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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 11-12 have been cancelled; Claims 1-2 and 5 have been amended; Claim 10 is withdrawn as non-elected claim; Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Claim Objections/Rejections
Previous objection of Claim 1 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 2 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 5 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9 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joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026.
Previo9u rejection of Claims 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 102643937 A, listed in IDS 10/23/2025, with on-line translation thereafter CN’937) in view of Guo et al (CN 109351144 A, listed in IDS 10/23/2025, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’144) and Zhang et al (CN 111979420 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’420) in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026.
However, in view of Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/14/2026, newly recorded reference(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has been listed as following:
Allowance Subject matter
Claim 5 includes allowable subject matter.
Claim 5 is still objected to as depending from rejected independent claim(s), but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since it is noted that the recorded prior art(s) does not specify the claimed denitrification efficiency of 90% or higher as claimed in the instant claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Smelting” on line 3; “Introduction” on line 4; “Subjecting” on line 6; and “Recycling” on line 9 should use low case.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Reducing” on line 6; “Achieving” on line 7; and “Achieving” on line 8 should use low case.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Reducing” on line 3 should use low case.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) the claim indictor is not correct since this claim is a claim has been withdrawn as non-elected claim; 2) “CO2” on line 3 and line 6 should be amended as “CO2”; 3) the limitation of “≤95%” should be amended as “≤ 95%”; 4) the limitation of “Carbon Capture Utilisation, and Storage” should use low case and be amended as “carbon capture utilization, and storage”.
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 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 102643937 A, listed in IDS 10/23/2025, with on-line translation thereafter CN’937) in view of Guo et al (CN 109351144 A, listed in IDS 10/23/2025, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’144).
Notes: Zhang et al (CN 111979420 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’420) is not actually applied to the instant claims—refer to the previous rejection dated 2/2/2026.
CN’937 in view of CN’144 is applied to the instant claims 1-2 and 8-9 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 2/2/2026.
Regarding the amended limitations in the instant claims 1-2, which do not change the claimed scope of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-2 and 8-9 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments have been summarized as following:
1, Zhang et al (CN 111979420 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’420) is related to the leaching process, which does not relate to instant invention.
2, A person skilled in the art (steel metallurgy process engineers) would not have easily arrived at the technical solution of the present invention prior to the priority date of 2021, based on Li et al (CN’937) in view of Guo et al (CN’144).
There is no motivation for combination (lack of technical inspiration)
The distinguishing features constitute unconventional optimization, not simple substitution or routine adjustment;
Achieving an unexpected technical effect, further demonstrating inventiveness: Through the aforementioned distinguishing features, the present invention achieves a reduction in the blast furnace fuel ratio to 433 kg/t (far below the levels achievable by conventional methods and Li), a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions, and a closed-loop CCUS system for the off-gas. This is an overall effect that could not have been foreseen by a simple combination of Li (which only improves reduction) and Guo (chemical purification); it constitutes an "unexpected technical effect" and meets the criteria for determining inventiveness set forth in the Examination Guidelines.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1, Zhang et al (CN 111979420 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’420) should not listed in the rejection and it is not actually applied to the instant claims—refer to the previous rejection dated 2/2/2026.
Regarding the argument 2, Firstly, as pointed out in the rejection for the instant claims in the previous office action dated 2/2/2026, Li et al (CN’937) in view of Guo et al (CN’144) teaches all of the essential manufacturing process steps including smelting, introducing molten iron; subjecting untreated converted gas; and recycling the treated converter gas as claimed in the instant claims; Secondly, both Li et al (CN’937) and Guo et al (CN’144) teaches the same method for purifying converter gas production system and process as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and Guo et al (CN’144) teaches refining tail gas to obtain beneficial effects (par.[0028]-[0030] of CN’144), which provide good motivation for combine Guo et al (CN’144) to Li et al (CN’937); Thirdly, the Applicant’s arguments the combined prior arts individually, one should not show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Li et al (CN’937) in view of Guo et al (CN’144) is applied to the instant claims 1-2 and 8-9. The reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for in the office action above and previous office actions dated 2/2/2026; Finally, It is noted that “a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions, and a closed-loop CCUS system for the off-gas” is not included in the instant claims. Applicant is suggested to provide proper data evidence (with proper 132 declaration) to show the criticality of the fuel ratio as argued.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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