DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US’406 (US 2004/0226406).
Regarding claim 5, US’406 teaches a refined molten iron ([0044]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 5. US’406 does not teach all the process limitations recited in claim 1. However, “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113 [R-9]. As there is no evidence that the refined molten iron disclosed by US’406 is different from the molten iron recited in claim 5, claim 5 is anticipated by US’406.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR’608 (KR2019-0011608A).
Regarding claim 5, KR’608 teaches a refined molten iron (Abstract), which meets the limitation recited in claim 5. KR’608 does not teach all the process limitations recited in claim 1. However, “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113 [R-9]. As there is no evidence that the refined molten iron disclosed by KR’608 is different from the molten iron recited in claim 5, claim 5 is anticipated by KR’608.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’406 (US 2004/0226406) in view of US’669 (US 2025/0034669), and further in view of KR’608 (KR2019-0011608A).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, US’406 teaches a method for refining molten iron through circulation of exhaust gas, the method comprising: preparing a raw material in the form of pellets, lumps or mixture thereof, and reducing the raw material through Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) processing ([0047] to [0057]), which meets the limitations preparing a raw material and reducing the raw material though direct reduction iron (DRI) processing.
US’406 discloses that DRI as a metallic charge and coke are fed to a blast furnace to form molten pig iron (Abstract; [0011]; [0043]; Fig. 1), which meets the limitation inputting a carbon material into the reduced raw material to perform melting and further reduction.
US’406 further discloses separating CO2 and H2O gas from exhaust gas generated in the Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) processing ([0016]; [0017]). US’406 discloses molten pig iron is further processed and converted into steel by adjusting carbon and other elements in pig iron and by blowing oxygen ([0044]), which meets the limitation performing decarbonization refining.
US’406 does not disclose removing CO2 and H2O gas in the melting and further reduction step. US’669 teaches a method of making a steel that is analogous to the method of US’406 (Abstract). US’669 discloses that CO2 and H2O are removed from direct reduction top gas and from blast furnace top gas so that the reducing gas can be used within steel making plant ([0044]; [0046]). Thus, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove CO2 and H2O from blast furnace top gas as taught by US’669 in the process of US’406 in order to use the blast furnace top gas as a reducing gas within steel making plant as disclosed by US’669.
US’406 discloses molten pig iron is further processed and converted into steel by adjusting carbon and other elements in pig iron and by blowing oxygen in a blast oxygen furnace and blast oxygen furnace gas (BOFG) containing CO and H2 generated during refining is collected and reused in the Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) processing ([0044]; [0047]).
US’406 in view of US’669 does not disclose performing decarbonization refining by blowing the collected CO2 and H2O gas into molten iron as recited in claim 1. KR’608 teaches a method of making a steel and discloses blowing oxygen and blowing CO2 and H2O gas into the metal melt for decarburization reaction in beneficial for improving the efficiency of decarburization reaction (Page 4 to Page 7). KR’608 further discloses that CO2 and H2O gas are byproduct gas generated during a steel making process and using the CO2 and H2O gas for oxidative refining reduces oxygen usage and carbon dioxide emission (page 4 and Page 8). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use CO2 and H2O gas recovered from the direct reduction top gas and the blast furnace top gas as taught by KR’608 in the process of US’406 in view of US’669 in order to improve the efficiency of decarburization reaction, reduce oxygen usage and CO2 emission as disclosed by KR’608.
Regarding claim 2, US’406 discloses that the pig iron can be produced using DRI as metallic charge in a blast furnace or in an electric arc furnace ([0011]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, US’406 discloses water is separated from the direct reduction top gas by condensation ([0054]), which is a physical adsorption.
US’669 discloses a CO2 separation by a Pressure Swing Adsorption Device ([0046]), which is also a physical adsorption.
Regarding claim 4, US’406 discloses blowing oxygen into the molten pig iron for oxidative refining ([0044]). KR’608 discloses that carbon dioxide and water vapor can replace part of the oxygen during oxidative refining process (Page 8), which meets the limitation recited in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
