 62. Removal of H2S is only an intended use.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The figure is self-explanatory about DRI pellets, pellet sizes, inlets and outlets, cylindrical columns, multiple columns, etc.
Other characteristics: iron content – up to 92.2% commercially available – line linking pages 117-118; surface area – 0.32 or higher – table 4.5, page 84; see Table 5.2 also.
Claim 5: reduction of iron oxide is a process limitation not patentable in the product claim – see MPEP 2113, product by process claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Qin, Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2019, in view of Baker et al (US 4,378,241)
Qin teaches that DRI is available commercially at 92.2% iron content, but not at 94%. However, by applicant’s own admission, DRI with iron content up to 97% is known to those skilled in the art – see [0008] of the specification. Baker teaches producing DRI pellets with iron content 90-95% (Baker, claim 1.) Qin teaches (Abstract, page ii/xiv) the desirability of having high ion content. Therefore, having iron high content is not a patentable invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over CN 108545887B in view of Qin, Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2019, and Harman (US 2011/0197640.)
CN teaches a column 5.8 (see the figure and the description) having iron sponge for removing hydrogen sulfide from fluid streams. However, CN is silent on whether the sponge iron is in pellet form. Qin teaches sponge iron (DRI; DRI is often called sponge iron: Qin, page 14) details of which are in rejection 1. Since CN is silent on the source of sponge iron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to find the details from relevant literature such a Qin.
For claim 10 and 11: CN does not teach the process control system as in these claims. However, since the column in CN is meant for removing sulfides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor the system for its efficient operation and replace or regenerate the column when the column is exhausted. Harman teaches a sponge iron column for removing sulfides from fluid streams in which it teaches bed exhaustion schematically in figure 1B. Harman also teaches computer controlled monitoring based on color change or concentration of H2S in the effluent stream to determine the bed exhaustion [0049] and regenerating the bed in [0047.] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill to use such known methods as taught by Harman to make the CN system more efficient.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Harman (US 2011/0197640) in view of Qin, Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2019.
Harman teaches a sponge iron bed column with inlet and outlet as claimed. Harman also teaches a computer controlled system for controlling and regenerating the column in paragraphs [0049] and [0047] as claimed in claims 10 and 11. Particularly, the system is monitored for H2S concentration at the outlet to monitor and control the outlet to below set limits, and the column is regenerated at or just before exhaustion.
Harman teaches the bed as made of sponge iron loaded on a substrate like lignocellulose, not as DRI pellets. Qin teaches wastewater treatment using sponge iron, or DRI (page 14) – details in rejection 1. It is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that DRI pellets at high iron content would reduce the bed volume by 40% or more if the 40% iron-containing matrix of Harman is replaced by 90% or more concentrated sponge iron pellets. This would reduce the plant and equipment size/foot print. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Qin in the teaching of Harman to have a more efficient and reduced size system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights