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 .
Response to Amendments, Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 20, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 29-33 are newly added.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 15-23, drawn to a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron (DRI), and reducing gas species i), directed to ‘top gas exiting the DRI shaft, the top gas being mixed with hydrogen obtained by extraction from coke over gas’, in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-28, drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, drawn to DRI equipment, are cancelled (see above). Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected reducing gas species ii) directed to ‘additional reducing gas selected from the group consisting of hydrogen and biogas, the additional reducing gas being mixed with the hydrogen obtained by extraction from coke oven gas‘, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 15-23 and 29-33 are pending and Claims 15-16, 18-23 and 29-33 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority in application no. PCT/IB2021/054252, filed May 18, 2021, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “reducing iron ore is reduced in” should be “reducing iron ore in” in line 3. 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.
Claim 19 and Claim 29, and dependent Claims 30-33, 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 the limitation "the heating". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites a first outlet connected to the DRI shaft and a second outlet connected to the transition section; however, Claim 15, from which Claim 29 depends from, recites wherein the transition section is part of the DRI shaft. Therefore, it is unclear if both outlet portions are directed to the same component or different components. Examiner interprets wherein the claims require the hydrogen separation unit to comprise a first and second outlet, wherein at least one of the outlets is connected to the DRI shaft.
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.
(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 15-16, 18, 20-23 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motamedhashemi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 5, 2023, US 20160083811 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Motamedhashemi discloses a method for manufacturing direct reduced iron (DRI) (Abstract), the method comprising:
reducing iron ore in a DRI shaft by a reducing gas including hydrogen obtained by extraction from coke oven gas through a hydrogen separation unit (Abstract; Fig. 2, PSA unit 206 receiving COG from source 202); and
at least partly injecting a remaining part of the coke oven gas in a transition section of the DRI shaft to set the carbon amount of the DRI in a range of 0.5-3% (Fig. 2, COG to transition zone; para. [0040]; see Fig. 2, 1.5% Carbon from 216).
Regarding Claim 16 and Claim 18, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the reducing gas further includes top gas exiting the DRI shaft, the top gas being mixed with the hydrogen obtained by extraction from coke oven gas (Abstract; Fig. 2, spent gas which flows through scrubber and CO2 removal unit to recombine with hydrogen rich gas from PSA product stream; para. [0007] and para. [0043], hot gas leaving radiant heater 224 blends with the syngas).
Regarding Claim 20, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the reducing gas is injected in the DRI shaft in a reduction section (Fig. 2, reducing gas from PSA to reduction furnace; para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 21, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the top gas coming from the DRI shaft is scrubbed to remove water prior to being mixed with the reducing gas (Fig. 2, water scrubber 220).
Regarding Claim 22, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein a remaining part of coke oven gas is partly injected in a cooling section of the DRI shaft in order to increase carbon content (Abstract, fifth coke oven gas stream to a cooling zone; Claim 13; Fig. 2, COG to cooling zone).
Regarding Claim 23, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the carbon content is 1-2wt% (Fig. 2, 1.5% Carbon from DRI 216).
Regarding Claim 29, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the hydrogen separation unit has an inlet connected to a coke oven gas supply, the hydrogen separation until including a first outlet connected to the DRI shaft and a second outlet connected to the transition section (Fig. 2, PSA unit comprises 1 inlet from coke source 202 and 2 outlets (PSA hydrogen-rich product stream and PSA tail gas stream); para. [0040], PSA tail gas stream can be directed to transition zone).
Regarding Claim 30, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the top gas is blended with the gas from the outlet of the PSA unit by the line feeding the reducing gas to the reduction furnace (see Fig. 2, line of reducing gas receives CO2 lean stream (formed of top gas) by an inlet and receives line from outlet of PSA hydrogen-rich product stream; para. [0043], wherein streams are blended; the line connected to the CO2 lean stream and PSA product stream therefore reads on a mixer because the gases are blended/mixed via the introduction to the line).
Regarding Claim 31, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein a mixer includes a third inlet connected to an additional reducing gas supply (Fig. 2, wherein reducing gas enrichment stream (see above PSA product stream) and PDX reactor stream (see label) 5 are additionally included in reducing gas stream to reduction furnace; see also para. [0011], third coke oven gas stream). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these to be introduced/connected by inlets.
Regarding Claim 32, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein the top gas blended with the gas from the outlet of the PSA unit is received by the line feeding the reducing gas to the reduction furnace (see Fig. 2, line of reducing gas receives CO2 lean stream (formed of top gas) by an inlet and receives line from outlet of PSA hydrogen-rich product stream; para. [0043], wherein streams are blended). The line connected to the CO2 lean stream and PSA product stream reads on a mixer because the gases are blended/mixed via the introduction to the line, which is further connected to the reduction furnace of the DRI shaft, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 33, Motamedhashemi discloses wherein a scrubber is connected to a top gas outlet of the DRI shaft (Fig. 2, spent gas sent to scrubber 220).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motamedhashemi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 5, 2023, US 20160083811 A1), as applied to Claim 15 above, in view of Duarte (cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 5, 2023, US 20220235426 A) and Zendejas (US 20180371560 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Motamedhashemi disclose heating reducing gas (see heater 224 in Fig. 2, for example), but fails to disclose wherein heating is performed by using CO2 neutral electricity.
Duarte teaches wherein an electrolysis unit utilizes CO2 to produce electricity to be used for a generator and other sources in order to lower CO2 emissions (para. [0017]; [0034]; [0038]; para. [0040]). While Duarte discloses using the electricity for other sources in the process, Duarte does not expressly disclose utilizing this electricity for heat generation.
Zendejas teaches wherein a gas heating device includes electrical heaters (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an electrical heater to heat the reducing gases, as taught by Zendejas, for the invention disclosed by Motamedhashemi, and further to have used an electrolysis unit in order to generate electricity from CO2 for other processes which require electricity, as taught by Duarte, including for the electrical heater and the invention disclosed by Motamedhashemi and Zendejas. One would be motivated to include these devices because Zendejas teaches this is a suitable type of gas heater for a DRI process, and in order to lower CO2 emissions by sustainably producing electricity for internal process devices (see teaching above by Duarte). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the heating of reducing gases by Motamedhashemi in view of Zendejas and Duarte to use CO2 neutral electricity, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights