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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Three (3) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 02/08/2024, 02/18/2025, and 07/09/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except as noted below. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
The IDS filed 02/08/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. See MPEP § 609.04(a)(II). Copies of the lined-through documents were not found in the file wrapper.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not include a figure that is mentioned in the specification. The specification refers to a Figure 2 showing a simulation of a steel sheet metal preform and sheet metal component resulting therefrom (para. [0034]), but there is no second figure in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it refers to a figure that does not exist. At para. [0034], the specification as originally filed refers to Figure 2, but there is no Figure 2 in the drawings. 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 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is indefinite due to lack of clarity. The claim recites that melting is conducted in a blast furnace. However, claim 14, on which claim 15 directly depends, recites that melting is conducted in an electrical reduction furnace. It is unclear whether the melting in claim 15 is conducted in both an electrical reduction furnace and a blast furnace, whether the blast furnace is a type of electrical reduction, or whether the blast furnace is meant to replace the electrical reduction furnace.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the claims are likewise rejected, as they include all limitations of rejected claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4,111,687 (A) to Syska (“Syska”).
Regarding claim 1, Syska discloses a process for the production of intermediate hot metal suitable for further refining into steel, the hot metal being molten iron (method for producing an iron melt). Abstract; col. 1, lines 7-11; col. 10, lines 23-33.
The method includes a step of subjecting iron ore to a direct reduction process to reduce the iron ore (reducing iron ore to sponge iron). FIG. 1 – 10, 46; col. 5, lines 67-68; col. 6, lines 1, 68; col. 7, lines 1-10. The reduced iron is carburized with CO (carburizing sponge iron with a carbonaceous gas). Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 7, lines 64-68; claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18. The reduced and carburized iron is melted, and scrap and additives are added to the melting unit (melting the carburized sponge iron and treating the melt produced from the carburized sponge iron). Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 6, lines 4-52. The metal leaving the melting unit can be further refined and superheated (also corresponds to treating the melt produced from the carburized sponge iron). FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 8, lines 29-36.
The off-gas (36), which is rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide and is from the melting unit, is introduced into the lower region (38) of the direct reduction furnace (10) (the carbonaceous gas is at least a portion of a process gas obtained in the at least one of the melting of the carburized sponge iron and treating of the melt produced from the carburized sponge iron that has been recycled). Abstract; col. 4, lines 45-57; col. 5, lines 37-42; col. 6, lines 52-63; col. 7, lines 55-57.
Regarding claim 2, Syska discloses that hydrogen is a reductant gas for reducing the ore (reduction is effected using a hydrogenous reduction gas). Col. 6, line 68; col. 7, lines 1-12.
Regarding claim 11, Syska discloses a process for the production of intermediate hot metal suitable for further refining into steel, the hot metal being molten iron (method for producing an iron melt). Abstract; col. 1, lines 7-11; col. 10, lines 23-33.
The method includes a step of subjecting iron ore to a direct reduction process to reduce the iron ore (reducing iron ore to sponge iron). FIG. 1 – 10, 46; col. 5, lines 67-68; col. 6, lines 1, 68; col. 7, lines 1-10. The reduced iron is carburized with CO (carburizing sponge iron with a carbonaceous gas). Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 7, lines 64-68; claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18. The reduced and carburized iron is melted, and scrap and additives are added to the melting unit (melting the carburized sponge iron and treating the melt produced from the carburized sponge iron). Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 6, lines 4-52.
The off-gas (36), which is rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide and is from the melting unit, is introduced into the lower region (38) of the direct reduction furnace (10) (the carbonaceous gas is of a process gas obtained in the melting of the carburized sponge iron and treating of the melt produced from the carburized sponge iron os the at least partially recycled carbonaceous gas used in the carburizing step). Abstract; col. 4, lines 45-57; col. 5, lines 37-42; col. 6, lines 52-63; col. 7, lines 55-57.
Regarding claim 12, Syska discloses that hydrogen is a reductant gas for reducing the ore (reduction is effected using a hydrogenous reduction gas). Col. 6, line 68; col. 7, lines 1-12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska, as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Syska discloses that reducing reactions are being performed over a range of temperatures. Col. 7, lines 34-38. For example, gases that enter the reduction furnace enter at temperatures of 800°F to 1600°F (~427°C to ~871°C) (col. 7, lines 12-40), which overlaps the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska, as applied to claims 2 and 12, respectively, above, and further in view of US 2021/0301359 (A1) to Astoria et al. (“Astoria”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Syska discloses that the melting unit (14) is a cupola melting unit. Abstract; col. 6, lines 4-15. Syska does not teach a melting unit that is an electrical reduction furnace.
Astoria is drawn to a direct reduction process that integrates a direct reduction iron (DRI) production step with a melting step. Abstract; para. [0002]. The process efficiently uses offgas from the melting step by recycling the offgas to different locations. Para. [0010], [0050]. The melting step takes place in a DRI melting furnace (12) having a controlled reducing environment. Para. [0046]. The DRI melting furnace also allows the slag to be separated from the metal. Para. [0042]. The DRI melting furnace can be an electric arc furnace. Para. [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented an electric arc furnace as the melting unit of Syska because the electric arc furnace is a known structure that is equally capable of predictably melting DRI, separating slag from molten metal, and providing offgas for reuse in the direct reduction process. Additionally, the electric arc furnace allows the user to control the pressure and environment of the melting process, permitting customization of the atmosphere and any additions/removals from the furnace.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2004/0226406 (A1) to Duarte-Escareno et al. (“Duarte-Escareno”).
Regarding claim 5, Syska discloses that the melting unit (14) is a cupola melting unit. Abstract; col. 6, lines 4-15. Syska does not teach a melting unit that is a blast furnace.
Duarte-Escareno is directed to an integrated steel plant comprising a blast furnace and coking plant. Para. [0001]. The chemical values of the gases produced by the blast furnace, among other furnaces in the plant, increase energy efficiency and decrease environmental impact to the atmosphere. Para. [0001], [0011]. In the process, iron ore is discharged to a reactor and moves downwardly by gravity through reducing gas. Para. [0052]. The direct reduction iron (DRI) is discharged from the reactor and charged to the blast furnace (14) to produce crude steel. Abstract; para. [0001], [0025], [0052]; Figure 1. Blast furnace gas is utilized as reducing gas for the direct reduction reactor. Para. [0020], [0036]. The capacity of steel production is increased without the need to increase the capacity of the blast furnace. Para. [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented a blast furnace as the melting unit of Syska because the blast furnace is a known structure that is equally capable of predictably melting DRI, producing crude metal for further processing, and providing gas for recycling through the process. Additionally, the integrated plant comprising the blast furnace allows for the higher output of metal without the need to increase the capacity of the coking plant and blast furnace.
Regarding claim 7, Syska discloses that off-gas may enter the reduction furnace at 1600°F-800°F (~871°C to ~427°C) (col. 7, lines 12-40), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Syska illustrates a shaft-shaped furnace (76, 112) through which iron ore passes in a vertical direction. FIGS. 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 9, Syska discloses that the prereduced metal may be cooled within or immediately upon its exit from the direct reducing furnace (sponge iron is cooled or heated in the lower portion of the shaft furnace). FIG. 2; col. 10, lines 56-60.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska in view of Duarte-Escareno, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2017/0009309 (A1) to Motamedhashemi (“Motamedhashemi”).
Regarding claim 6, Syska discloses that the prereduced metal may be cooled within or immediately upon its exit from the direct reducing furnace (FIG. 2; col. 10, lines 56-60), but does not specify that the CO (carbonaceous gas) is fed at a temperature below 100°C to cool the sponge iron.
Motamedhashemi is drawn to a method for producing direct reduced iron having increased carbon content. Abstract; para. [0002]. In the method, iron oxide is fed into a direct reduction (DR) furnace (28) and into a reduction zone (30). FIGS. 1-3. Carbon monoxide-rich gas is delivered to a transition zone (32) and/or cooling zone (34) of the direct reduction furnace and comes into contact with reduced iron oxide and deposits carbon to create Fe3C (carburized iron). Para. [0021], [0041]. The optional preheater (26) heats the CO-rich gas to 50-300°C (para. [0041]), which implies that the gas is less than 50°C when the heater is absent (carbonaceous gas fed in at a temperature below 100°C to cool the iron sponge). Cooling temperature is 20-50°C, for example. Para. [0021]. Cooling also improves carburization of reformed gas fed to the transition and cooling zone. Para. [0039], [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cooled the recycled CO gas of Syska to the temperatures disclosed in Motamedhashemi because the cool temperatures would help enhance the carburization step.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska in view of Duarte-Escareno, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 5,137,566 (A) to Stephens, Jr. et al. (“Stephens”).
Regarding claim 10, Syska does not teach reducing and carburizing in at least one fluidized bed reactor.
Stephens is directed to a process for producing iron carbide for the production of steel. Abstract. Iron ore is converted to iron carbide using fluidized bed units (reduction and carburization in at least one fluidized bed). Col. 3, lines 38-44; col. 4, lines 23-28; col. 6, lines 19-39; col. 11, lines 53-56. The fluidized bed is designed to ensure that gases are uniformly distributed throughout the fluidized bed. Col. 8, lines 37-44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used fluidized bed reactors in the reducing and carburizing steps of Syska because they promote uniform distribution between solids and fluids, thereby increasing interaction and reaction among the elements in the furnace.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska in view of Astoria, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Duarte-Escareno.
Regarding claim 15, Syska discloses that the melting unit (14) is a cupola melting unit. Abstract; col. 6, lines 4-15. Syska does not teach a melting unit that is a blast furnace.
Duarte-Escareno is directed to an integrated steel plant comprising a blast furnace and coking plant. Para. [0001]. The chemical values of the gases produced by the blast furnace, among other furnaces in the plant, increase energy efficiency and decrease environmental impact to the atmosphere. Para. [0001], [0011]. In the process, iron ore is discharged to a reactor and moves downwardly by gravity through reducing gas. Para. [0052]. The direct reduction iron (DRI) is discharged from the reactor and charged to the blast furnace (14) to produce crude steel. Abstract; para. [0001], [0025], [0052]; Figure 1. Blast furnace gas is utilized as reducing gas for the direct reduction reactor. Para. [0020], [0036]. The capacity of steel production is increased without the need to increase the capacity of the blast furnace. Para. [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented a blast furnace as the melting unit of Syska because the blast furnace is a known structure that is equally capable of predictably melting DRI, producing crude metal for further processing, and providing gas for recycling through the process. Additionally, the integrated plant comprising the blast furnace allows for the higher output of metal without the need to increase the capacity of the coking plant and blast furnace.
Regarding claim 17, Syska discloses that off-gas may enter the reduction furnace at 1600°F-800°F (~871°C to ~427°C) (col. 7, lines 12-40), which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syska in view of Astoria and Duarte-Escareno, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Motamedhashemi.
Regarding claim 16, Syska discloses that the prereduced metal may be cooled within or immediately upon its exit from the direct reducing furnace (FIG. 2; col. 10, lines 56-60), but does not specify that the CO (carbonaceous gas) is fed at a temperature below 100°C to cool the sponge iron.
Motamedhashemi is drawn to a method for producing direct reduced iron having increased carbon content. Abstract; para. [0002]. In the method, iron oxide is fed into a direct reduction (DR) furnace (28) and into a reduction zone (30). FIGS. 1-3. Carbon monoxide-rich gas is delivered to a transition zone (32) and/or cooling zone (34) of the direct reduction furnace and comes into contact with reduced iron oxide and deposits carbon to create Fe3C (carburized iron). Para. [0021], [0041]. The optional preheater (26) heats the CO-rich gas to 50-300°C (para. [0041]), which implies that the gas is less than 50°C when the heater is absent (carbonaceous gas fed in at a temperature below 100°C to cool the iron sponge). Cooling temperature is 20-50°C, for example. Para. [0021]. Cooling also improves carburization of reformed gas fed to the transition and cooling zone. Para. [0039], [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cooled the recycled CO gas of Syska to the temperatures disclosed in Motamedhashemi because the cool temperatures would help enhance the carburization step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights