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 1-15 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 1 recites “super-pure iron ore powder, wherein the super-pure iron ore powder has a purity of at least 98%.” The omission of unit renders the claim indefinite. As used “purity” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if purity refers to iron content, i.e. percentage of iron in the powder, or whether this percentage has some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish meaning of the indefinite term “purity” as it refers merely to the numerical percentage range “of at least 98%.”
Claim 1 recites “purifying iron ore concentrate to form super-pure iron ore powder” in Line 3. A method of purification is recited in Claim 2. However, as used in Claim 1, the terms “purifying” and “super-pure” are relative terms rendering the claims indefinite. The metes and bounds of what constitutes purifying or super-pure have not been established. Embodiments of super-pure iron ore powder are set forth in the instant Specification, e.g. at [0006], but the terms “purifying” and “super-pure” are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the process” in Line 11 which lacks literal antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of any process. Instead, reference was made in Line 11 to “the reducing and melting steps.” The recitation “the process” renders the claim indefinite for clarity. Applicant is encouraged to clearly set forth actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 2 recites in Line 7-8 “dewatering, filtering, and drying the purified iron ore particles to form the super-pure iron ore powder.” There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “the purified iron ore particles.” Additionally, because Claim 2 recites a purifying step, the recitation “to form the super-pure iron ore powder” in Lines 7-8 renders unclear whether reference is being made to the same powder of Claim 1 or some different powder entirely. Appropriate correction is required to establish proper antecedent basis and clearly delineate method steps.
Claim 5 recites “the hydrogen reduction furnace” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous mention is to “a first furnace” and “a second furnace” in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of each claimed element within the method claimed.
Claim 6 recites “the furnace” in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous mention is to “a first furnace” and “a second furnace” in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of each claimed element within the method claimed.
Claim 6 recites “and then the reduced iron product melted to form the steel product” in lines 4-5. This recitation presents the following issues of clarity:
The recitation cited is in past tense and grammatically unclear. Appropriate correction is required to establish tangible and repeatable positive active method steps.
“the reduced iron product” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether this is the product of reduction in the first furnace and the second furnace of Claim 6 Line 2 or whether this is some other reduced iron product.
“the steel product” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear the nexus between the steel product of Claim 6 and the method steps for producing steel in Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the furnace” in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous mention is to “a first furnace” and “a second furnace” in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of each claimed element within the method claimed.
Claim 7 recites “a high-temperature hydrogen electric furnace” in Lines 2-3. Previous mention is to “a hydrogen electric furnace” in Claim 1. Further, as used the term “high-temperature” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of what constitutes “high-temperature” has not been established. The term “high-temperature” 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.
Claim 7 recites “the super-pure iron ore powder is first melted in the furnace and then reduced with hydrogen to form the steel product” in lines 4-5. This recitation presents the following issues of clarity:
The nexus between the reduction and melting recitation in Lines 4-5 of Claim 7 and the reduction and melting steps in Claim 1 is unclear. If the first furnace and the second furnace are the same furnace then it is unclear whether the “first melted in the furnace and then reduced with hydrogen” steps in Claim 7 take place in the first furnace and the second furnace, whether the steps from Claim 1 are repeated, or whether this has some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required.
“the steel product” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear the nexus between the steel product of Claim 7 and the method steps for producing steel in Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “said furnace” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in describing each furnace. The nexus between the furnace of Claim 8 and the furnaces of Claim 1 is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “can be reduced” in Line 1 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required to establish whether the limitations in Claim 9 are actionable method steps.
Claim 11 recites “the hydrogen introduced into the first furnace has a purity of approximately 5-100%.” The omission of unit renders the claim indefinite. As used “purity” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if purity refers to hydrogen content i.e. percentage of hydrogen in the gas, or whether this percentage has some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish or clarify the indefinite term “purity” as it refers merely to the numerical percentage range “of approximately 5-100%.”
Claim 12 recites “hematite type iron ore or magnetic type iron ore.” While magnetic iron ore and hematite iron ore are known, the recitation of “type” without more in the instant Specification makes it unclear whether “type” takes on additional meaning or whether the iron ore is being described as either hematite or magnetic.
Claim 14 recites “the iron ore powder has a purity of at least 99.0%” The omission of unit renders the claim indefinite. As used “purity” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if purity refers to iron content, i.e. percentage of iron in the powder, or whether this percentage has some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish or clarify the indefinite term “purity” as it refers merely to the numerical percentage range “of at least 99.0%.”
Claims 3-4, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. US 20240191315 A1 in view of NPL Mamadjanovich et al.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches a method for producing steel using hydrogen and a cold iron source (Abstract)[0001-0002]. Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches reduction and melting in a hydrogen-fueled electric furnace, meeting the limitation of the instant claim for reducing in a first hydrogen electric furnace and melting in a second hydrogen electric furnace. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the process yields cooled iron and steel products with reduced CO2 emissions, meeting the limitations of instant Claim 1 (Table 1)[0044]. Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches forming a cast slab product at [0038], reading on the limitation of instant Claim 1 for cooling a steel product of the reducing and melting steps, wherein the process results in zero carbon dioxide emissions.
Fan et al. ‘059 does not expressly teach purifying iron ore concentrate to form super-pure iron ore powder, wherein the super-pure iron ore powder has a purity of at least 98%.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Mamadjanovich et al. teaches iron ore powder with 98.9 mass % iron content formed by grinding iron ore concentrate in a ball mill, separating the iron ore particles from the gangue minerals via magnetic separation equipment (page 146-147); and dewatering, filtering, and drying the purified iron ore particles (Page 148), meeting the limitations of instant Claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the super-pure iron ore powders of NPL Mamadjanovich et al. in the method for producing steel taught by Fan et al. ‘059 in order to form a product with enhanced mechanical properties based on the teachings of NPL Mamadjanovich et al. at (Page 146), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claims 3-4, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Mamadjanovich et al. further teaches the super-pure iron ore powder has a particle size of 40 mesh, meeting the limitations of the instant claims for less than 100 mesh and less than 325 mesh respectively.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above Ogasawara et al. ‘315 et al. ‘059 teaches the gas mixture contains hydrogen gas by 50% volume or more at [0027], meeting the limitation of the instant claim for a purity of approximately 5-100%.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Mamadjanovich et al. teaches the iron ore concentrate comprises hematite and magnetite (Page 148), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. The furnace of Ogasawara et al. ‘315 reads on the limitations of instant Claim for the first furnace and the second furnace being the same furnace.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct reduction and melting of iron in either the same or separate furnace depending on production needs, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Mamadjanovich et al. teaches iron ore powder with 98.9 mass % iron content, a value nearly intersecting the instantly claimed range of at least 99.0%.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claims 6-8, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. further teaches reduction and melting in the same furnace. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches hydrogen-fueled steelmaking in an electric furnace (meeting the limitation of the instant Claims for a hydrogen electric furnace), induction melting furnace (meeting the limitation of the instant Claims for a hydrogen electromagnetic induction furnace), or a plasma arc melting furnace (meeting the limitation of the instant Claims for a hydrogen thermal plasma furnace) [0035-0037].
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. US 20240191315 A1 in view of NPL Mamadjanovich et al. as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 above, further in view of Lu et al. CN 106591600 A.
Regarding Claims 5, 10, and 15, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches a flame temperature of 1500 °C at [0033], but does not expressly teach reduction and melting at the temperature range of the instant Claims.
However, Lu et al. ‘600 teaches reducing iron ore powders at a temperature of 900-1300 °C for 1-4 hours and melting the powders at 1450-1550 °C for 30-60 minutes. The reduction and melting temperatures and times overlap the instantly claimed ranges in Claims 5 and 15, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims. The method of modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 with the aforementioned operating temperatures meets the limitations of instant Claim 10 for the method wherein the temperature of the hydrogen thermal plasma furnace does not exceed 5000 °C.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. US 20240191315 A1 in view of NPL Mamadjanovich et al. as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 above, further in view of NPL Li et al.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ogasawara et al. ‘315 teaches a flame temperature of 1500 °C at [0033], but does not expressly teach reduction of super-pure iron ore powder in liquid form at the temperature range of the instant Claims.
As set forth above, it is not clear the limitations of the instant claim are required by the claim as presently drafted. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Ogasawara et al. ‘315 does not expressly teach reducing iron in liquid form at the claimed temperature range.
However, NPL Li et al. teaches hydrogen reduction of liquid iron at 1673 K to 1700 K (Approximately 1400 °C to 1427 °C) overlapping the instantly claimed range of 1400 °C – 1600 °C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to reduce super-pure iron ore powder in the method of modified Ogasawara et al. ‘315 in the form of liquid at temperatures of 1673 K to 1700 K (Approximately 1400 °C to 1427 °C), in order to save energy and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases based on the teachings of NPL Li et al. at (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 3066022 A teaches a formation process for 100 mesh 99.5% iron powders.
US 4154608 A teaches the formulation of high purity 40 mesh iron powders.
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