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 .
Applicant amended Claim 1. Applicant added Claims 40-53. A new matter rejection appears below.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 04/30/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The 112(b) rejection regarding the definition of a dilute flow regime is overcome by Applicant’s arguments. The 112(a) rejection for new matter is rendered moot by Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A are maintained and new rejections in view of Maier US 1916112 A, Ritakallio US 5032143 A, and Orth US 20100263487 A1. have been made necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 04/30/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, an externally heated vertical reactor, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(a) is acknowledged. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/24/2024.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024, 12/29/2025, and 05/04/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 51 recites “the heating elements are configured to heat the powder and the reducing gas within the reactor tube to a temperature of between 700 °C and 900 °C.” [0072] cites process temperature but this does not support a powder temperature. There does not appear to be support for this temperature range for the heat of the powder. Appropriate correction or explanation 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 25 and 40 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 25 recites “the gas separator” in Line 5 for which there is no previous recitation of a gas separator. This presents a lack of antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. There is additionally a lack of literal antecedent basis for “the filter tube” in Line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites in Line 3 “a radiation penetration depth of about one meter.” There is no measurement of radiation provided, no power, type of radiation, or wavelength. The material of the powder and size of the tube are related to a penetration depth of radiation. It is unclear into what depth radiation is penetrating, i.e. whether the walls of the reactor are one meter thick, or whether this has some other meaning entirely.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Simoes et al. US 20110272868 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an externally heated (2, Fig. 1) vertical reactor comprising a vertically oriented reactor tube (1, Fig. 1), a hopper located adjacent a top end of the reactor tube (5, Fig. 1) and configured to input a powder comprising iron ore such that the powder falls downwards in the reactor tube. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches heating elements (2, Fig. 1) positioned vertically adjacent at least one wall of the reactor tube and configured to provide heat to be conducted through the at least one wall, so as to heat the powder and the reducing gas within the reactor tube to a temperature at which the powder and the reducing gas are caused to react. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a gas exhaust (20, Fig. 1) positioned adjacent the top end of the reactor tube. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an output (7, Fig. 1) for reduced iron powder positioned at the base of the reactor tube.
Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a single reducing gas input port (meeting the limitation for a reducing gas injector element) (3a, Fig. 1) at the base of the reactor tube and does not expressly teach multiple reducing gas injector elements arranged along the reactor tube from a base of the reactor tube.
However, Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches feeding reducing gas into a vertical shaft furnace (meeting the limitation for a vertical reactor) with a tiered bustle pipe arrangement, which is a configuration of piping allowing reducing gas to be injected with into a vertical shaft furnace (meeting the limitation for a vertical reactor) with a plurality of injection nozzles provided circumferentially on two levels (Abstract)[0008, 0011, 0037]. Simoes et al. ‘743 further teaches at [0009] its bustle pipe arrangement is advantageously easily integrated to existing vertical shaft furnaces with minimal alteration.
Additionally, Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches a preferred embodiment in which each bustle pipe arm has an angle of 0 with respect to the horizontal plane [0022].
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated to modify Miyashita et al. ‘468 by adding the bustle pipe arrangement of Simoes et al. ‘743 to the base of the reactor tube in order to increase the number of injection points and allow for increased homogeneity of gas injection based on the teachings of Simoes et al. ‘743 at [0009]. Further motivation is provided by such a change being easily integrated. As set forth in Simoes et al. ’743 at [0009], “The increased number of injection points allows a more homogenous injection of gas into the shaft furnace.”
The addition of a bustle pipe arrangement to a reactor for providing additional reducing gas and increase homogeneity of gas injection is known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to incorporate into the vertical reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468. The reducing gas injector elements, modified as set forth above, are capable of blowing in hot reducing gas, meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for reducing gas injector elements configured to inject a reducing gas into the reactor tube in counter-flow to the downward falling powder. The heated gas provided at the base of the reactor rises as a physical phenomenon and the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 would be expected to produce the same or similar effect as the claimed vertical reactor, meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches at (Column 20 Lines 34-46) permitting the flow of fine-sized particles of a predetermined composition and teaches at (Column 29 Lines 13-16) preventing agglomeration and failure to fluidize the feed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to create a dilute flow regime in the reactor in order to prevent agglomeration of particles based on the teachings of Miyashita et al. ‘468 e.g. at (Column 29 Lines 13-16), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. It would have further been obvious to make the flow regime within reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 adjustable in order to achieve a predetermined quality and concentration of output of reduced metal, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP2144.04 V. D.
Regarding the newly amended limitations, the volumetric-solids-fraction is a property of the particle powders, not the claimed reactor. The claims are drawn to a reactor, not to a method of establishing a specific flow regime of particles within a reactor. As established in the Response to Arguments below, Applicant’s arguments that the hopper is configured or has a special configuration to create dilute flow regime into the reactor are not deemed persuasive. Insofar as Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified with the well-known bustle pipe arrangement taught in Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches a reactor reading on the instant claims, the limitations of the instant claim are met by the prior art.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches partition walls (meeting the limitation for deflection plates) arranged within the reactor tube adjacent to the reducing gas input ports (Column 8 Lines 8-12), meeting the limitations for the instant Claims.
Regarding Claims 24 and new claim 49, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas injector elements are configured to inject the reducing gas at pressures ranging from 1 to 9.9 kgf/cm2 (approximately 98 to 971 kPa), overlapping the instantly claimed value of about 105 kPa. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas injector elements are configured to inject the reducing gas tangentially to create a swirling gas flow pattern within the reactor tube (Figs. 7D-E, Column 35 Lines 40-63), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding New Claims 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, the limitations in these claims are limited by qualities of the powder itself, and not of the claimed reactor. Therefore, the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 reads on the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding new Claim 45, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the heating elements comprising electric heating elements configured to provide indirect heating to the reactor tube (Column 32 Lines 61-62), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding new Claim 50, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas comprises hydrogen (Column 3 Lines 53-57), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding new Claim 51, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a reaction temperature of about 600 °C to 700 °C (Column 3 Lines 30-43), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for the heating elements being configured to heat the powder and the reducing gas within the reactor tube to a temperature of between 700 °C and 900 °C.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding new Claim 52, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches plant capacity of 130 kWh/mt (Table 8), overlapping and encompassing the instantly claimed range of a heat exchange between walls of the reactor tube being less than about 100 kW/m, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Simoes et al. US 20110272868 A1 as applied to 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of Green US 20200048724 A1 and Bengtsson et al. US 4359212 A.
Regarding Claim 9, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 and Simoes et al. ‘743 do not expressly teach the reactor length of the instant claims or provide a particle residence time.
However, Green et al. ‘724 teaches at [0037] a particle residence time of “less than or equal to 10 seconds (although it could be increased to 15 seconds by extending the length of the furnace shaft).” Green et al. ‘724 teaches a reactor length of 30 feet (approximately 9.1 m) provides a residence time of 10 seconds. Green et al. ‘724 teaches variables including reactor length [0037], direction of gas flow [0032, 0050], and agglomeration of particles [0055] may impact the and residence time, the rate of the fall of iron ore particles within a reactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention that a residence of time of 10 to 15 seconds can be proportionally achieved by a reactor having a length from 30 feet (approximately 9.1 m) to 45 feet (approximately 13.7 m). The teachings of Green et al. ‘724 meet the limitations of the instant claim regarding residence time.
Green et al. ‘724 does not expressly teach a reactor diameter. However, Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches a reactor for processing iron ore fines having a height of 20 meters and a diameter of 0.45 meters (Colum 4 Lines 25-29). These dimensions fall squarely within the range of the instant Claim of a reactor tube diameter of no larger than about 2 m and a reactor tube length between 10 to 35 m. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 with a height of 20 meters and diameter of 0.45 meters with the reasonable expectation of forming a useful reactor and in order to finely reduce iron based on the teachings of based on the teachings of Bengtsson et al. ‘212 at (Abstract). Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I.
Claims 25 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Simoes et al. US 20110272868 A1 as applied to Claims 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of Ritakallio US 5032143 A and Maier US 1916112 A.
Regarding Claims 25 and new claims 46-47, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) in concert with a filter (27) (meeting the limitation for a gas filter) (Fig. 1) positioned adjacent an entrance to the gas exhaust (20, Fig. 21) and configured to remove entrained powder from gases within the reactor (meeting the limitation for reactor gas). Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a filter (27) positioned downstream of the inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) configured to filter exhaust gas (Fig. 1).
Miyashita et al. ‘468 does not expressly teach the gas filter comprises a metal tube connected to the gas filter, the metal tube passing through a center of the reactor tube and configured to pass the removed entrained powder from the gas separator into the filter tube.
However, Ritakallio ‘143 teaches a reducing gas chamber for iron particles featuring a cyclone separator with a return pipe (Column 9 Lines 39-48), meeting the limitation of instant Claim 46 for a cyclone positioned adjacent the gas exhaust and configured to reinject the separated fines into the reactor tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a return pipe with a filter such that removed entrained powder from the inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) moves through the return pipe of Ritakallio ‘143 in order to efficiently and environmentally recirculate solid particles. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding the limitation of a metal tube connected to the gas filter, Miyashita et al. ‘468, Claflin ‘023, Bengtsson et al. ‘212, and Ritakallio ‘143 do not expressly teach the reactor wall or tube material.
However, Maier ‘112 expressly teaches a reactor for the reduction of iron ore particulates wherein the reactor walls are comprised of a metal steel alloy stable to reduction gas temperatures (Column 7 Lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the tubes and walls of the reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 of metal in order to increase the longevity of the reactor tube and in order to withstand reaction temperatures based on the teachings of Maier ‘112 (Column 7 Lines 2-4), meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Simoes et al. US 20110272868 A1 as applied to 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of in view of Orth US 20100263487 A1.
Regarding new Claim 53, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the use of conventional valves positioned between the hopper and the reactor tube and configured to inject the powder into the reactor tube to form a downward plume of powder but does not expressly disclose a rotary valve.
However, Orth ‘487 teaches inserting powder into a vertical reactor via a rotary valve in order to achieve volumetric conveying in the reduction of iron ore [0028].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to install a rotary valve positioned between the hopper and the reactor tube and configured to inject the powder into the reactor tube to form a downward plume of powder in order to effect volumetric conveying based on the teachings of ‘170 at [0028], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Claflin US 3928023 A and Bengtsson et al. US 4359212 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an externally heated (2, Fig. 1) vertical reactor comprising a vertically oriented reactor tube (1, Fig. 1), a hopper located adjacent a top end of the reactor tube (5, Fig. 1) and configured to input a powder comprising iron ore such that the powder falls downwards in the reactor tube. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches heating elements (2, Fig. 1) positioned vertically adjacent at least one wall of the reactor tube and configured to provide heat to be conducted through the at least one wall, so as to heat the powder and the reducing gas within the reactor tube to a temperature at which the powder and the reducing gas are caused to react. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a gas exhaust (20, Fig. 1) positioned adjacent the top end of the reactor tube. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an output (7, Fig. 1) for reduced iron powder positioned at the base of the reactor tube.
Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a single reducing gas input port (meeting the limitation for a reducing gas injector element) (3a, Fig. 1) at the base of the reactor tube and does not expressly teach multiple reducing gas injector elements arranged along the reactor tube from a base of the reactor tube.
However, Claflin ‘023 teaches feeding reducing gas into a vertical shaft furnace (meeting the limitation for a vertical reactor) with secondary and tertiary sets of reducing gas tuyeres. Claflin ‘023 further teaches the additional tuyeres may be provided with a conventional bustle pipe or suitable manifold in order to provided additional heated reducing gas in order to increase the effect of iron oxide reduction (Column 1 Lines 10-25).
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated to modify Miyashita et al. ‘468 by adding the tiered reducing gas input ports of Claflin ‘023 to the base of the reactor tube in order to increase the number of injection points and allow for increased effect of iron reduction based on the teachings of Claflin ‘023 at (Abstract). Further motivation is provided by such a change being easily integrated in a conventional manner as set forth at (Column 7 Lines 53-55). Additionally, Claflin ‘023 expressly teaches the heated reducing gases move upward against the direction of downwardly flowing material e.g. at (Column 6 Lines 1-20).
Claflin ‘023 does not expressly teach the upward flow of reducing gas is achieved by the tuyeres being angled to blow air in an upwards direction.
However, Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches angling the nozzles supplying reducing gas to the base of a vertical reactor for the reduction of iron ore at an angle of at most 80 degrees upwards from the horizontal plane in order to maintain fluidization within the chamber and prevent the sticking of solid material within the vertical reactor (Column 2 Lines 30-34, Column 3 Lines 26-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the nozzles of Miyashita et al. ‘468 to have an angle of at most 80 degrees upward from the horizontal plane in order to maintain fluidization within the chamber and prevent the sticking of downwardly descending iron ore powders within the externally heated reactor tube based on the teachings of Bengtsson et al. ‘212 at (Column 2 Lines 30-34, Column 3 Lines 26-37).
The reducing gas injector elements, modified as set forth above, are configured for blowing in hot reducing gas counter to the downward descent of falling iron powder, meeting the limitation of the instant Claim. Further, the heated gas provided at the base of the reactor rises as a physical phenomenon and the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 would be expected to produce the same or similar effect as the claimed vertical reactor, meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches at (Column 20 Lines 34-46) permitting the flow of fine-sized particles of a predetermined composition and teaches at (Column 29 Lines 13-16) preventing agglomeration and failure to fluidize the feed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to create a dilute flow regime in the reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 in order to prevent agglomeration of particles based on the teachings of Miyashita et al. ‘468 e.g. at (Column 29 Lines 13-16). It would have further been obvious to make the flow regime within reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 adjustable in order to achieve a predetermined quality and concentration of output of reduced metal, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP2144.04 V. D.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1, the volumetric-solids-fraction is a property of the particle powders, not the claimed reactor. The claims are drawn to a reactor, not to a method of establishing a specific flow regime of particles within a reactor. As established in the Response to Arguments below, Applicant’s arguments that the hopper is configured or has a special configuration to create dilute flow regime into the reactor are not deemed persuasive. Insofar as Miyashita modified with the well-known bustle pipe arrangement taught in Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches a reactor reading on the instant claims, the limitations of the instant claim are met by the prior art.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches partition walls (meeting the limitation for deflection plates) arranged within the reactor tube adjacent to the reducing gas input ports (Column 8 Lines 8-12), meeting the limitations for the instant Claims.
Regarding Claims 24 and new claim 49, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas injector elements are configured to inject the reducing gas at pressures ranging from 1 to 9.9 kgf/cm2 (approximately 98 to 971 kPa), overlapping the instantly claimed value of about 105 kPa. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas injector elements are configured to inject the reducing gas tangentially to create a swirling gas flow pattern within the reactor tube (Figs. 7D-E, Column 35 Lines 40-63), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding New Claims 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, the limitations in these claims are limited by qualities of the powder itself, and not of the claimed reactor. Therefore, the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 reads on the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding new Claim 45, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the heating elements comprising electric heating elements configured to provide indirect heating to the reactor tube (Column 32 Lines 61-62), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding new Claim 50, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the reducing gas comprises hydrogen (Column 3 Lines 53-57), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding new Claim 51, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a reaction temperature of about 600 °C to 700 °C (Column 3 Lines 30-43), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for the heating elements being configured to heat the powder and the reducing gas within the reactor tube to a temperature of between 700 °C and 900 °C.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding new Claim 52, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches plant capacity of 130 kWh/mt (Table 8), overlapping and encompassing the instantly claimed range of a heat exchange between walls of the reactor tube being less than about 100 kW/m, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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).
Claim 9 is additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Claflin US 3928023 A and Bengtsson et al. US 4359212 A as applied to Claims 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of Green US 20200048724 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 and Claflin ‘023 do not expressly teach the reactor length of the instant claims and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 does not provide a particle residence time.
However, Green et al. ‘724 teaches at [0037] a particle residence time of “less than or equal to 10 seconds (although it could be increased to 15 seconds by extending the length of the furnace shaft).” Green et al. ‘724 teaches a reactor length of 30 feet (approximately 9.1 m) provides a residence time of 10 seconds. Green et al. ‘724 teaches variables including reactor length [0037], direction of gas flow [0032, 0050], and agglomeration of particles [0055] may impact the and residence time, the rate of the fall of iron ore particles within a reactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention that a residence of time of 10 to 15 seconds can be proportionally achieved by a reactor having a length from 30 feet (approximately 9.1 m) to 45 feet (approximately 13.7 m). The teachings of Green et al. ‘724 meet the limitations of the instant claim regarding residence time.
Green et al. ‘724 does not expressly teach a reactor diameter. However, Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches a reactor for processing iron ore fines having a height of 20 meters and a diameter of 0.45 meters (Colum 4 Lines 25-29). These dimensions fall squarely within the range of the instant Claim of a reactor tube diameter of no larger than about 2 m and a reactor tube length between 10 to 35 m. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" 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).
Regarding the reactor tube length, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the reactor of modified Miyashita et al. ‘468 with a height of 20 meters and diameter of 0.45 meters with the reasonable expectation of forming a useful reactor and in order to finely reduce iron based on the teachings of based on the teachings of Bengtsson et al. ‘212 at (Column 4 Lines 25-29). Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I.
Claims 25 and 46 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Claflin US 3928023 A and Bengtsson et al. US 4359212 A as applied to Claims 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of Ritakallio US 5032143 A.
Regarding Claims 25 and new claims 46-47, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches an inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) in concert with a filter (27) (meeting the limitation for a gas filter) (Fig. 1) positioned adjacent an entrance to the gas exhaust (20, Fig. 21) and configured to remove entrained powder from gases within the reactor (meeting the limitation for reactor gas). Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches a filter (27) positioned downstream of the inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) configured to filter exhaust gas (Fig. 1).
Miyashita et al. ‘468 does not expressly teach the gas filter comprises a metal tube connected to the gas filter, the metal tube passing through a center of the reactor tube and configured to pass the removed entrained powder from the gas separator into the filter tube.
However, Ritakallio ‘143 teaches a reducing gas chamber for iron particles featuring a cyclone separator with a return pipe (Column 9 Lines 39-48), meeting the limitation of instant Claim 46 for a cyclone positioned adjacent the gas exhaust and configured to reinject the separated fines into the reactor tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a return pipe with a filter such that removed entrained powder from the inlet wind box (23) (meeting the limitation for a gas separator and cyclone) moves through the return pipe of Ritakallio ‘143 in order to efficiently and environmentally recirculate solid particles. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding the limitation of a metal tube connected to the gas filter, Miyashita et al. ‘468, Claflin ‘023, Bengtsson et al. ‘212, and Ritakallio ‘143 do not expressly teach the reactor wall or tube material.
However, Maier ‘112 expressly teaches a reactor for the reduction of iron ore particulates wherein the reactor walls are comprised of a metal steel alloy stable to reduction gas temperatures (Column 7 Lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the tubes and walls of the reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 of metal in order to increase the longevity of the reactor tube and in order to withstand reaction temperatures based on the teachings of Maier ‘112 (Column 7 Lines 2-4), meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
Regarding new Claim 48, Miyashita et al. ‘468, Claflin ‘023, Bengtsson et al. ‘212 teaching reactors that are built to withstand high operating temperatures suitable for reducing iron ore.
Miyashita et al. ‘468 and Claflin ‘023 and Bengtsson et al. ‘212 do not expressly teach the reactor outer wall material.
However, Maier ‘112 expressly teaches a reactor for the reduction of iron ore particulates wherein the reactor walls are comprised of a metal steel alloy stable to reduction gas at temperatures of up to 1100 °C (Column 7 Lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the tube of Miyashita et al. ‘468 of metal in order to increase the longevity of the reactor tube and in order to withstand reducing gasses at temperatures up to 1100 °C based on the teachings of Maier ‘112 (Column 7 Lines 2-4), meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
Claim 53 is additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. US 6071468 A in view of Claflin US 3928023 A and Bengtsson et al. US 4359212 A as applied to Claims 1, 22-24, 40-44, and 49-52 above and further in view of in view of Orth US 20100263487 A1.
Regarding new Claim 53, Miyashita et al. ‘468 modified by Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyashita et al. ‘468 teaches the use of conventional valves positioned between the hopper and the reactor tube and configured to inject the powder into the reactor tube to form a downward plume of powder but does not expressly disclose a rotary valve.
However, Orth ‘487 teaches inserting powder into a vertical reactor via a rotary valve in order to achieve volumetric conveying in the reduction of iron ore [0028].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to install a rotary valve positioned between the hopper and the reactor tube and configured to inject the powder into the reactor tube to form a downward plume of powder in order to effect volumetric conveying based on the teachings of ‘170 at [0028], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the prior art rejections.
Applicant argues Miyashita is wholly silent regarding disadvantages of using a fluidized regime, as well wholly silent regarding the benefits of a dilute flow regime. However, it remains that teaching the advantages of an alternative flow regime is not teaching away, and persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be motivated by a desire not to cause agglomeration of particles within the reactor to create a dilute flow regime within the reactor rendered obvious by the prior art to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Further, adding less material or more material are operations obvious in order to achieve a predetermined output.
It is reiterated that the claims herein examined are drawn to a reactor, an apparatus, and not to a method or process of producing iron with any specific flow regime. While it is claimed the hopper is configured to input a powder comprising iron ore in a volumetric-solids fraction such that the powder falls downwards in the reactor tube in a dilute flow regime, there is no claim to any hopper features that would necessarily permit a dilute flow regime of particles within the reactor.
Further, the volumetric-solids-fraction is a feature of the particles, not the hopper. See, e.g. instant Specification [0058]. Therefore, even the use of different particles could alter the volumetric-solids-fraction of the powder as well as the powder’s flow regime. Additionally, the hopper shape, size, material, texture, diameter, is not the sole determiner of the flow regime within a reactor. Applicant’s own application discloses that between the hopper and the reactor are included a conventional rotary valve and injection tube which would also impact the flow regime of powder into the reactor tube (e.g. Figure 2), Instant Specification [0075]. The flow regime may be impacted, for example, by the diameter of the hopper, size of the hopper, length of injection tube, or smoothness of the injection tube. Furthermore, Applicant’s own Specification discloses at [0070] other elements including temperature, reactor wall, gas used, and particle emissivities are involved. Therefore, applicant’s arguments that the hopper is configured or has a special configuration to create dilute flow regime into the reactor are not deemed persuasive. Insofar as Miyashita modified with the well-known bustle pipe arrangement taught in Simoes et al. ‘743 teaches a reactor reading on the instant claims, the limitations of the instant claim are met by the prior art.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to make the flow regime within reactor of Miyashita et al. ‘468 adjustable in order to achieve a predetermined quality and concentration of output of reduced metal, and established a customized flow path, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP2144.04 V. D. See also MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The flow regime is influenced by the material upon which the reactor acts; however, the operation and functionality of a reactor with a hopper is not dependent upon the material placed into it in order to function. Applicant’s claim limitations regarding a dilute flow regime constitute an intended use of the claimed invention, an externally heated vertical reactor. While considered, the intended use in this instance is not deemed to render the claimed apparatus patentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 5445363 A teaches dilute phase transport of large iron-bearing particles within a reduction reactor.
US 9371487 B2 teaches counter current and or top-down flow of gas in the direct reduction of iron.
US 2745732 A teaches tangential flow of fuel and oxidizing reducing gas into a reactor to prevent sticking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights