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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of KR 10-2023-0066586 filed May 23, 2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claims Filed May 23, 2024 and Applicant’s Restriction Election filed July 30, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
May 23, 2024
Pending
1-11
Withdrawn
7-11
Under Examination
1-6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 5 “inputting a carbon material…to perform melting” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how inputting carbon material into reduced raw material performs melting. Applicant’s specification (and dependent claim 2) recites “melting…through electric smelting” (2:25-26) and the presence of a “melting unit” (3:20, 8:16-23). Therefore, for the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as inputting a carbon material and then performing melting.
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “melting…performed through electric smelting or by an electric smelter” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how melting being performed through an electric smelter is an alternative to melting performed by an electric smelter. It appears that in order to melt through electric smelting an electric smelter is necessary. In support, applicant’s specification discloses “melting…through electric smelting (electric smelter)” (2:25-26). Therefore, for the purpose of examination claim 2 will be interpreted as melting through electric smelting being the same as melting by an electric smelter.
Claims 5 lines 2-3 “a reduction behavior of a CO gas generation amount occurs” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if CO gas is required to be reduced and the generation that results from that reduction is claimed or if the reduction generates CO gas. For the purpose of examination claim 5 will be interpreted as supported by applicant’s specification at 7:1-10 in which the reduction during decarbonization refining generates CO gas.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a method for refining molten iron using DRI ([n0005], [n0024]), the method comprising:
preparing a raw material [n0006], [n0015]-[n0016], [n0034]-[n0036]);
reducing the raw material through a Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) process (fluidized bed obtains direct reduced iron) ([n0006], [n0017], [n0027], [n0037]-[n0039]);
inputting a carbon material (coke, pulverized coal) into the reduced raw material to perform melting and further reduction ([n0008], [n0019]-[n0021], [n0029], [n0049], [n0051]-[n0056]); and
separating and collecting CO2 gas from exhaust gas generated according to the input of the carbon material (smelting coal gas subjected to carbon dioxide separation) ([n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]).
Yao is silent to decarbonization refining.
Tang discloses a method for refining molten iron ([0002]), comprising
performing decarbonization (decarburization) refining by blowing CO2 gas into molten iron ([0013]-[0014], [0018]); and
determining (furnace gas composition analysis) whether the decarbonization (decarburization) refining is completed by measuring an amount of CO gas generated in the decarbonization (decarburization) refining (mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) ([0014], [0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the process of Yao to decarburize (decarbonize) the melted and reduced raw material as disclosed by Tang to produce clean steel (Tang [0002]), where using CO2 to achieve the low-carbon steel production reduces the oxygen content in the steel, which reduces the amount of alloy used and the types and quantities of inclusions in the molten steel, improving the quality of the molten steel (Tang [0013], [0039]). Furthermore, the decarburization (decarbonization) of Tang significantly reduces CO2 emissions, mitigating the greenhouse effect (Tang [0039]).
With respect to decarbonization blowing the separated and collected CO2 gas, Yao discloses reusing the separated carbon dioxide as chemical raw material (Yao [n0071]) and Tang discloses it is known in furnace operations of steelmaking to recover the gas and recycle the CO2 ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to use CO2 separated and collected from smelting (Yao [n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]) in decarbonization (decarburization) (Tang [0013]-[0014], [0008]) to reduce oxygen consumption (Tang [0011]), reduce over-oxidation, improving steel quality, reduce amount of deoxidizing alloy, and reduce CO2 emissions, mitigating the greenhouse effect (Tang [0039], [0066]) using a high degree of integration between the processes, resulting in high energy and resource utilization and low carbon emissions (Yao [n0024]).
The preamble recitation of the method “using hydrogen reduction DRI” has been considered and determined to not result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because both the claim and Yao reduce the raw material through a Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) process (fluidized bed obtains direct reduced iron) ([n0006], [n0017], [n0027], [n0037]-[n0039]) as recited in the body of the claim. The type of the direct reduction method in the actively recited process steps is not limited. A preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the steps of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above.
Yao discloses the melting and further reduction are performed through smelting or by a smelter (Yao [n0008], [n0019], [n0024], [n0029], [n0049]-[n0055]).
Yao is silent to electric smelting or an electric smelter.
Tang discloses electric smelting or an electric smelter ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the process of Yao to use electric smelting or an electric smelter to reduce iron loss during smelting, lower product costs, and reduce oxygen consumption (Tang [0007]), while also reducing the amount of alloy used and the types and quantities of inclusions in the molten steel, improving the quality of the molten steel (Tang [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the determining of whether the decarbonization refining is completed is achieved based on a location at which a reduction behavior of a CO gas generation amount occurs (furnace gas composition analysis system computer issues control commands based on the carbon content requirements of the specific clean steel product based on a formula that includes the mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) (Tang [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the determining of whether the decarbonization refining is completed comprises performing further refining if the decarbonization refining is completed, and performing the decarbonization refining again if the decarbonization refining is not completed (furnace gas composition analysis system computer issues control commands based on the carbon content requirements of the specific clean steel product based on a formula that includes the mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) (Tang [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gauthier (US 6,126,717).
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above.
Yao discloses carbon separation by any process well known to those skilled in the art ([n0059]).
Gauthier discloses a method for refining molten iron (2:45-48, 3:15-16) wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas are performed through physical adsorption or chemical absorption (PSA, Pressure Swing Adsorption) (1:56-61, 3:64-4:4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to perform the carbon separation of Yao by the process known to Gauthier of physical adsorption for a high Co2/CO selectivity, which leads to a high output in which desorption is easy and productivity is improved (Gauthier 5:24-31)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connors (US 2015/0176095).
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas comprise collecting CO2 mixed gas (Yao [n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]).
Yao in view of Tang is silent to O2 in the mixed gas.
Connors discloses a method for refining molten iron ([0003]-[0004]) wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas comprises collecting CO2 and O2 mixed gas (collecting a blast air that comprises oxygen and carbon dioxide) ([0005], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Tang for the collected CO2 to include O2 because it is part of the constituents of the blast (refining) furnace (Connors [0027]) that is mixed with the combustion products that include carbon dioxide gas (Connors[0037]) during refining using oxygen (Connors [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Pavlicevic (US 2002/002880) and Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the preamble recitation of the method “using hydrogen reduction DRI” further limits the method of claim 1, then the following rejection in view of Pavlicevic is applied.
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a method for refining molten iron using DRI ([n0005], [n0024]), the method comprising:
preparing a raw material [n0006], [n0015]-[n0016], [n0034]-[n0036]);
reducing the raw material through a Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) process (fluidized bed obtains direct reduced iron) ([n0006], [n0017], [n0027], [n0037]-[n0039]);
inputting a carbon material (coke, pulverized coal) into the reduced raw material to perform melting and further reduction ([n0008], [n0019]-[n0021], [n0029], [n0049], [n0051]-[n0056]); and
separating and collecting CO2 gas from exhaust gas generated according to the input of the carbon material (smelting coal gas subjected to carbon dioxide separation) ([n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]).
Yao is silent to the DRI method using hydrogen reduction.
Pavlicevic discloses a method for refining molten iron ([0001], [0011]) using hydrogen reduction DRI ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention for DRI process of Yao to include hydrogen to increase the reducing capability of the atmosphere, which prevents Fe in the DRI from being reoxidized to FeO and/or helps to reduce FeO in the DRI to Fe (Pavlicevic [0022]).
Yao is silent to decarbonization refining.
Tang discloses a method for refining molten iron ([0002]), comprising
performing decarbonization (decarburization) refining by blowing CO2 gas into molten iron ([0013]-[0014], [0018]); and
determining (furnace gas composition analysis) whether the decarbonization (decarburization) refining is completed by measuring an amount of CO gas generated in the decarbonization (decarburization) refining (mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) ([0014], [0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the process of Yao in view of Pavlicevic to decarburize (decarbonize) the melted and reduced raw material as disclosed by Tang to produce clean steel (Tang [0002]) by using CO2 to achieve the low-carbon steel production while reducing the oxygen content in the steel, which reduces the amount of alloy used and the types and quantities of inclusions in the molten steel, improving the quality of the molten steel (Tang [0013], [0039]). Furthermore, the decarburization (decarbonization) of Tang significantly reduces CO2 emissions, mitigating the greenhouse effect (Tang [0039]).
With respect to decarbonization blowing the separated and collected CO2 gas, Yao discloses reusing the separated carbon dioxide as chemical raw material (Yao [n0071]) and Tang discloses it is known in furnace operations of steelmaking to recover the gas and recycle the CO2 ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to use CO2 separated and collected from smelting (Yao [n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]) in decarbonization (decarburization) (Tang [0013]-[0014], [0008]) to reduce oxygen consumption (Tang [0011]), reduce over-oxidation, improving steel quality, reduce amount of deoxidizing alloy, and reduce CO2 emissions, mitigating the greenhouse effect (Tang [0039], [0066]) using a high degree of integration between the processes, resulting in high energy and resource utilization and low carbon emissions (Yao [n0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above.
Yao discloses the melting and further reduction are performed through smelting or by a smelter (Yao [n0008], [n0019], [n0024], [n0029], [n0049]-[n0055]).
Yao is silent to electric smelting or an electric smelter.
Tang discloses an electric smelting or an electric smelter ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the process of Yao in view of Pavlicevic to use electric smelting or an electric smelter to reduce iron loss during smelting, lower product costs, and reduce oxygen consumption (Tang [0007]), while also reducing the amount of alloy used and the types and quantities of inclusions in the molten steel, improving the quality of the molten steel (Tang [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the determining of whether the decarbonization refining is completed is achieved based on a location at which a reduction behavior of a CO gas generation amount occurs (furnace gas composition analysis system computer issues control commands based on the carbon content requirements of the specific clean steel product based on a formula that includes the mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) (Tang [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the determining of whether the decarbonization refining is completed comprises performing further refining if the decarbonization refining is completed, and performing the decarbonization refining again if the decarbonization refining is not completed (furnace gas composition analysis system computer issues control commands based on the carbon content requirements of the specific clean steel product based on a formula that includes the mole fraction of CO in furnace gas) (Tang [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027]-[0038]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Pavlicevic (US 2002/002880) and Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gauthier (US 6,126,717).
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above.
Yao discloses carbon separation by any process well known to those skilled in the art ([n0059]).
Gauthier discloses a method for refining molten iron (2:45-48, 3:15-16) wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas are performed through physical adsorption or chemical absorption (1:56-61, 3:64-4:4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to perform the carbon separation of Yao by the process known to Gauthier of physical adsorption for a high output in which desorption is easy and productivity is improved (Gauthier 5:24-31)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115976323 machine translation) in view of Pavlicevic (US 2002/002880) and Tang (CN 102146493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connors (US 2015/0176095).
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang discloses the method of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas comprise collecting CO2 mixed gas (Yao [n0009], [n0030], [n0042], [n0059]).
Yao in view of Pavlicevic and Tang is silent to O2 in the mixed gas.
Connors discloses a method for refining molten iron ([0003]-[0004]) wherein the separating and collecting of the CO2 gas comprises collecting CO2 and O2 mixed gas (collecting a blast air that comprises oxygen and carbon dioxide) ([0005], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Tang for the collected CO2 to include O2 because it is part of the constituents of the blast (refining) furnace (Connors [0027]) that is mixed with the combustion products that include carbon dioxide gas (Connors[0037]) during refining using oxygen (Connors [0004]-[0005]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/672,483 (App ‘483, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App ‘483 discloses refining molten iron by DRI, inputting carbon material and melting by an electric smelter (claim 2), separating and collecting CO2 by physical adsorption or chemical absorption (claim 3), which further comprises O2 (claim 4), decarbonization, and determining completeness by measuring CO gas (claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Related Art
GB ‘923 (GB 1412923)
GB ‘923 discloses refining pig iron (1:11-14) that is controlled by observation of the emission spectrum and analysis of the exhaust gases leaving the converter (1:15-30) including determining of the CO content (1:39-73) to produced steel of the desired quality (1:74-79).
Sherwood (US 5,542,963)
Sherwood discloses manufacture of iron using an integrated process for direct iron and steelmaking (1:3-5) by maintain a gas-solid reaction zone within a reduction reactor, supplying heat by combustion to produce CO2 to melt and form liquid metallic iron, exhausting top gas containing CO2, recycling enriched gas, and discharge liquid metallic iron (2:7-60). In Sherwood carbon is added for melting and reaction with the metallic iron (3:21-40) and the top gas undergoes extensive scrubbing and chemical procedures to remove CO2 (4:40-47).
Kawashima (JP H01-142012 machine translation)
Kawashima discloses refining molten steel including decarbonization (p. 1) by measuring and estimating the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) in the exhaust gas continuously, such that decarbonization is stopped when the components reach predetermined concentrations (pp. 2-3).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
