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
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/079651 03/08/2022, with Foreign Application CHINA 202110955413.5 08/19/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 11-12 have been cancelled; The Applicant indicates Claim 10 has been withdrawn as non-elected claim; Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) the “step b“ on lines 13 and 15 should be amended as “step b)“; 2) the “step c“ on line 17 should be amended as “step c)“; 3) the “step d“ on line 20 should be amended as “step d)“ according to the discourses on lines 3-10; 4) the limitation of “blast furnace 1” on line 22 should be amended as “the blast furnace”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: since steps a)-d) already presented in the corresponding independent claim 1, 1) the steps a)-d) are suggested to be amended as c1)-c4) (all the steps in claim 2 are further limit for the step c) in claim 1); 2) “CO2” on line 8 should be amended as “CO2”; 3) it is noted that the limitation of “pressuring said untreated converter gas to 0.5 MPa-0.65 MPa via a gas pressurization unit” in step a) of the instant claim already be included in the corresponding independent claim 1 (lines 13-14), which should be deleted.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: since steps a)-b) already presented in the corresponding independent claim 1, the steps a)-b) are suggested to be amended as c5)-c6) (all the steps in claim 5 are further limit for the step c) in claim 1).
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 1-2, 5, and 8-9 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, Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein step b" in line 13 and line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since pressurization and desulphurization processes are listed in step c) not in step b) in the instant claim. proper amendment is necessary. Since claims 2, 5, and 8-9 depend on claim 1, these claims are also rejected.
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, 5, 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), and Zhang et al (CN 111979420 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’420).
Regarding claim 1, CN’937 teaches a manufacturing process for steel production with a blast furnace technology and converter gas recycling technology (Abstract, par.[0002], Figs.2-6, and claims of CN’937), which reads on the manufacturing process for steel production in a blast furnace and a converter based on carbon cycling. CN’937 teaches performing smelting reduction in a blast furnace for iron and steel production (Fig.7 and par.[0008] of CN’937), which reads on the step a) of the instant claim. CN’937 teaches including converter gas and coke oven gas (Fig.2-6 and par.[0032] of CN’937), which reads on the untreated converter gas as claimed in the step b) of the instant claim. CN’937 teaches applying converter gas pre-treatment with deoxidizing, dust removing CO2, SO2, mixing and pressure adjusting with pressure > 0.3MPa (par.[0004] and Figs.2-4 of CN’937), which reads on the synthesized and treated converter gas as claimed in the step c) in the instant claim and overlaps the claimed pressure range of 0.5-0.65 MPa as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in pressure range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the pressure from the disclosure of CN’937 since CN’937 teaches the same manufacturing process as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. CN’937 teaches introducing the furnace cylinder initial flow mixed into the blast furnace for reducing to improve the combustion heat value (par.[0005] of CN’937), which reads on the recycling the treated converter gas back into the blast furnace to regulate the ratio of reductive gases within the furnace atmosphere as claimed in the step d) in the instant claim. CN’937 specify 50-60% CO in the converter gas (par.[0002] of CN’937), which reads on the 40% or higher CO concentration as claimed in the instant claim. CN’937 teaches fuel reduction formula and the different temperature lower coefficient of excess of CO reducing FeO and Fe3O4 n-value (table 1 and par.[0012]-[0013] of CN’937), which overlap the claimed operation temperature range of 850-950oC and fuel ratio as claimed in the instant claim. It is noted that although CN’937 teaches applying converter gas pre-treatment with deoxidizing, dust removing CO2, SO2, mixing and pressure adjusting (par.[0004] and Figs.2-3 of CN’937), which reads on the pressurization, desulphurization, deoxygenation, decarbonization process for treated synthesis converter gas as claimed in the instant claim, but CN’937 does not specify the dehydration, denitrification, and detail parameters for desulphurization as claimed in the instant claim. CN’144 teaches a method for purifying converter gas production system and process, the converter gas removing impurity, deoxidizing, desulfurizing, dephosphorizing and decarburizing (Summary of the invention of CN’144); desulfurizing at temperature of 60oC with gas Sulphur content less than 0.1 ppm (Claims 4-5 and par.[0023]-[0024] of CN’144); and decarburization to obtain dehydrated refined gas to remove CO2, H2, N2, CO, and CH4 (Claim 6 and par.[0025]-[0026] of CN’144), which reads on the claimed dehydration, denitrification, and detail parameters for desulphurization as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply dehydration, denitrification, and detail parameters for desulphurization as claimed from the disclosures of CN’144 in the process of CN’937 since both CN’937 and CN’144 teaches the same method for purifying converter gas production system and process as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and CN’144 teaches refining tail gas to obtain beneficial effects (par.[0028]-[0030] of CN’144).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, CN’937 teaches deoxygenation to obtain 0.1 ppm (cl.3 of CN’937), which reads on the claimed oxygen content (cl.2). CN’144 further to remove sulphone and CO2 to obtain decarburized gas; decarbonizing gas to further remove CO2 by alcohol amine method decarburizing device, mechanical impurities and free liquid to obtain the purified coal gas dust content of the purified coal gas is less than 0.1 ppm (m %), total Sulphur content less than 0.1 ppm (m %), oxygen content is less than 30 ppm (v %). CO2 content is more than 20 ppm (v %), phosphine, hydrogen fluoride <0.1 ppm (v %), CO content in the purified coal gas is more than 60%. (cl.1 of CN’144), which reads on the claimed Sulphur content (cl.5) and overlapping the claimed efficiency of dehydration, decarbonization (cl.20) and efficiency of denitrification (cl.5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply dehydration, denitrification, and detail parameters for desulphurization with claimed efficiencies as claimed from the disclosures of CN’144 in the process of CN’937 since both CN’937 and CN’144 teaches the same method for purifying converter gas production system and process as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and CN’144 teaches refining tail gas to obtain beneficial effects (par.[0028]-[0030] of CN’144).
Regarding claim 8, CN’937 indicates that mixed gas injected into the blast furnace middle mixing gas spraying, the blast furnace soft blowing port is set with the following, several blowing surrounding furnace ring, the number of the blast furnace air-port number is equivalent to adjusting the blowing pressure greater than the blowing pressure, the mixed gas of blast furnace is equipped with central penetrating ability to jet. the purpose is to reduce the damage of the initial blast air flow of the mixed gas is sprayed. (par.[0004] of CN’937), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, CN’739 teaches applying combustion heating (par.[0008] of CN’937), which reads on the claimed combustion heating for blast furnace gas 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