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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024, 12/19/2024, 09/03/2025, 01/14/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 28 recites “certain grade materials“ inline 2-3 and then “certain grade ores“, Applicant interprets this as a typographical error, they will be same either “certain grade materials“ or “certain grade ores“.
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.
Claim 10-28 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 10 recites the limitation "the manufacturing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a certain grade ores" in line 2, renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is “certain grade ores”, specification also does not provide any definition or any indication what is certain grade ores.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “lower grade raw materials lower than the certain grade ores”, in line 3, “lower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower grade raw materials” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because it is unclear which degree of grade will consider as lower grade.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "certain grade materials" in line 2, renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is “certain grade materials”, specification also does not provide any definition or any indication what is certain grade ores.
Claim 28 also recites the limitation “lower grade raw ores than the certain grade ores”, in line 3, “lower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower grade ores” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because it is unclear which degree of grade of raw ores will consider as lower grade.
Claim 28 recites the limitation " the certain grade ores" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 11-28 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 10.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 19 and 28 recite the limitation "a certain grade ores" and the limitation “lower grade raw materials lower than the certain grade ores”, as these limitations are not clear, Examiner interprets these claim limitation as the direct reduced iron is heated to a claimed temperature range, and any prior art teaches the direct reduced iron is heated to a claimed temperature would meet the claimed limitation.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian Boehm, et.al. [US20130032005 A1] (provided in the IDS) (Boehm hereafter) and further in view of Wolfgang Eder, et.al. [US20150259760A1] (provided in the IDS) (Eder hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, Boehm discloses a process for the manufacturing of hot briquetted iron from direct reduced iron (manufacturing of hot briquetted iron (HBI) from direct reduced iron (DRI) and the DRI is delivered as hot briquetted iron (HBI) to a consumer, see Boehm’s [0083]), the process comprising:
direct reducing iron ore in a reactor by a reducing gas to produce direct reduced iron (oxidic iron carriers 1 are reduced in a direct reduction shaft 2 (reactor) with a fixed bed by a reduction gas 3 to form direct reduced iron (DRI), (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), reduction gas is the gas with the aid of which the oxidic iron carriers are reduced, while itself being oxidized (see Boehm’s [0076]), wherein the oxidic iron carriers containing iron oxide, ore, bentonite, scale, etc. (see Boehm’s [0007]-[0014]), and iron contained in the metallurgical residual materials leads to a saving on iron ore, see Boehm’s [0067]);
discharging the direct reduced iron to at least one briquetting press where briquettes are pressed from the direct reduced iron (after forming the DRI, it is being passing through a compaction device 4, the DRI is delivered as hot briquetted iron (HBI) to a consumer, see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1); and
the direct reduced iron after leaving the reactor and before briquetting being heated to a target briquetting temperature, (top gas extracted from the direct reduction shaft 2 has its dust load removed in a dedusting device 10, and undersized material formed in the HBI screening device 8 downstream of the compaction device 4, mixed with residual materials from a steelworks 9, metalized Fe fines and scale, and with sludge 19 from the dedusting device 10 (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), and the mixture is kneaded intensively in a kneading device 13 and the kneaded mixture is then delivered to a pressing device 14 (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), the mixture is heated during the kneading process, see Boehm’s [00079]), and heating of the mixture during the kneading process has positive effects in respect of a significantly increased point pressure strength, see Boehm’s [0080], tests No. 1 and No. 4 in Table 1).
Boehm is silent about the reducing gas consisting of natural gas and/or hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide.
However, Eder discloses a process for the manufacturing of hot briquetted iron from direct reduced iron (manufacturing of direct reduced iron (DRI) and hot briquetted iron (HBI), see Eder’s [0001]-[0002]), comprising direct reducing iron ore by a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide to produce direct reduced iron (Iron reduction (hematite, iron (III)) oxide is carried out by means of carbon monoxide and/or hydrogen, see Eder’s [0032]-[0035]).
Eder discloses the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system and it is also possible to switch to purely carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows (for example natural gas, biogas, gas from pyrolysis, renewable resources) (see Eder’s [0015]). Eder further discloses carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gases such as natural gas and a use of hydrogen can be optimally carried out only with sufficiently renewable electrical power (see Eder’s [0041]). This advantageously yields the optimal potential uses of regenerative energy since this energy can be used continuously as a function of the availability of the corresponding form of energy and the remaining energy that is lacking can be supplemented as needed by means of other energy carriers. It is thus possible to reduce the emission of CO2 to the minimum possible through the use of regenerative energy sources (see Eder’s [0042]).
Eder is in the same field of producing DRI and/or HBI and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, and Boehm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Eder’s teachings of reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide for reducing to produce direct reduced iron to modify Boehm’s reducing gas in the Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, with an efficient use of energy and reducing the emission of CO2 to the minimum possible.
Regarding claim 11, all the above discussions regarding claim 10 are applicable to claim 11, in addition, Boehm discloses recovering fines after briquetting downstream of the briquetting press and heated to a target briquetting temperature before being reintroduced to the briquetting press (after passing through a compaction device 4, the DRI is delivered as hot briquetted iron (HBI) to a consumer, an undersized material 7, which is formed in the HBI screening device 8 downstream of the compaction device 4, (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), is mixed with residual materials from a steelworks 9, (in this case metalized Fe fines, obtained after screening from a direct reduction shaft, a fine-grained metalized iron (Fe), see Boehm’s [0067]) and with sludge 19 made from the recovered dust of the dedusting device 10, in the mixing device 6, and the kneaded mixture is then delivered (reintroduced) to a pressing device 14, (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), the mixture is heated during the kneading process, (see Boehm’s [00079])).
Boehm further discloses a comparison of tests No. 1 and No. 4 in Table 1 shows that heating the mixture during the kneading process has positive effects in respect of a significantly increased point pressure strength, see Boehm’s [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Boehm’s teachings of heating fines mixtures before reintroducing to the briquetting press for having a positive effects in respect of a significantly increased point pressure strength.
Regarding claim 15, all the above discussions regarding claim 11 are applicable to claim 15, wherein Boehm discloses the direct reduced iron and the fines are mixed together and heated together after mixing (after passing through a compaction device 4, an undersized material 7 (fines) which is formed in the HBI screening device 8 downstream of the compaction device 4, (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), is mixed with residual materials from a steelworks 9, (in this case metalized Fe fines, material obtained after screening, from a direct reduction shaft (DRI), a fine-grained metalized iron (Fe), see Boehm’s [0067]) and with sludge 19 made from the recovered dust of the dedusting device 10, in the mixing device 6 (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1), and the mixture is heated during the kneading process, (see Boehm’s [00079])).
Boehm further discloses a comparison of tests No. 1 and No. 4 in Table 1 shows that heating the mixture during the kneading process has positive effects in respect of a significantly increased point pressure strength, see Boehm’s [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Boehm’s teachings of heating fines mixtures before reintroducing to the briquetting press for having a positive effects in respect of a significantly increased point pressure strength.
Claims 12-14 and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian Boehm, et.al. [US20130032005A1] (provided in the IDS) (Boehm hereafter) and in view of Wolfgang Eder, et.al. [US20150259760A1] (provided in the IDS) (Eder hereafter), as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Todd Michael Astoria, et.al. [US20210301360A1] (provided in the IDS) (Astoria hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, all the above discussions regarding claim 11 are applicable to claim 12, wherein Boehm already discloses fines are heated (in order to produce compacts, the mixture is heated during the kneading process, specially using indirect heating through the housing of the kneading mechanism, see Boehm’s [0049], [00079]).
But Boehm is silent about the induction heating.
Eder is also silent about the induction heating.
However, Astoria discloses a direct reduction process utilizing electric heating to the DRI prior to metallic iron processing following the reduction process, (see Astoria’s [0002]), wherein the processing can be at least one of a briquetting machine, and a hot compaction equipment (see Astoria’s [0009]). Astoria then discloses heating direct reduced iron and sources of direct reduced iron using induction heating (a method of heating direct reduced iron between a direct reduced iron source and processing equipment for the direct reduced iron, comprises providing a conduit heater assembly between the direct reduced iron source and the processing equipment (see Astoria’s Abstract) to maintain HDRI temperature through the use of an induction heating means arranged on the feed legs either as, e.g., a supplemental design, or as a replacement feed leg design, (see Astoria’s [0007])).
Astoria further discloses induction heating allows the HDRI to be heated without concern for introducing or managing gas flows for heat transfer. Induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant and electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]). Astoria discloses custom designed and arranged inductive coils advantageously heat the feed leg material, as well as the DRI, adding a radiative and conductive heat transfer component to the DRI stream. The induction field magnetic flux can be designed to match the feed leg geometry and mass flow rate in each plant to achieve optimal penetration into the DRI, while avoiding incipient melting at pellet surfaces that could lead to cluster formation or solid build-up on the feed leg walls (see Astoria’s [0021]).
Astoria is in the same field of producing DRI and/or HBI and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, and Boehm as well as Eder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to combine with Boehm’s process in view of Eder, for manufacturing of HBI, for having most cost effective and efficient energy sources for heating as well as achieving optimal penetration into the DRI, while avoiding cluster formation or solid build-up on the feed leg walls.
Regarding claim 13, all the above discussions regarding claim 10 are applicable to claim 13, but Boehm is silent about the direct reduced iron is heated by induction heating.
Eder is also silent about the direct reduced iron is heated by induction heating.
However, Astoria discloses a direct reduction process utilizing electric heating to the DRI prior to metallic iron processing following the reduction process, (see Astoria’s [0002]), wherein the processing can be at least one of a briquetting machine, and a hot compaction equipment (see Astoria’s [0009]). Astoria then discloses heating direct reduced iron and sources of direct reduced iron using induction heating (a method of heating direct reduced iron between a direct reduced iron source and processing equipment for the direct reduced iron, comprises providing a conduit heater assembly between the direct reduced iron source and the processing equipment (see Astoria’s Abstract) to maintain HDRI temperature through the use of an induction heating means arranged on the feed legs either as, e.g., a supplemental design, or as a replacement feed leg design, (see Astoria’s [0007])).
Astoria further discloses induction heating allows the HDRI to be heated without concern for introducing or managing gas flows for heat transfer. Induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant and electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]). Astoria discloses custom designed and arranged inductive coils advantageously heat the feed leg material, as well as the DRI, adding a radiative and conductive heat transfer component to the DRI stream. The induction field magnetic flux can be designed to match the feed leg geometry and mass flow rate in each plant to achieve optimal penetration into the DRI, while avoiding incipient melting at pellet surfaces that could lead to cluster formation or solid build-up on the feed leg walls (see Astoria’s [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to combine with Boehm’s process in view of Eder, for manufacturing of HBI, for having most cost effective and efficient energy sources for heating as well as achieving optimal penetration into the DRI, while avoiding cluster formation or solid build-up on the feed leg walls.
Regarding claim 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 11 are applicable to claim 14, but both Boehm and Eder are silent about the direct reduced iron and the fines are heated separately.
However, Astoria discloses in FIG. 3 (see Astoria’s FIG. 3) a method of heating direct reduced iron between a direct reduced iron source and processing equipment for the direct reduced iron, (see Astoria’s [0033], FIG. 3). Astoria discloses in general, HDRI is produced by reducing iron oxide pellets, lumps and/or agglomerates in a DR shaft furnace or by reheating cold DRI pellets, lumps and/or agglomerates in a DRI reheating furnace. In an exemplary Astoria’s FIG. 3, Astoria discloses HDRI can be received in HDRI feed bins A, B or more may be employed. HDRI feed bins A, B may be surge bins receiving the flow of the HDRI therein with slide gates 62 employed to control the HDRI flow to ducts 64 receiving the flow of HDRI from the HDRI (see Astoria’s [0034], FIG. 3). Astoria further teaches the HDRI flowing out of the rotary feeder 66 can enter feed leg heating apparatus/ feed conduit heater assembly 20', which is similar to the feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 of FIG. 1 (see Astoria’s [0034], FIG. 3). With all these teachings of Astoria, specially using two separate feed bins A, B and two separate heater assembly can be employed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have different materials in different feed bins, i.e. the direct reduced iron and the fines would have supplied separately and are heated separately, as shown in FIG. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of two or more separate bin to modify Boehm’s process in view of Eder for manufacturing of HBI, for supplying and heating different material in the different heating conduit as required by the intended use.
Regarding claim 16, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 16, but Boehm and Eder are silent about the induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the direct reduced iron to the briquetting press.
However, Astoria discloses the induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the direct reduced iron to the briquetting press (as shown in Astoria’s FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, a method of heating direct reduced iron between a direct reduced iron source and processing equipment for the direct reduced iron, (see Astoria’s [0033], FIG. 1 and 3), the processing equipment can be a briquetting machine, and a hot compaction equipment (see Astoria’s [0009]). A feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 configured especially for the feed leg to briquetter (briquetting machine). Assembly 20 comprises an insulated outer pipe 22 and an inner feed leg pipe 24 (duct or channel) located inside the insulated outer pipe 22 for receiving a HDRI flow 26, as shown in FIG. 1. Thus, assembly 20 is constructed as concentric pipes to allow the internal pipe 24, which is the actual feeding conduit, to advantageously be made of a heat and corrosion resistant alloy for transporting the HDRI. The assembly 20 further includes a heating element, as shown in FIG. 1 as affixed to an outer perimeter of the inner feed pipe 24 to provide the magnetic flux need to inductively heat the HDRI and a dedicated power supply or source 32 tuned to a desired and optimal frequency to provide the desired material to be heating (see Astoria’s [0027]). Astoria further teaches feed leg heating apparatus/ feed conduit heater assembly 20', which is similar to the feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 of FIG. 1 (see Astoria’s [0034], FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the direct reduced iron to the briquetting press to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI in view of Eder, for providing required magnetic flux need to inductively heat the HDRI to a desired portion and thus an optimal frequency to provide desired heating.
Regarding claim 17, all the above discussions regarding claim 12 are applicable to claim 17, wherein Boehm discloses conveying the fines to the briquetting press, (see Boehm’s [0083], FIG.1).
But Boehm is silent about the induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel.
Eder also is silent about the induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the fines to the briquetting press.
However, Astoria discloses the induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the material to the briquetting press (as shown in Astoria’s FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, a method of heating direct reduced iron between a direct reduced iron source and processing equipment for the direct reduced iron, (see Astoria’s [0033], FIG. 1 and 3), the processing equipment can be a briquetting machine, and a hot compaction equipment (see Astoria’s [0009]). A feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 configured especially for the feed leg to briquetter (briquetting machine). Assembly 20 comprises an insulated outer pipe 22 and an inner feed leg pipe 24 (duct or channel) located inside the insulated outer pipe 22 for receiving a HDRI flow 26, as shown in FIG. 1. Thus, assembly 20 is constructed as concentric pipes to allow the internal pipe 24, which is the actual feeding conduit, to advantageously be made of a heat and corrosion resistant alloy for transporting the HDRI. The assembly 20 further includes a heating element, as shown in FIG. 1 as affixed to an outer perimeter of the inner feed pipe 24 to provide the magnetic flux need to inductively heat the HDRI and a dedicated power supply or source 32 tuned to a desired and optimal frequency to provide the desired material to be heating (see Astoria’s [0027]). Astoria further teaches feed leg heating apparatus/ feed conduit heater assembly 20', which is similar to the feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 of FIG. 1 (see Astoria’s [0034], FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating is positioned around a duct or channel conveying the direct reduced iron to the briquetting press to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI in view of Eder, for providing required magnetic flux need to inductively heat the HDRI to a desired portion and thus an optimal frequency to provide desired heating.
Regarding claim 18, all the above discussions regarding claim 10 are applicable to claim 18, but both Boehm and Eder are silent about the direct reduced iron is heated to a temperature above 700°C.
However, Astoria discloses Hot Direct Reduced iron (HDRI) is distributed at about 700-750°C via insulated steel conduits or feed legs from a DRI furnace to a briquetting machines to form hot briquetted iron (HBI), (see Astoria’s [0003], [0009]) and therefore, optimizing the HDRI temperature near a certain range helps avoid decomposition of cementite into graphitic carbon (see Astoria’s [0006]) and Astoria’s induction heating advantageously help to 1) overcome the heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters; and 2) achieve and/or retain the desired level of carbon in HBI (see Astoria’s [0007]).
Therefore, Astoria’s heating temperature is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected heating temperature from the teachings of Astoria that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges, lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to maintain a certain temperature of the direct reduced iron to modify Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, in view of Eder, for overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters and achieving and/or retaining the desired level of carbon in HBI.
Regarding claim 19, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 19, but Boehm is silent about the direct reduced iron is heated to a temperature between 700 and 750°C when processing certain grade ores during conventional operation and between 750 and 800°C when using lower grade raw materials lower than the certain grade ores or operating in a hybrid mode of operation with hydrogen.
However, Eder discloses the direct reduced iron is heated and operating in a hybrid mode of operation with hydrogen (a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide to produce direct reduced iron (see Eder’s [0032]-[0035]) and the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system and it is also possible to switch to purely hydrogen-containing gas flows (see Eder’s [0015])). Eder further discloses this advantageously yields the optimal potential uses of regenerative energy and to reduce the emission of CO2 (see Eder’s [0042]).
But Eder is also silent about heated to a temperature between 700 and 750°C when processing certain grade ores during conventional operation and between 750 and 800°C when using lower grade raw materials lower than the certain grade ores.
However, Astoria discloses the direct reduced iron is heated to a temperature between 700 and 750°C when processing certain grade ores and between 750 and 800°C when using lower grade raw materials lower than the certain grade ores or operating in a hybrid mode of operation with hydrogen (Hot Direct Reduced iron (HDRI) is distributed at about 700-750°C via insulated steel conduits or feed legs from a DRI furnace to briquetting machines to form hot briquetted iron (HBI), (see Astoria’s [0003]) and therefore, optimizing the HDRI temperature near a certain range helps avoid decomposition of cementite into graphitic carbon (see Astoria’s [0006]) and Astoria’s induction heating advantageously solved 1) overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters; and 2) help achieve and/or retain the desired level of carbon in HBI (see Astoria’s [0007]) and using a new design for the HDRI surge bin discharge, advantageous to: 1) reheat HDRI (bring HDRI back to about 700°-750°C.); and 2) preheat material to a higher level (e.g., about 1000° C.) for melter charging, (see Astoria’s [0008])). Astoria further teaches as a secondary effect, by maintaining the HDRI temperature at about 700°C. or above, it can be advantageous to introduce a carburizing gas stream counterflow to the HDRI, which may be useful to "polish" the carbon level with up to about 0.1 % C addition (residence time limitations). The temperature of the carburizing gas stream may be, e.g., between about 700°C to 950°C or above, or any other suitable temperature to maintain the desired HDRI temperature. The HDRI will thus be delivered at optimal temperature to the hot briquetters to form high quality briquettes (see Astoria’s [0022]).
Astoria’s heating temperature are overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected heating temperature from the teachings of Astoria that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges, overlaps and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to maintain a certain temperature of the direct reduced iron to modify Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, in view of Eder, for overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters and for achieving and/or retaining the desired level of carbon in HBI.
Regarding claim 20, and 21, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 20 and 21, but Boehm is silent about the induction heating is powered by a sustainable energy.
Astoria discloses induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant; electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]).
But Astoria is also silent about the induction heating is powered by a sustainable energy.
However, Eder discloses heating is powered by a sustainable energy (the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system (see Eder’s [0015]) and an electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis. Preferably at the site of the production of the hydrogen, a direct reduction system is operated, which is used for reducing iron ores, which are likewise preferably prepared with electrical energy produced in this way. Operating a corresponding electrical furnaces likewise particularly preferably using only energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy, succeeds in achieving a CO2-free steel production, see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
With respect claim 21, Eder’s the sustainable energy is from wind or solar energy (electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Eder’s teachings of renewable energy to produce electrical energy and Astoria’s teachings of induction heating employs electrical energy to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, for having the most cost effective and efficient energy sources as well as electrical energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy for achieving a CO2-free steel and iron production.
Regarding claim 22, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 22, but Boehm is silent about the induction heating is powered by energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore.
Astoria discloses induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant; electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]).
But Astoria is also silent about the induction heating is powered by energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore.
However, Eder discloses heating powered by electrical energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore (direct reducing iron ore by a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide to produce direct reduced iron (Iron reduction (hematite, iron (III)) oxide is carried out by means of carbon monoxide and/or hydrogen, (see Eder’s [0032]-[0035]), the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system (see Eder’s [0015]) and an electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis (see Eder’s FIG.1). Preferably at the site of the production of the hydrogen, a direct reduction system is operated, which is used for reducing iron ores-which are likewise preferably prepared with electrical energy produced in this way. The intermediate product obtained in this way is an ideal way to store this regenerative energy, can be stored until it is used, and is accessible via any form of transportation to a system for processing it further, particularly when it is needed there. In particular, this intermediate product can be produced at its production site in large quantities that exceed the present requirement-when the corresponding electrical energy is available in sufficient quantity. If this energy is not available, then there are sufficient quantities of the intermediate product and thus also of the energy in order to be able to meet the need. Operating a corresponding electrical arc, likewise particularly preferably using only energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy, succeeds in achieving a CO2-free steel production, see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Eder’s teachings of electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis and Astoria’s teachings of induction heating employs electrical energy to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, for having an ideal way to store this regenerative energy, and easily accessible via any form of transportation to a system for processing further, particularly when it is needed.
Regarding claim 23, and 24, all the above discussions regarding claim 12 are applicable to claim 23 and 24, Boehm is silent about the induction heating is powered by a sustainable energy.
Astoria discloses induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant; electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]).
But Astoria is also silent about the induction heating is powered by a sustainable energy.
However, Eder discloses heating is powered by a sustainable energy (the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system (see Eder’s [0015]) and an electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis. Preferably at the site of the production of the hydrogen, a direct reduction system is operated, which is used for reducing iron ores, which are likewise preferably prepared with electrical energy produced in this way. Operating a corresponding electrical furnaces likewise particularly preferably using only energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy, succeeds in achieving a CO2-free steel production, see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
With respect claim 24, Eder’s the sustainable energy is from wind or solar energy (electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Eder’s teachings of renewable energy to produce electrical energy and Astoria’s teachings of induction heating employs electrical energy to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, for having the most cost effective and efficient energy sources as well as electrical energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy for achieving a CO2-free steel and iron production.
Regarding claim 25, all the above discussions regarding claim 12 are applicable to claim 25, but Boehm is silent about the induction heating is powered by energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore.
Astoria discloses induction heating employs electrical energy, one of the most cost effective and efficient energy sources in the plant; electrical power is directly converted to thermal power with high efficiency (see Astoria’s [0020]).
But Astoria is also silent about the induction heating is powered by energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore.
However, Eder discloses heating powered by electrical energy from solid oxide fuel cells, wherein hydrogen used for the fuel cells is from a same source as the hydrogen used for the direct reduction of the iron ore (direct reducing iron ore by a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide to produce direct reduced iron (Iron reduction (hematite, iron (III)) oxide is carried out by means of carbon monoxide and/or hydrogen, (see Eder’s [0032]-[0035]), the hydrogen from the regenerative processes can be used with carbon-containing or hydrogen-containing gas flows such as CH4, etc., in a direct reduction system (see Eder’s [0015]) and an electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis (see Eder’s FIG.1). Preferably at the site of the production of the hydrogen, a direct reduction system is operated, which is used for reducing iron ores-which are likewise preferably prepared with electrical energy produced in this way. The intermediate product obtained in this way is an ideal way to store this regenerative energy, can be stored until it is used, and is accessible via any form of transportation to a system for processing it further, particularly when it is needed there. In particular, this intermediate product can be produced at its production site in large quantities that exceed the present requirement-when the corresponding electrical energy is available in sufficient quantity. If this energy is not available, then there are sufficient quantities of the intermediate product and thus also of the energy in order to be able to meet the need. Operating a corresponding electrical arc, likewise particularly preferably using only energy produced from wind, hydroelectric, or solar energy, succeeds in achieving a CO2-free steel production, see Astoria’s [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Eder’s teachings of electrical energy generated from wind, hydro, or solar energy is used to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis and Astoria’s teachings of induction heating employs electrical energy to combine with Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, for having an ideal way to store this regenerative energy, and easily accessible via any form of transportation to a system for processing further, particularly when it is needed.
Regarding claim 26, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 26, but both Boehm and Eder are silent the induction heating is designed for an energy input into the direct reduced iron of 2 to 18 kWh/t HBI.
Although, Astoria is also silent about the induction heating is designed for an energy input into the direct reduced iron of 2 to 18 kWh/t HBI, Astoria teaches Hot Direct Reduced iron (HDRI) is distributed at about 700-750°C via insulated steel conduits or feed legs from a DRI furnace to a briquetting machines to form hot briquetted iron (HBI), (see Astoria’s [0003], [0009]) and therefore, optimizing the HDRI temperature near a certain range helps avoid decomposition of cementite into graphitic carbon (see Astoria’s [0006]). Astoria’s induction heating advantageously help to 1) overcome the heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters; and 2) achieve and/or retain the desired level of carbon in HBI (see Astoria’s [0007]). Astoria teaches the conduit heater assembly comprise a conduit configured to receive a flow of direct reduced iron; and a heating element disposed adjacent to the conduit; wherein the heating element is configured to transfer energy from a power supply in the form of heat to the conduit and heat the flow of direct reduced iron through the conduit. The heating element comprises induction heating coils. The system can be configured to perform at least one of reheating the direct reduced iron to between about 700°C. to 750°C and preheating the direct reduced iron to about 1000°C or greater (see Astoria’s [0010]). Astoria discloses a feed channel is designed, an assembly 20 is constructed as concentric pipes to allow the internal pipe 24, which is the actual feeding conduit, to advantageously be made of a heat and corrosion resistant alloy for transporting the HDRI. The internal pipe 24 may also comprise a hard, ceramic refractory material (see Astoria’s [0027], FIG. 1). Therefore, Astoria’s induction heating is designed (see Astoria’s FIG. 1) for heating the direct reduced iron before briquetting to form HBI as similar as the FIG.4 of the instant invention, as compared in the following figure (Examiner drew lines and label for the comparison).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
716
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ((Astoria))][AltContent: textbox ((Instant invention))][AltContent: textbox (HDRI from DRI furnace)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (HDRI to briquetting machine)]
However, according to the line 1-5, page 4, line 16-19, page 5, and line 1-5, page 9 of the of the instant specification of the disclosure, “the energy input into the material and/or DRI for the required temperature increase may be between 2- 18 kWh/t HBI, with an expected range of 2 - 8 kWh/t HBI when treating higher grade materials and a range of 8 to 18 kWh/t HBI when treating lower grade ores or operating in a mixed hydrogen/natural gas operation mode”, which indicates that the energy input of “2- 18 kWh/t HBI” depends on required temperature and on the material grade, but the specification does not specify any specific material and/or ore or does not define which is higher grade or which is lower grade. As Boehm teaches a method for producing HBI from iron oxide, wherein the iron oxide is from undersized oxidic iron carriers during producing DRI and HBI, metallurgical residual materials containing iron, metalized Fe fines, scale, metallurgical dust, metallurgical sludge, material comes from steel production process, recovered sponge iron and/or recovered pig iron, hematitic and/or limonitic material etc. (see Boehm’s [0007]-[0015]), which would be either higher grade or lower grade material as claimed in the instant invention as the specification does not specify any specific material and/or ore.
Given all the above teachings, specially, the design of the induction heater, required overlapping heating temperature for the DRI for producing HBI and maintaining a carbon content of Astoria, and main method steps of producing HBI and the iron oxide material of Boehm, in view of Eder are substantially identical to the induction heater, required heating temperature for the DRI for producing HBI and main method steps of producing HBI of as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it would have been obvious that the induction heating using the induction heater of Astoria would inherently can be designed for an energy input into the direct reduced iron of 2 to 18 kWh/t HBI as presently claimed, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 27, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 27, but both Boehm and Eder are silent about an induction heater for a feed channel is designed to allow for a temperature increase of at least 100°C or more of the direct reduced iron.
However, Astoria discloses an induction heater for a feed channel is designed to allow for a temperature increase of at least 100°C or more of the direct reduced iron (an induction heater for a feed channel is designed, an assembly 20 is constructed as concentric pipes to allow the internal pipe 24, which is the actual feeding conduit, to advantageously be made of a heat and corrosion resistant alloy for transporting the HDRI. The internal pipe 24 may also comprise a hard, ceramic refractory material (see Astoria’s [0027], FIG. 1), in exemplary FIG. 3, the feed leg heating apparatus/ feed conduit heater assembly 20', is similar to the feed leg heating apparatus/feed conduit heater assembly 20 of FIG. 1 (see Astoria’s [0034], FIG. 3). In an embodiment, Astoria discloses an aim is to arrest and maintain HDRI temperature at or near 715-720°C through the use of an induction heating means arranged on the feed legs to reheat or preheat HDRI prior to melter (bring HDRI back to about 700°-750°C.) and preheat material to a higher level (e.g., about 1000°C.) (see Astoria’s [0018]). Therefore, Astoria’s induction heater is designed for a calculated temperature increase in to about 1000°C - 720°C = 220°C, which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected a temperature increase from the teachings of Astoria that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges, overlaps and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to maintain a certain temperature of the direct reduced iron to modify Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, in view of Eder, for overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters and for achieving and/or retaining the desired level of carbon in HBI.
Regarding claim 28, all the above discussions regarding claim 13 are applicable to claim 28, but Boehm is silent about the induction heater is designed for a temperature increase of 20 °C of the direct reduced iron when treating certain grade materials and temperature increase of 50 to 100°C when treating lower grade ores than the certain grade ores or operating in a hybrid mode of operation with hydrogen.
However, Eder discloses the direct reduced iron is heated and operating in a hybrid mode of operation with hydrogen (a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide to produce direct reduced iron (see Eder’s [0032]-[0035]) and in a direct reduction system and it is also possible to switch to purely hydrogen-containing gas flows (see Eder’s [0015])).
But Eder is also silent about the induction heater is designed for a temperature increase of 20 °C of the direct reduced iron when treating certain grade materials and temperature increase of 50 to 100°C when treating lower grade ores than the certain grade ores.
However, Astoria discloses the induction heater is designed for a temperature increase of 20 °C of the direct reduced iron when treating certain grade materials and temperature increase of 50 to 100°C when treating the certain grade ores (in one embodiment, Astoria’s primary aim is to arrest and maintain HDRI temperature at or near 715-720°C. through the use of an induction heating means arranged on the feed legs or feed leg design for overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters; and to help achieve and/or retain the desired level of carbon in HBI, (see Astoria’s [0018]). In an embodiment, Astoria discloses the hot direct reduced iron can be heated to about 730°C to stabilize cementite content and minimize further decomposition, the direct reduced iron can be reheated to between about 700°C to 750°C and/or preheated to about 1000°C or greater, see Astoria’s [0009]). Therefore, Astoria’s induction heater is designed for a calculated temperature increase of 750°C - 730°C = 20°C during reheating, which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Astoria discloses in another embodiments to arrest and maintain HDRI temperature at or near 715-720°C through the use of an induction heating means arranged on the feed legs or feed leg design and to reheat or preheat HDRI prior to melter charging, using a new design for the HDRI surge bin discharge, to reheat HDRI prior to melter (bring HDRI back to about 700°-750°C) and to preheat material to a higher level (e.g., about 1000°C) (see Astoria’s [0018]). Therefore, Astoria’s induction heater is designed for a calculated temperature increase in a range of 750°C - 720°C = 30°C, and to about 1000°C - 720°C = 220°C, which is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected a temperature increase from the teachings of Astoria that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges, overlaps and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Astoria’s teachings of induction heating to maintain a certain temperature of the direct reduced iron to modify Boehm’s process of manufacturing of HBI, in view of Eder, for overcoming heat losses in feed legs prior to briquetters and for achieving and/or retaining the desired level of carbon in HBI.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean-Paul Nepper, et.al. [US20130118306A1] (Nepper hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, Nepper discloses a process for the manufacturing of hot briquetted iron from direct reduced iron, the process comprising:
direct reducing iron ore in a reactor (reducing granular raw materials containing iron oxide with a carbonaceous reducing agent in a fluidized bed reactor to obtain a reduced mixture, see Nepper’s claim 18) by a reducing gas consisting of at least one of natural gas, hydrogen and carbon monoxide (the preheated process gas contains at least one of carbon monoxide (CO) and elementary hydrogen (H2), see Nepper’s claim 20) to produce direct reduced iron (to obtain a reduced mixture; supplying the reduced mixture to a smelting reduction unit via a discharge system, see Nepper’s claim 18); and
discharging the direct reduced iron to at least one briquetting press where briquettes are pressed from the direct reduced iron (supplying at least one of the reduced mixture after the discharge system and hot reduced ore to a hot briquetting or hot compaction unit., see Nepper’s claim 27, because of excessive dust losses, or when decoupling of the process stages is desired for safety or geographical reasons, the reduced mixture can be supplied to a hot compaction or hot briquetting unit after the discharge system (see Nepper’s special case 2 in FIG. 3) or the hot reduced ore can be supplied to a hot compaction or hot briquetting unit after the hot magnetic separation (see Nepper’s special case 3 in FIG. 3), see Nepper’s [0025]);
the direct reduced iron after leaving the reactor and before briquetting being heated to a target briquetting temperature, (as shown in the process of Nepper’s FIG.3, the reduced mixture is cooled in a flash cooler after leaving the reactor, and then passing through a hot magnetic separator after discharging and before compaction (see Nepper’s FIG.3, [0014]), and the reduced ore obtained in the hot magnetic separator still has a sufficiently high temperature (see Nepper’s [0014]), wherein temperature of the hot magnetic separator is controlled via a temperature of the preheated process gas, (see Nepper’s claim 25), and then performing hot briquetting or hot compaction unit, see Nepper’s claim 27), therefore, it would have been obvious that the briquetting being heated to a target temperature (controlled temperature in the hot magnetic separator) in the hot magnetic separator, before briquetting.
Nepper discloses to achieve a particularly efficient procedure, it is proposed to circulate the process gas, as the process gas, as a recirculation gas containing carbon monoxide (CO) and elementary hydrogen (H2), has been withdrawn from the reduction reactor, dedusted, cooled and largely liberated from the reduction products water vapor (H20) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (see Nepper’s [0016]). Nepper further discloses the measures considered like direct reduction at temperatures below the melting temperature, separation of by-products before smelting, and hot charging of the reduced ore into the further processing in s smelting unit considerable savings of energy are achieved during smelting reduction (see Nepper’s [0050]-[0053]).
Nepper discloses the particulars of the present invention, as disclosed above, but does so through the collective teachings of their disclosure, rather than in one neatly packaged embodiment. However, the examiner notes that simply utilizing Nepper for all that it teaches and looking to various portions of the reference would have been obvious for the purpose of producing a HBI from a DRI. As the MPEP § [2143.I (A)] notes that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a matter of obviousness, and in this case, Nepper’s the foregoing method steps for producing HBI for having a considerable savings of energy and a very efficient process within the same reference document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights