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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a “hot zone” there is not temperature associated with the “hot zone” or dimensions thus for the purpose of this examination any area may be considered said “hot zone”
Claim 4 was previously rejected as being indefinite because it was unclear to the Examiner if claim 4 intended to indicate all forms of the water molecule are excluded from any zone in the furnace at a temperature of 750 degrees Celsius by replying that a skilled artisan would know water above this temperature would be water vapor and that the claim intends to indicate water is only present in very negligible amounts (Remarks 06/18/2026, page 8). These are the limitations given to claim 4 for the purpose of this examination.
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 12 is rejected as being indefinite because it recites “the cupola furnace produces off-gass comprising hydrogen in an amount of less than 20,000 ppm by volume” it is unclear if this is the volume of off-gas in a portion of the furnace, or a volume exhausting from the furnace over a specific period of time.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aube (US 5338329) and further in view of Wang et al. WO 2019201182 referred to as Wang herein, cited in the translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 15, Aube discloses a general method of manufacturing mineral fibers by fiberizing a melt by means of an internal or external spinning process (Col 1; line 2, Col 4; lines 35-41, Col 7; lines 37-47) collecting the fibers on a receiving unit (Col 7; line 50). Aube discloses melting the mineral material into said melt via a cupola furnace (Col 7; line 30). Aube fails to disclose the plasma fired cupola furnace of claim 1.
In an analogous art of melting in a cupola furnace Wang discloses a process for preparing a melt (Fig 2-3);
Wang discloses the cupola furnace and supplying a feedstock through material feed opening (6) into the cupola furnace (invention field).
Wang discloses providing heating energy to the cupola furnace having a base comprising a plurality of ceramic support bodies, ceramic balls (5) (Fig 1-2)
Wang discloses the molten melt collects on wear-resistant ceramic balls (5) and the melted material collects in voids between the ceramic balls (5) to the outlet (4/7) all residing in the so called “hot zone” Fig 1-2) Page 3 ¶3
Thus, when the charge is melted into molten iron, the high carbon ball also acts as a superheat during the dropping of the iron droplets along the high-carbon ball, which greatly increases the temperature of the molten iron, making the device more energy-efficient and material-saving
Wang discloses plasma heating with at least 1 plasma gun (2, 21) and does not precisely require another heating source thus the heating energy is provided by 50% or more by a plasma torch (page 7)
The heating source 2 is a plasma gun, and is provided with four filling sections 11 symmetrically distributed under the furnace body and on the same horizontal section,
Wang specifically suggests the cupola furnace for melting (page 3 ¶3)
In some embodiments, the charge is placed directly on a high carbon ball, and the charge is a metal charge, including pig iron, recycled charge, and scrap
Wang discloses the plasma fired cupola has high thermal efficiency, continuous output for a long time, high production efficiency and continuous mass production a new type of carbon-free, sulfur-free electric power, relatively coke-free cupola, will be more economical, environmentally friendly, technically and operationally more cost-effective and convenient. (pages 1-2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to modify the method of Aube with a plasma fired cupola taught by Wang as motivated to achieve high continuous melt production, relatively carbon, coke, and sulfur free.
It has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves, In this instance using the more economical, environmentally friendly cupola furnace of Wang instead of the cupola furnace indicated in Aube. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). And "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). i.e. using a different cupola furnace in the method of Aube to yield the predictable result of melting feedstock.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the plasma heating at 2500-3500 ° C (page 5; paragraph 1) thus the hot zone above 800 ° C and Wang does not disclose any water thus water is excluded from any zone above 750 ° C
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the plasma heating at 2500-3500 ° C (page 5; paragraph 1) thus the ceramic balls in the hot zone are wear-resistant to some extent.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses ceramic balls (5) thus ball shaped with a diameter of 150-200 mm thus overlapping the range of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses nitrogen for the plasma torch (at least claim 6)
Gross discloses recovering heated air in 31 and separating out products and reusing them in the melt (Col 4; line 55-Col 5; line 5). Gross fails to recite using the recovered air.
It would be obvious in view of the combination of Gross and ASM for a skilled artisan to be motivated to use the recovered air in the melting process of air in the plasma torch as motivated by cost-effective, thermal efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the plasma fired cupola furnace having no oxygen (page 4; ¶4) thus excluding oxygen from the claimed zones of claim 12, and no addition of water thus no water above 750 ° C Wang does not indicate the amount of hydrogen in the off-gas however where the combined teachings of Aube and Wang disclose all of the method steps of claim 1 a skilled artisan would expect the same resulting off-gas product of claim 12.
MPEP 2112.01-02
Where the claimed and prior art is a 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). "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)
When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Aube and Wang have made obvious all of the steps of claim 1 and excluding oxygen and water as recited in claim 12 thus a skilled artisan would readily expect the off-gas to be the product composition recited in claim 12
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aube (US 5338329) and further in view of Wang et al. WO 2019201182 referred to as Wang herein, cited in the translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of Heidrich Refractory Solutions for the New Challenges in Glass Furnace Construction. 2013 referred to as Heidrich hereinafter.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses wear resistant ceramic balls (5) of high carbon content as indicated above however fails to disclose the exact ceramic material composition.
In analogous art of wear-resistant ceramics or refractories is zirconia in more than 5% by weight (page 5 second paragraph) or ceramic refractories with 10% Cr2O3 (page 5 third paragraph). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either of the refractories suggested by Heidrich for the wear resistant balls (23) in the melting process of Gross as motivated by using a refractory resistant to attack or wear by a mineral melt.
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aube (US 5338329) and further in view of Wang et al. WO 2019201182 referred to as Wang herein, cited in the translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of Park KR 101418105 as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 9, The combined teachings of Aube and Wang disclose a process of melting raw material in a cupola furnace with plasma torches with air however do not specify the plasma torches using other gases recited in claim 9.
In analogous art of a melting process using a melting apparatus comprising a plasma torch, Park suggests air or nitrogen can be gases used in the plasma torch for melting mineral material) (Page 8, paragraph 9).
It would be obvious to substitute one known gas, such as air, with an equal known substitute of nitrogen because simple substitution of one known gas in a plasma torch for another with the predictable result of operating the plasma torch.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses a process of melting a byproducts, slag, mineral material (see rejection of claim 1). There is no active step recited in claim 10.
In analogous art of a melting process, Park suggests melting waste, slag, raw materials including a waste that becomes a melt of a composition (Page 9; last paragraph, Page 10; first paragraph):
34 to 50 wt% of SiO2 , 7 to 20 wt% of Al2O3 , 7 to 39 wt% of CaO, 3 to 15 wt% of MgO, and 1 to 10 wt% of Fe2O3 which overlap with the claimed ranges of claim 10. It would be obvious to use this melt as motivated to obtain the desired product composition.
Regarding claim 11, the melt comprises aluminium thus it inherently is capable of reducing the oxidation state of iron and meets claim 11 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 12, it is not completely clear how to examine this claim but it appears that where Gross and ASM disclose the melting method of claim 1 and Park discloses a melt of the claimed composition one could readily expect zones of the furnace to meet limitations attempted to be recited in claim 12 absent any unexpected result. There are no specific steps removing water or oxygen and it should be noted that residual nitrogen may occur from plasma heating using nitrogen as indicated by Park.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses mineral material to be melted may be fiber waste (at least abstract) and coal ash (table 4) thus the waste fibers may comprise carbon or may not. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use a mineral material in the melting process as motivated to obtain the desired melt composition and recycle waste fibers as motivated by efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aube (US 5338329) and further in view of Wang et al. WO 2019201182 referred to as Wang herein, cited in the translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of Dighe et al. (US 4853033) and further evidenced by Park KR 101418105 as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Aube and Wang do not disclose the plasma torch comprising or consisting of a component of the off-gas.
In an analogous art of plasma fired cupola Dighe discloses a cupola furnace (1) with a conduit (29) for “off-gas” and the plasma torch feed nozzle (21) via conduit (31) to recycle supply air to the plasma torch.
It would be obvious to modify the combined teachings of Aube and Wang with components of the off-gas as motivated to recycle gas. It is also well-known in the art to use other gases than nitrogen such as air as suggested by analogous art Park air can be gases used in the plasma torch for melting mineral material) (Page 8, paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tsangaris et al. (US 20110062013).
Regarding claims 1-2, Tsangaris discloses a process for preparing a mineral melt of slag [0007] in a cupola furnace (Fig 6);
Tsangaris discloses the furnace being provided with feedstock with mineral material, necessarily a mineral material because it produces a mineral melt [0005]-[0007].
providing heating energy to the cupola furnace from plasma burner (640), said cupola furnace having a base (see bottom of Fig 6) comprising a plurality of ceramic support bodies (ceramic balls 645) [0119]said mineral material is melted to form a mineral melt that collects in voids between the ceramic support bodies and flows through melt outlet (630) [0210]-[0211]. Both the plasma torch and ceramic support bodies are considered in the hot zone as they are where the molten material and plasma torch exist.
The plasma torch is the only heat input in (Fig. 6) thus the amount of energy provided by the plasma torch is considered to be 50% or more. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the use of the plasma torch to melt the feedstock to slag.
Regarding claims 3-4, Tsangaris the feedstock turns to slag at approximately 1200 deg. Celsius or more [0007] or 1200-1800 degrees Celsius [0066] and there is no suggested water input in Fig. 6 and Tsangaris thus the water is considered in negligible amount in a zone of the furnace that is above 750 degrees Celsius in the furnace to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Tsangaris does not indicate the diameter of the ceramic balls in Fig 6 but suggests wear resistant ceramic balls between 20-100mm [0122] as support bodies for the melting slag in another furnace configuration . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to these ceramic balls as a suitable support for the furnace of Fig 6 and readily expect them to support the slag melting.
Regarding claim 9, Tsangaris discloses plasma torches using gases of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide.
Claim(s) 9 is alternatively rejected and 10-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsangaris et al. (US 20110062013) as applied above and further in view of Park KR 101418105 as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 9, Tsangaris does not specifically indicate nitrogen as a gas used in the plasma torch.
In analogous art of a melting process using a melting apparatus comprising a plasma torch, Park suggests air or nitrogen can be gases used in the plasma torch for melting mineral material) (Page 8, paragraph 9).
It would be obvious to substitute one known gas with an equal known substitute of nitrogen because simple substitution of one known gas in a plasma torch for another with the predictable result of operating the plasma torch.
Regarding claim 10, There is no active step recited in claim 10.
In analogous art of a melting process, Park suggests melting waste, slag, raw materials including a waste that becomes a melt of a composition (Page 9; last paragraph, Page 10; first paragraph):
34 to 50 wt% of SiO2 , 7 to 20 wt% of Al2O3 , 7 to 39 wt% of CaO, 3 to 15 wt% of MgO, and 1 to 10 wt% of Fe2O3 which overlap with the claimed ranges of claim 10. It would be obvious to use this melt as motivated to obtain the desired product composition.
Regarding claim 11, the melt comprises aluminium, or aluminum, thus it inherently is capable of reducing the oxidation state of iron and meets claim 11 given the broadest reasonable interpretation (page 3; paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 15, Park suggests a melting process in a cupola, or shaft, type furnace and fiberizing the melt using a spinner or bushing is known and necessarily collecting some of the fibers for further use given the broadest reasonable interpretation (page 2 paragraphs 5-7). It would be obvious to further the melting process with known fiberizing as motivated to produce mineral fibers as taught by Park (See Fig 1-2 and description of references).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 13, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 18253290 in view of Wang et al. WO 2019201182.
because Claim 1 of Application No. US 18253290 requires a process of preparing a mineral melt in a cupola furnace (line 1) comprising a hot zone (line 7), comprising a plasma torch (ii) and greater than 50% heating energy is provided by the plasma torch (iii) as recited in claim 1 of the present application. The only difference between the present application and claim 1 of Application No. US 18253290 is the mineral melt collecting in the plurality of ceramic support bodies prior to being discharged.
This is made obvious by the melting method of Wang discloses a process for preparing a melt (Fig 2-3);
Wang discloses the cupola furnace and supplying a feedstock through material feed opening (6) into the cupola furnace (invention field).
Wang discloses providing heating energy to the cupola furnace having a base comprising a plurality of ceramic support bodies, ceramic balls (5) (Fig 1-2)
Wang discloses the molten melt collects on wear-resistant ceramic balls (5) and the melted material collects in voids between the ceramic balls (5) to the outlet (4/7) all residing in the so called “hot zone” Fig 1-2) Page 3 ¶3
Regarding claim 2 of the present application, this is taught by claim 2 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 3, of the present application is taught by claims 1 and 3 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 4, of the present application is taught by claim 5 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 9, of the present application is taught by claims 1 and 9 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 10, of the present application is taught by claim 7 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 13, of the present application is taught by claims 1, 10-12 of Application No. US 18253290
Regarding claim 15, of the present application is taught by claim 13 of Application No. US 18253290
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights