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 .
This application is a PCT application of PCT/TR2021/051031 10/10/2021.
DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant has elected Invention I (claims 1-15) with Species 1 (claims 5-7) for further prosecution with travers since no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. In response, as pointed out in the “Requirement for Election/restriction” dated 3/25/2026, Invention I-III lacks the same or corresponding special technical feature. The unity of invention is lacking and restriction is appropriate. The manufacturing process in Invention I can be applied for different interstitial free steel product; and Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper.
Claims 8 and 16-23 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims, claims 1-7 and 9-15 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The step list “i.”-“xii.” are suggested to be amended as “(i)”-“(xii)” to corresponding to the step list in the following claims 9-15;
“Removing” on line 3; “Adding” on line 9; “Taking” on line 11; “Natural” on line 17; “Adding” on line 18; “Deoxidation” on line 20; and “sending” on line 21 should use low case.
The limitation of “(Cu)”; “(N)”, “(DeN)”; “(VD)”, “(C)”; and “(VOD)” are suggested to be deleted.
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “HBI” should written as whole term.
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “DKP”, “HBI” should written as whole term.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) The limitation of “[O]” suggested to be deleted; 2) “A.”, “B”, and “C.” are suggested to be amended as “(A)”, “(B)”, and “(C)”; 3) “Oxygen” and “Inert” should use low case.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “(Mn)”; “(Si)”, and “(Al)” are suggested to be deleted.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “Steel” should use low case.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “(CaO)”; “(N)”, “(Al2O3)”; “(SiO2)”, and “(CaF2)” are suggested to be deleted.
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.
Claims 2 and 5-7 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 the instant case,
Since Claim 2 depends on claim 1 (indicates a production method), the limitation of “A production method” in claim 2 should be amended as “The production method” to avoid insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
The list scrap types in the instant claim 2 are unclear since the listed scrap types may overlap each other. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation such as “domestic”, and the claim also recites “DKP”, “HMS”, “Pig”, “HBI”… which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claimed “DKP”, “HMS”, “HBI” (cl.2 and 5-7) should be indicated by whole terms.
Since Claims 5-7 depend on claim 2, they are also rejected. Since these claims need further clarification/amendment, Claims 2 and 5-7 are not included in the following examination.
Claim 15 is 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 the instant case, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation such as “lime”, and the claim also recites “materials including CaO”, “materials including Al2O3”, “materials including SiO2”, and/or “materials including CaF2”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, “the appropriate element” is not included in the step (viii) in the corresponding independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, “the denitrification process” is not included in the step (vi) in the corresponding independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, “the oxygen blowing” is not included in the step (vii) in the corresponding independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Since claims 9 and 12-14 need further clarification/amendment, these claims are not included in the following examination.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN 113774285 A, listed in IDS filed on 12/19/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’285) in view of Duan et al (CN 101660021 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’021).
Regarding claim 1, CN’285 teaches a manufacturing process for an ultra-low carbon industrial pure iron with waste steel and pig iron as raw material (Abstract, claims, and examples of CN’285), which reads on the manufacturing process applying scrap as raw material as claimed in the instant claim. CN’285 indicates that the preparation method of the invention adopts electric arc furnace, LF furnace and AOD for de-phosphorating, desulfurizing and removing carbon treatment and not more than 0.10 wt% Cu (Abstract, claims and examples of CN’285), which reads on the smelting the scrap in arc furnace (step ii); desulphurizing (step iv) and overlapping the Cu amount in the step (i), which overlaps the claimed Cu range and creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of Cu as disclosed in CN’285 as claimed since CN’285 teaches the same manufacturing process for an interstitial free steel as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. CN’285 teaches adding aluminum for pre-deoxidizing (par.[0010] of CN’285), which reads on the limitation of step (iii) and (V). CN’285 indicates slag removing (claims, par.[0012], and embodiments of CN’285), which reads on the limitation in step (vi). CN’285 does not specify vacuum degassing as claimed in steps (vii)-(x) in the instant claim. However, applying vacuum degassing for interstitial free steel is a well-known technique as demonstrated by CN’021. CN’021 teaches manufacturing a clean steel with ultra-low carbon steel by recirculation degassing method gas desulphurization method (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’021). CN’021 indicates deep vacuum degassing; decarburization; slag forming; adding Al and blowing oxygen; (steps in page 5 of CN’021); which reads on the limitations in steps (vii)-(x) in the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is vacuum degassing for interstitial free steel, as demonstrated by CN’021 in the process of CN’285 in order to obtain a clean steel with ultra-low carbon steel. (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’021). CN’021 indicates deoxidizing (abstract and claims of CN’021); alloying (Page 10 of CN’021); and continuous casting (Page 10 of CN’021), which reads on the limitations in steps (xi) and (xii) of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 3-4, CN’285 indicates selecting waste steel, pig iron and other raw materials, wherein the raw material C content is 0.9 wt%, P content is 0.020 wt%, S content is 0.019 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of proportion of steel, pig iron and other raw materials as disclosed by CN’285 since CN’285 teaches the same manufacturing process for an interstitial free steel as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 10, CN’285 provides example including pre-deoxidization (par.[0010] of CN’285); adding calcium oxide, calcium fluoride, silicon dioxide in the process of slag forming; and automatically blowing argon based mixed gas. (Embodiments 1-3 of CN’285). CN’285 does not specify the ratio of CaO/SiO2 as claimed in the instant claim. CN’021 indicates adding Al to obtain 0.0002 wt% O; adding lime with CaO over 90% (embodiments 1-3 of CN’021), which reads on the claimed O amount and CaO/SiO2 ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the O amount and CaO/SiO2 ratio as demonstrated by CN’021 in the process of CN’285 in order to obtain a clean steel with ultra-low carbon steel. (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’021).
Regarding claim 11, CN’021 indicates including Al as alloy element (Page 8 step 3 of CN’021), which reads on the claimed alloying element as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, CN’021 indicates including lime material to form different slag with CO-CaF2 and/or CaO-Al2O3-SiO2 (Page 4 of CN’021), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights