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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been amendment. Claims 1-16, and 18-19 are pending. Claim 17 is cancelled. Amendment withdraws claims 1-8 from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II drawn to a system for the production of sponge iron in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Amendment withdraws claims 1-8, drawn to a non-elected invention from consideration. Applicant is reminded that the requirement for unity of invention mailed April 9, 2026 stated “[u]ntil all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder.” Non-elected claims as presently entered do not require all limitations of an elected apparatus claim, but independent claim 1 may be amended to do so.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 10 claims “means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level”. The limitation recites the word “means”, the claim modifies the means with functional language, and the claim does not recite structure for accomplishing the function. Paragraph [0025] of the specification indicates that “a pressure reducer in the third gas line” as means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level; therefore, the claimed means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level, in view of the specification is herein interpreted as a pressure reducer in the third gas line or equivalent structure. A pressure reducer is sufficiently broad to encompass a valve or turbine.
Claim 11 claims “means for continually registering the fluctuation of said access-related parameter”. The claim recites the word “means”, the claimed means perform a function, and the claim does not modify the means with structure for performing the function. The specification as filed, does not identify or describe structure which performs the function which modifies the “means” recited in claim 11.
Claim 12 claims “a means for generating the electric power, such as solar power, wind power or hydro power”. Claim 12 claims a “means”, claim 12 modifies the means with a function, and the phrase “such as” renders claim 12 uncertain as to whether or not the claimed means is definitively modified by sufficient structure within the claim. If the claimed means for generating were one selected from solar power, wind power or hydro power, the claimed generating means would not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). If the claimed solar power, wind power or hydro power are merely provided as examples, the “means” recited in claim 12 would be interpreted as reciting solar power, wind power or hydro power or an equivalent.
Claim 13 claims “means for registering a load on the public electric network”. The claim recites the word “means”; the claim modifies the means with a function, and the claim does not recite structure for performing the registering function. The specification as filed, does not identify or describe structure which performs the function which modifies the “means” recited in claim 13.
Claim 16 claims “means configured to enable said removal of said gas portion from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit as a response to a pressure in the primary circuit being above a predetermined level”. Claim 16 recites the word “means”; claim 16 modifies the means with a function “to enable said removal of said gas portion from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit as a response to a pressure in the primary circuit being above a predetermined level” linked by the phrase “configured to”, and claim 16 does not recite structure capable of performing the function. The present disclosure states “[t]he system comprises a pressure sensor 218, an operable valve 219 and the control unit 214, whereby the control unit 214 controls the valve 219 on basis of input from the sensor 218 to remove a gas portion from the primary circuit 210 to the secondary circuit 211 as a response to a pressure in the primary circuit 210 being above a predetermined level. The system may also, or as an alternative, comprise means configured to provide for a continuous bleed-off of top gas from the primary circuit 210 to the secondary circuit 211” [0071]. The present disclosure, therefore provides an operable valve as structure capable of performing the function recited in claim 16. The claimed means configured to enable said removal of said gas portion from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit as a response to a pressure in the primary circuit being above a predetermined level will therefore be interpreted as an operable valve or an equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 claims “means for continually registering the fluctuation of said access-related parameter”. Claim 13 claims “means for registering a load on the public electric network”. “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description” (MPEP 2181(IV)). “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness”; “such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph” (MPEP 2181(IV)). The disclosure as filed does not adequately describe structure or acts in sufficient detail to reasonably convey that an inventor or joint inventor at the time of filing was in possession of the system according to claim 11 comprising means for registering a load on the public electric network or the system according to claim 13 comprising means for registering a load on the public electric network, when claims 11 and 13 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation for means-plus-function limitations. See the below rejections of claims 11 and 13 under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they depend on claim 11.
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 9-16 and 18-19 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 9 recites the limitation "the reduction gas inlet" in line 8 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation appears intended to refer to the properly introduced “second inlet”, though considering claim 9 introduces more than one points of introduction of reduction gas to some system constituent, it cannot be determined from claim 9, as worded what is or is not the “reduction gas inlet”.
Claims 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 9.
Claim limitation “means for continually registering the fluctuation of said access-related parameter” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of structure or acts which perform the function of continually registering the fluctuation of said access-related parameter, and, what are or are not encompassed by the claimed “means” cannot be determined. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “means for registering a load on the public electric network” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of structure or acts which perform the function of registering a load on the public electric network, and, what are or are not encompassed by the claimed “means” cannot be determined. Paragraph [0068] of the disclosure as filed describes the public electric network, mentions the means, but is silent on what the “means” that actually enregister the load are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the indefinite means-plus-function limitations of claims 11 and 13, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Considering the phrase “such as” precedes structure capable of performing the function in a means-plus-function limitation, uncertainty in this limitation further raises uncertainty as to whether or not claim 12 should be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim limitation “a means for generating the electric power, such as solar power, wind power or hydro power” in claim 12 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “means” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because it depends on claim 12.
Claim 13 claims “said gas line” on the second to last line of the claim. It cannot be determined, in view of the specification, if “said gas line” is the first gas line or the third gas line.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the gas mixture" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 9 nor claim 13 identifies any component upon which the claimed system works as a mixture.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " said removal of said gas portion from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit" in the second line of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 claims “a secondary circuit for conducting at least a portion of gas removed from gas conducted through the primary circuit”, but it is not clear from claim 9 as worded if conducting the portion in claim 9 is the removal of that portion recited in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primetals (CA2926707A1) in view of Danieli (DE202020100640U1). Primetals is cited in the IDS filed December 16, 2023. Danieli is cited in the IDS filed October 22, 2025. References to Danieli are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 9, Primetals discloses a system for the production of sponge iron (plant 1 Fig. 1, Title, “…the metallic sponge is iron sponge” page 3, “The present application also relates to a plant…” page 6, page 8, list of reference signs on page 12). Primetals discloses that the system comprises a direct reduction shaft (direct reduction shaft 2, Fig. 1, page 8, list of references on page 12). Primetals shows that the reduction shaft comprises structure capable of iron ore introduction to the direct reduction shaft (iron oxide containing starting materials 3 Fig. 1), thereby meeting the structure of a first inlet for introduction of iron ore into the shaft. Primetals discloses and shows sponge iron leaving the shaft (iron sponge 4 Fig. 1), thereby disclosing the structure of a first outlet for removing sponge iron from the shaft. Primetals discloses a second inlet capable of introduction of reduction gas (reducing gas supply line 6) to the reduction shaft from a reduction gas source (reactant gas line 8, reactant gas reservoir line 12) (Fig. 1, list of reference signs on page 12, page 9). Primetals discloses a second outlet which removes top gas from the reduction shaft (top gas line 5 Fig. 1, list of reference signs page 12, page 9 lines 1-2). Primetals discloses a reduction gas source connected through a first gas line with the reduction gas inlet (mixed gas line 7 which connects with reactant gas line 8, Fig. 1 list of reference signs page 12, page 9). Primetals discloses that the system comprises a reduction gas container (low-pressure gas reservoir 10 Fig. 1, list of reference signs on page 12). Primetals discloses a primary circuit for conducting at least a part of the top gas, the primary circuit (recycle gas line 9) at least capable of contributing to reintroducing the part of the top gas to the reduction shaft (Fig. 1, list of reference signs on page 12). Primetals shows that the primary circuit (recycle gas line 9) is connected in one end with the second outlet (top gas line 5) and in another end with said first gas line (mixed gas line 7) (Fig. 1, page 10 first paragraph). Primetals discloses a secondary circuit which connects the primary circuit and the reduction gas container (top gas reservoir line 11 which extends from recycle gas line 9 to low-pressure gas reservoir 10 Fig. 1, list of reference signs on page 12). Primetals discloses that the secondary circuit conducts at least a portion of gas removed from gas conducted through the primary circuit (page 9, Shown in Fig. 1). Primetals discloses a second gas line connecting the reduction gas source with the reduction gas container (reactant gas reservoir line 12 Fig. 1, list of references signs on page 12). Primetals discloses a third gas line connecting the reduction gas container with the first gas line (stored gas recycle lines 13a, 13b, and 13c Fig. 1, list of reference signs page 12).
Primetals discloses that the system comprises a control unit to control a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line through the third gas line (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”). Primetals does not disclose that the control unit controls a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line.
Danieli teaches a system for the production of sponge iron ([0010], [0013], [0042], [0052], Figs. 1-3). Danieli teaches the system comprises a direct reduction shaft (reactor 1 Figs. 1-3, abstract, claim 1, [0010] comprising a first inlet for introduction of iron ore into the shaft (suitable for being fed with iron ore from above [0010], [0017], Figs. 1-3) and a first outlet for removing sponge iron from the shaft (ejected as hot sponge iron [0052], Figs. 1-3). Danieli teaches that the shaft comprises a second inlet for introduction of a reduction gas into the shaft (treatment and supply line 11, channel 16 Figs. 1-3, abstract, [0017], [0051]) and a second outlet for removing top gas from the shaft (recovery and treatment line 10 Figs. 1-3, [0010], [0017]). Danieli teaches a reduction gas source (external source 20) connected through a first gas line (channel 32) with the reduction gas inlet (Figs. 1-3, [0010], [0017], [0033], [0036]). Danieli teaches a circuit (branching channel 40, channel 44) for conducting at least a part of the top gas therethrough, the circuit connected in one end with the second outlet and in another end with the first gas line (Figs. 1-3, [0028], [0035], [0047]. Danieli teaches controlling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line with pumping device 33 (Fig. 2) and with control valve 31 (Figs. 1-3) [0033], [0036]. Danieli teaches that the control of reduction gas source may comprise reducing the flow (pressure0 of reduction gas source to the first gas line [0036].
Both Primetals and Danieli teach reduction systems for producing sponge iron comprising at least one circuit which conducts top gas to a reduction unit gas input. Primetals discloses that the amount of recycle gas introduced to the first gas line depends on the pressure of reduction gas in the first gas line (paragraph extending from page 5 to page 6, first paragraph of page 10). Primetals discloses controlling the pressure in the reduction shaft to which reduction gas is supplied (page 10 paragraph beginning “A device…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to configure the control unit disclosed by Primetals (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”) to control a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line because Primetals discloses that the flow (pressure) of the reduction gas source affects the addition of recycle gas to the reduction gas source (paragraph extending from page 5 to page 6, first paragraph of page 10), and Danieli teaches that a control valve and pumping device can effectively control the pressure of the reduction gas from a reduction gas source ([0033], [0036], Figs. 1-3). As Primetals discloses that the control unit comprises a system of valves (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”) and Danieli teaches a control valve as structure for controlling the flow from the reduction gas source to the first gas line ([0033], [0036], Figs. 1-3), one of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the control structure which controls the flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line taught by Danieli ([0033], [0036], Figs. 1-3) into the control unit disclosed by Primetals (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”) to predictably set the flow of the reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the flow of the reduction gas in order to better achieve the pressure effects disclosed by Primetals (paragraph extending from page 5 to page 6, first paragraph of page 10, paragraph beginning “A device…”). As Danieli teaches that such a structure reduces the flow of reducing supplied to the first gas line when mixed with gas from a recycling circuit [0036], and Primetals discloses that the control unit controls the flow of gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line through the third gas line (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”), the control unit of Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above, has the structure of a control unit configured to enable a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to said first gas line while correspondingly reducing a flow rate of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to said first gas line.
Primetals discloses a compressor arrangement for compressing the portion of gas delivered via the secondary circuit (compressor 15 Fig. 1, list of reference characters on page 12), and Danieli teaches that structure for controlling the flow from the reduction gas source in the combination of Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above comprises a compressor arrangement (pumping device 33) ([0033], [0036], Fig. 2). Primetals further discloses value of pressure within the reduction gas container (page 6 first two lines, page 10 lines 6-7). Considering Primetals discloses a pressure in the reduction gas container (page 6 first two lines, page 10 lines 6-7), Danieli teaches a compressor (pumping device) for controlling the flow of reduction gas supplied to the system from the reduction gas source (Fig. 2, [0036]), and Primetals discloses compressor systems for the purpose of controlling pressure (compressor 15, blower 16, compressor 17, compressor 21a, 21b Fig. 1 list of reference signs on page 12, paragraph extending from page 5 to page 6, page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”, paragraph extending from page 9 to page 10), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to include a compressor arrangement in the system disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above, which is structurally capable of compressing reduction gas delivered from the reduction gas source through said second gas line before entering the reduction gas container. The limitation “for compressing said portion of gas delivered via the secondary circuit and reduction gas delivered from the reduction gas source through said second gas line before entering the reduction gas container” is a statement of intended use for the claimed compressor arrangement, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the control valve taught by Danieli (Figs. 1-3 [0033], [0036]), as applied to claim 9 above, is by definition of a valve, structure which is capable of changing fluid flow. Danieli further teaches that reduction gas output may be reduced upon mixing with recycled gas [0033], [0036]. The control unit, as applied to claim 9, therefore is structure which is capable of reducing an output of the reduction gas source in response to enablement of a reduction gas flow from the reduction gas container to the first gas line under the condition that some requested reduction gas flow in the first gas line is achieved. Applicant is encouraged to consider the breadth of a requested reduction gas flow in the first gas line is achieved. Applicant is also reminded that the manner of operating a device does not, in and of the operating manner itself, differentiate an apparatus over the prior art because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 16, Primetals discloses control valves for controlling the flow of gas into the reducing gas container (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”). As the secondary circuit disclosed by Primetals (top gas reservoir line 11 which extends from recycle gas line 9 to low-pressure gas reservoir 10 Fig. 1, list of reference signs on page 12) flows gas from the primary circuit into the reducing gas container, in disclosing that this flow is controlled by control valves (page 8 paragraph beginning “The quantity of stored gas…”), the system disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli comprises means configured to enable said removal of said gas portion from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit as a response to a pressure in the primary circuit. A nonzero degree of removal is some amount above a predetermined level.
Regarding claim 18, Primetals discloses that the pressure in the first gas line affects the pressure of recycle gas which can be added (paragraph extending from page 5 to page 6). Primetals further discloses that there are suitable temperature and pressure conditions for operating of the reduction shaft (page 10 paragraph beginning “Compressors 21a…”). Considering Primetals teaches that pressure, and therefore flow rate, in the first gas line affects the pressure of recycle gas which can be added and that there is a suitable temperature and pressure for operating the direct reduction shaft (pages 5, 6, 10), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to a reduction gas flow rate in the first gas line, a temperature inside the direct reduction shaft, and a pressure inside the direct reduction shaft. In order to monitor those quantities, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above with sensors for measuring those quantities. As discussed above with respect to claim 9, the control system disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli is configured to in some way control the flow rate of gas supplied to the first gas line. Primetals discloses controlling a compressor system to affect temperature and pressure in the reduction shaft (page 10 paragraph beginning “Compressors 21a…”). In order to act on the results of the sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control unit disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above to set, and thereby determine, some reduction gas flow rate in the first gas line and into the direct reduction shaft on basis of received input from said first, second and third sensors.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Primetals (CA2926707A1) in view of Danieli (DE202020100640U1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schwab (DE102012109284A1). References to Schwab are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 11, Danieli teaches that when the flow of reducing gas is pure hydrogen or nearly pure hydrogen, no additional energy is required to promote the reforming reactions within the reactor, thus eliminating the need for the injection of oxygen downstream of the heating unit [0014]. Danieli teaches that the high degree of iron ore reduction with hydrogen, enables more uniform operation, which is almost free from the risk of clumping [0014]. Danieli teaches that direct introduction of pure hydrogen or gas with a high hydrogen content into the cycle increases the efficiency of direct reduction systems [0014], and Danieli teaches that supplying hydrogen as the reduction gas eliminates pellet swelling encountered with CO as the reducing gas [0014]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to supply hydrogen or hydrogen containing gas as the reduction gas in the process disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli, applied above, because of the advantages of hydrogen as a reduction gas taught by Danieli [0014]. Danieli teaches that the reduction gas source comprises an electrolyser [0013]. In supplying the hydrogen as the reduction gas taught by Danieli [0014], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to supply the hydrogen by an electrolyser, which Danieli teaches as effective for such a purpose [0013-14].
Primetals in view of Danieli does not disclose that the control unit is structurally configured to enable a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to some access-related parameter.
Schwab teaches introducing iron ore into a direct reduction unit ([0012-13], [0045], claim 13, Fig. 1). Schwab teaches sponge iron as a product of the direct reduction [0026], [0028], [0045-47]. Schwab teaches hydrogen as a direct reduction gas ([0015-16], Figs. 1-3). Schwab teaches that the hydrogen source comprises an electrolyser driven by electric power (abstract, [0013], [0015], [0057]). Schwab associates an access-related parameter (renewable energy when available) to the hydrogen production [0015-16]. Schwab teaches storing excess hydrogen which is not used immediately [0017], [0032]. Schwab teaches hydrogen storage in a gas container (gasometer) for use as needed [0017], [0032]. Schwab teaches a control unit configured to enable the storage and usage of the reduction gas in response to fluctuations in the access-related parameter (solar power systems at night or wind speed fluctuations at wind turbines. [0017], [0032]). Schwab teaches that hydrogen storage in response to access-related parameters allows optimal application of renewable energy without the drawbacks of fluctuations in energy generation [0035], [0054]. Schwab teaches recycling top gas back to the direct reduction system [0018]. Schwab teaches the lack of a sustainable and comprehensive production concept based on renewable resources as disadvantageous for steelmaking processes [0009], and Schwab teaches that application of renewable energy to produce an intermediate product which can be stored allows the storage of renewable energy [0012] and that application of the hydrogen produced from renewable energy allows the direct use of the energy in the location where the energy is generated [0036].
Both Primetals in view of Danieli applied above, and Schwab teach producing sponge iron by direct reduction with hydrogen gas produced by an electrolyser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the power in the electrolyser disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli applied above, at least in part through renewable energy resources because Schwab teaches that generating hydrogen with renewable energy advantageously allows application of renewable energy sources to the steelmaking industry in a manner that permits storing the energy [0009], [0012], [0036]. The electrolyser taught by Danieli [0013] must operate on some power source, and in view of Schwab [0012-15], one of ordinary skill in the art of direct reduction of iron would know that renewable energy sources may be effectively supplied to an electrolyser for a hydrogen gas source. In order to supply the power by renewable energy, as taught by Schwab, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control unit to enable the storage and use as needed of the hydrogen gas, in response to the availability of renewable energy, which Schwab teaches allows optimal use of the renewable energy in the direct reduction process [0017], [0032], [0035], [0054]. As the control unit disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli applied above controls the flow of gas, and Primetals discloses that the reduction gas container stores reduction gas from the reduction gas source (abstract, paragraph extending from page 4 to page 5, Fig. 1), configuring the control unit disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli to store and use hydrogen as needed in response to renewable energy availability meets the structure of a control unit configured to enable a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container in response to renewable energy availability. A configuration which releases reduction gas by controlling flow when renewable energy is not available is a configuration which enables the flow of hydrogen gas when an access-related parameter (the renewable energy level) is below some level.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Schwab teaches availability of generating solar power, wind power as access-related parameters for which the control unit determines storage or release of hydrogen [0017], [0032] in the process disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab, applied above. Controlling the flow of hydrogen gas in response to renewable energy availability as disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab, as applied to claims 11 and 12 meets the additional limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 13, Schwab teaches supplementing the electric power for the electrolyser by public electric network (other energy carriers) in response to the available renewable energy, when necessary [0035]. In disclosing both that the storage of hydrogen gas as disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab, applied to claim 11, and the dependence on public electric network [0035] depend on availability of renewable energy, Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab discloses that the control of reduction gas from the reduction gas container and the load on a public electric network are interrelated. In teaching that the power supplied by the public electric network supplements the renewable energy [0032], [0035], Schwab teaches that the load on the public electric network (what is necessary to supplement) is considered. In order to effectively take appropriate action in powering the electrolyser, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to register that load. Registering the load requires at least some structure capable of registering the load.
Regarding claim 19, any direct reduction shaft which successfully produces sponge iron necessarily has some nominal production rate of sponge iron per hour; therefore, the direct reduction shaft disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab has a nominal production rate of sponge iron per hour. Schwab teaches that stored hydrogen can maintain predictable production levels when solar power is not available at night [0032], [0066]. In order to maintain the production levels of the system disclosed by Primetals in view of Danieli and Schwab, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to size the reduction gas container for sufficient capacity to provide sufficient hydrogen to operate the system at night. As night lasts longer than one hour, such capacity in some way corresponds to the amount of hydrogen gas required for enabling reduction at said nominal reduction rate for a duration which is longer than one hour.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Though the present office action is the first to formally reject claims, a requirement for restriction relied on Primetals (CA2926707A1) to show lack of unity of invention. Applicant argues that present claim 9 defines over Primetals alone because Primetals fails to teach or suggest a compressor arrangement for compressing said portion of gas delivered via the secondary circuit and reduction gas delivered from the reduction gas source through said second gas line before entering the reduction gas container. Applicant notes that to the extent Primetals discloses a compressor downstream of the reduction gas container. This feature is not persuasive in overcoming the present rejection over Primetals in view of Danieli (DE202020100640U1). The office action relies on the combination of Primetals in view of Danieli to meet the claimed limitation of a compressor which compresses reduction gas from a reduction gas source ([0033], [0036], Fig. 2). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (MPEP 2145(IV)).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the compressor placement downstream of the reduction gas container would have been persuasive if a prior art rejection of claim 10 over Primetals were set forth.
To further comment on applicant’s remarks, the advantages which applicant argues appear to be the same advantages taught by Schwab (DE102012109284A1) for hydrogen generation and storage; therefore, these advantages appear to be expected over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 9 claims a system for the production of sponge iron. Claim 9 claims the system comprises a direct reduction shaft comprising a first inlet for introduction of iron ore into the shaft and a first outlet for removing sponge iron from the shaft. Claim 9 claims that the direction reduction shaft comprises a second inlet for introduction of a reduction gas into the shaft, and a second outlet for removing top gas from the shaft. Claim 9 claims a reduction gas source connected through a first gas line with what appears intended as the second inlet. Claim 9 claims a reduction gas container. Claim 9 claims a primary circuit for conducting at least a part of the top gas therethrough. Claim 9 claims that the primary circuit is connected in one end with the second outlet (for removing top gas from the shaft) and in some other end with the first gas line (the line which claim 9 claims connecting the reduction gas source and the reduction gas inlet). Claim 9 claims a secondary circuit for conducting at least a portion of gas removed from gas conducted through the primary circuit. Claim 9 claims the secondary circuit is connected in one end to the primary circuit and in another end to the reduction gas container. Claim 9 claims a second gas line connecting the reduction gas source with the reduction gas container. Claim 9 claims a third gas line connecting the reduction gas container with the first gas line. Claim 9 claims a control unit configured to control a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line and to control a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line through the third gas line. Claim 9 claims that the control unit is configured to enable a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to said first gas line while correspondingly reducing a flow rate of reduction gas from the reduction gas source to the first gas line. Claim 9 claims a compressor arrangement for compressing said portion of gas delivered via the secondary circuit and reduction gas delivered from the reduction gas source through said second gas line before entering the reduction gas container.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9. Claim 10 claims, that the system comprises means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level. The limitation “means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level” written in means-plus-function format for which 35 USC 112(f) guides claim interpretation. Paragraph [0025] of the specification indicates that “a pressure reducer in the third gas line” as means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level; therefore, the claimed means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level are interpreted as a pressure reducer in the third gas line or equivalent structure.
The present office action relies on Primetals (CA2926707A1) in view of Danieli (DE202020100640U1) to render obvious independent claim 9. Primetals is the closest individual prior art reference, and Primetals in view of Danieli is the combination of references closest to claim 10. The structure disclosed by Primetals which meets the third gas line (stored gas recycle lines 13a, 13b, and 13c Fig. 1, list of reference signs page 12) comprises a compressor (15 compressor Fig. 1, list of reference characters on page 12), and Primetals does not disclose an equivalent of a pressure reducer such as a valve or turbine on the third gas line, and Primetals repeatedly discloses increasing the pressure in the third gas line. As a compressor performs the opposite function of a pressure reducer, the structure disclosed by Primetals would inform one of skill in the art away from the limitation recited in claim 10, in view of the specification, as provided by 35 USC 112(f). Claim 10 defines over Primetals in view of Danieli, at least in claiming means for enabling a flow of reduction gas from the reduction gas container to the first gas line in response to the gas pressure in the reduction gas container being above a predetermined level, when the means-plus-function limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, interpreted through 35 USC 112(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Millner (US20150007697) teaches a system (device, facility) for iron-oxide reduction (title, [0002], [0022-23]). Millner teaches a direct reduction unit which is a shaft reduction unit (1 High-pressure reduction unit Fig. 1 [0025], [0068]). Miller teaches an inlet for introduction of a reduction gas into the reduction unit (2 Reduction gas line Fig. 1 [0069]), and an outlet for removing top gas from the reduction unit (3 Top gas line [0070]). Miller teaches a reduction gas source (4 Feed gas line) connected through a first gas line (7, 7', 7'' Longitudinal section of the feed gas line) with the reduction gas inlet (Fig. 1, [0024], [0056], [0071], [0075]). Millner teaches a primary circuit for conducting at least a part of the top gas therethrough (8' First recycle gas part flow line, 15 Recycle gas Fig. 1, [0077], [0085]). Millner shows that the primary circuit is connected in one end with the outlet (3 Top gas line) and in another end with the first gas line (7, Longitudinal section of the feed gas line) (Fig. 1, [0056]). Millner teaches secondary circuits for conducting at least a portion of gas removed from gas conducted through the primary circuit (8 Recycle gas part flow line, 8'' Second recycle gas part flow line [0076], [0078]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights