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 group III (claims 22-29) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I and III are technically intertwined and directed to substantially the same inventive concept. As set forth in the claims and specification, the installation of Group III is configured to implement the operational methodology recited in Group I, including the reforming of blast furnace gas, production of syngas, hydrogen integration/mixing, and reinjection of syngas into the blast furnace; and that group II, comprising that present claim 2 is directed to a broader hydrogen-utilization concept that is not necessarily limited to the specific shaft-injection and blast- furnace-gas reforming architecture recited in claims 1 and 22, and which may potentially also encompass implementations using simpler steam methane reforming configurations. This is not found persuasive because: (a) that group I, while requiring feeding a stream of blast furnace gas and a hydrocarbon containing gas to a reforming plant with a stream of H.sub.2 added to the hydrocarbon containing gas, group III requires a source of a stream of H.sub.2 in fluidic connection with the at least one reformer, and thus group I and group III are not exactly intertwin as Applicant urges, and that group III is distinct in its practice. Finally group II, drawn to a method of operating blast furnace with improved hydrogen utilization is distinct it its
practice from both group I and group III. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. The non-elected claims 1-12 are withdrawn from prosecution in the application.
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 23 and 26 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.
In claim 23, the recitation of multiple instances of “and/or” appears to make the claim confusing because it is unclear which portion (s) or each limitation before, between, and after the multiple “and/or” are required or optional, and which limitations are linked together by the “and/or. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 22-24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinzel et al. (WO2020/234290, see the US equivalent US 2022/0145410, (US’410)) in view of Ito et a. (US Patent No. 10,961,596).
Regarding claim 22, Kinzel et al. teaches a blast furnace plant installation (10, see US’410, para [0032} and abstract) comprising a blast furnace (12, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1, abstract and para [0032]) provided with a shaft, tuyeres (see US’410, para [0018] and [0023]) arranged for feeding a first stream of a hydrogen containing gas (50, Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1, abstract and para [0034]) to the blast furnace and gas inlets in the shaft (see para [0018] and [ 0023]) of the blast furnace arranged for feeding a stream of syngas (58, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0035] and [0037]) to the blast furnace (12, see US’410, figure 1), said blast furnace plant installation further comprising: a reforming plant ( see Kinzel et al., US’410, abstract, figure 1 , para [0034] and [0037]) comprising at least one reformer (i.e. reactor 56, Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 , para [0034] and [0037]) in fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace (12, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 shows as such) and with a source of a hydrocarbon containing gas (50, see figure 1), said reformer (56) being arranged for converting a stream of blast furnace gas (i.e. by the blast furnace gas by recovery tube 40, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0032]-[0033]) and the hydrocarbon containing gas(50) to a stream of syngas (58) and being in fluidic downstream connection with said gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace (see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 shows as such).
Kinzel et al. fails to expressly teach a source of a stream of H.sub.2 in fluidic connection with the at least one of a reformer, the gas inlets in the shaft and the tuyere of the blast furnace.
Ito et al. teaches blast furnace installation (see Ito et al. abstract and column 1, lines 5-10) in which a source of a stream of H.sub.2 is in fluidic connection with the at least the gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace (see Ito et al., see abstract, column 3, lines 39-51 and column 9, lines 34-55) for the purpose of reducing the total amount of CO.sub.2 emitted during the operation of the blast furnace.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the blast furnace installation of Kinzel et al. to additional provide a stream of H.sub.2 in fluidic connection with the at least the gas inlets in the
shaft of the blast furnace as exemplified by Ito et al. and that would provide the advantage and function of reducing the total amount of CO.sub.2 emitted during the operation of the blast furnace and consequently reducing the effect of CO.sub.2 emission on the environment.
Regarding claim 23, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace installation (10, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0032]) configured for implementing a method for operating a blast furnace comprising: collecting a stream of blast furnace gas by the gas recovery tube (40, see Kinzel et al. , US’410, figure 1 and para [0033]) from a blast furnace (12, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0032]) having a shaft and at least one tuyere; feeding said stream of blast furnace gas (i.e., vial feed pipe 46, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0034]) and a hydrocarbon containing gas (i.e., via fed pipe 50, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1, abstract and para [0034]) to a reforming plant ( see Kinzel et al., US’410, abstract, figure 1 , para [0034] and [0037]) comprising at least one reformer (i.e. reactor 56, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 , para [0034] and [0037]); reforming said stream of blast furnace gas and said hydrocarbon containing gas in the reforming plant to produce a stream of syngas (58, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0035] and [0037]); and feeding at least a portion of said stream of syngas to the blast furnace (see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0032]-[0033]): wherein a stream of H.sub.2 is added to the stream of syngas before step feeding at least a portion of said stream of syngas to the blast furnace (see Ito et al., see abstract, column 3, lines 39-51 and column 9, lines 34-55), and wherein the feeding of at least a portion of said stream of syngas to the blast furnace occurs through the shaft of the blast furnace (see Ito et al., see abstract, column 3, lines 39-51 and column 9, lines 34-55).
Regarding claim 24, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace installation (10, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0032]) in which the reformer (i.e. reactor 56, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 , para [0034] and [0037]) is in fluidic downstream connection with the tuyeres of the blast furnace and with the gas inlets in the shaft of the blast furnace (see Kinzel et al., US’410, para [0010], [0018] and [0023]) .
Regarding claim 26, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace
Installation in which the reforming plant comprises a catalytic dry and/or wet reformer (see Ito et al., column 33, lines 49-60), and wherein the reforming plant (18) comprises two reformers (see Ito et al., column 4, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 27, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace
Installation in which the reforming plant further comprises a partial oxidation reactor (see Ito et a., column 3, lines 53-57, column 4, lines 7-15 and lines 55-60 for example)
Regarding claim 28, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace
Installation in which the fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace that is arranged for conveying a stream of blast furnace gas to the reforming plant further comprises a gas cooling and cleaning unit (43, see Kinzel et al., US’410, figure 1 and para [0033]).
Regarding claim 29, Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace
Installation in which the fluidic connection with the top of the blast furnace that is arranged for conveying a stream of blast furnace gas to the reforming plant further comprises a pressuring unit (i.e., compressor, see Ito et al., column 17, line 56-column 18, line 4).
7. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinzel et al. (WO2020/234290, see the US equivalent US 2022/0145410, (US’410)) in view of Ito et a. (US Patent No. 10,961,596) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pantke et al. (US Patent No. 3,948,646).
Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. teaches a blast furnace installation in which the
reforming plant that comprises a regenerative reformer but fails to expressly teach a
reforming plant comprising a catalytic reformer. However, Pantke et al. teaches a blast furnace installation (see Pantke et al., figures 1 and 2 and column 3, lines 29-31) in which the reforming plant comprises either a catalytic reformer (Pantke et al., column 6, lines 1-13) or a regenerative reformer (see Pantke et al., column 2, lines 35-40 and column 4, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the blast furnace installation of Kinzel et al. in view of Ito et al. to use a reforming plant that comprises a regenerative reformer as exemplified by Pantke et al., wherein doing so would amount to a mere substitution of one type of blast furnace reformer for another known in the art that would equally yield the expected result of reforming a hydrocarbon containing gas and blast furnace gas mixture to a syngas to be fed to the blast furnace either by the shaft or tuyere.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grant (US 10,072,312) and Roth et al. (US 8,545,597) are also cited in PTO-8921.
9. 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
Prosecution Insights