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 .
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 21-40 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 21 recites “using a reducing gas” in Line 3. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is intended by “using” a gas. It is unclear whether reducing gas is generated from a separate process entirely and supplied as reduction gas in the instant process, or some other meaning entirely. Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps with positive active claim language. It is unclear what role the reducing gas has in the production of both direct reduced iron and reduction top gas in a direct reduction plant. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish what actionable method step is taken regarding the ‘use’ of “reducing gas.”
Claim 24 recites “at least one hydrogen source of the hydrogen injected into the blast furnace.” There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “at least one hydrogen source.” While hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace in step b. of Claim 21, no “hydrogen source” has been established in the independent claim. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of hydrogen in dependent claims beyond the injection of hydrogen in step b. of independent Claim 21.
Similar to the issue above, Claim 27 recites “the reduction top gas is hydrogen sources of the hydrogen injected into the blast furnace.” While hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace in step b. of Claim 21, no “hydrogen sources” have been established in the independent claim. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of, or any “sources” of hydrogen in dependent claims beyond the injection of hydrogen in step b. of independent Claim 21.
Claim 30 recites “the hydrogen is added to the blast furnace top gas before use in the biochemical plant.” This recitation presents the following two issues:
A clearer nexus must be established between “the hydrogen” in Claim 30 and “hydrogen” in step b. of Claim 21. It is unclear whether the addition step in Claim 30 is the same as the injection of hydrogen in step b. of Claim 21, or some other step entirely.
It is further unclear the metes and bounds of “use” in the biochemical plant. Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps with positive active claim language. It is unclear what role hydrogen has in the biochemical plant. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish what actionable method step is taken regarding the “use” of hydrogen in Claim 30.
Claim 32 recites “said hydrogen is green hydrogen” and it is unclear which source of hydrogen “said hydrogen” references. A clearer nexus must be established between “said hydrogen” in Claim 32 and “hydrogen” in step b. of Claim 21. It is unclear whether “said hydrogen” in Claim 32 is the same hydrogen in the injection step b. of Claim 21, or some other hydrogen entirely. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites “the molten metal produced in the electric furnace is transformed in liquid steel in a converter.” It is unclear whether “in liquid steel” is a location, a state of the molten metal, or some other meaning entirely. It is unclear what transformation, if any, the molten metal takes. Further, the nexus between molten metal and liquid steel is unclear. Appropriate correction is required to establish an actionable and repeatable method step with positive active claim language.
Claim 34 recites “green hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace.” It is unclear whether “green hydrogen” in Claim 34 is the same hydrogen in step b. of Claim 21, or some other hydrogen entirely. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clearer nexus between “green hydrogen” in Claim 34 and “hydrogen” in step b. of Claim 21.
Claim 36 recites “the steel production process” for which there is a literal lack of antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. There is no recitation of a steel production process in Claim 21 on which Claim 36 depends. It is therefore unclear to which “steel production process” Claim 36 refers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites “a direct reduction plant producing direct reduced iron and a reduction top gas using a reducing gas” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “using” “a reducing gas.” It is further unclear whether the reduction top gas ‘uses’ the reducing gas or whether the reduction plant producing direct reduced iron ‘uses’ the reducing gas. Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps with positive active claim language. It is unclear what repeatable action is taken regarding the reducing gas. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish what actionable method step is taken regarding the ‘use’ of reducing gas in Claim 40.
Claim 40 recites “a blast furnace producing hot metal and a blast furnace top gas provided with at least one injection location” in Lines 4-5. It is grammatically unclear what claimed element is “provided with at least one injection location.” It is unclear whether the “blast furnace producing hot metal” or the “blast furnace top gas” is “provided with at least one injection location.” Appropriate correction is required to ensure grammatical clarity.
Claim 40 recites “an electric furnace producing molten metal and electric furnace gas using at least a part of the produced direct iron” in Lines 7-8. It is grammatically unclear whether the electric furnace produces “electric furnace gas” or not. It is unclear what claimed element ‘uses’ “at least a part of the produced direct iron.” It is further unclear the metes and bounds of “use” of “at least a part of the produced direct iron.” It is unclear what repeatable action is taken regarding the direct reduced iron. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish what actionable method step is taken regarding the “use” of produced direct reduced iron in in the instant claim.
Claim 40 recites “designed so as to allow” in Lines 10. It is unclear what tangible structure this recitation imparts to the claimed network of plants, what arrangement or structure is applied, or what meaning this phrase has, rendering the claim indefinite. The phrase “designed so as to allow” can reference subjective and intangible concepts. Appropriate correction is required to establish a tangible component.
Claim 40 recites “a gas distribution system” in Line 10 followed by two numbered bullet points in lines 11-14 and it is unclear the following:
It is unclear whether one, both, or any of these limitations are required by the Claim.
Further, Lines 15-16 recite limitations regarding “blast furnace top gas” and it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to be part of the “gas distribution system” of Line 10, or some other meaning entirely.
Further, the phrase regarding “blast furnace top gas” in Lines 15-16 is disjointed from the rest of the claim. It is therefore unclear the meaning of “the blast furnace top gas to be at least partly sent to the biochemical plant” and whether this limitation is connected to the “gas distribution system” of Line 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-23, 25-26, 28,29, 31, 35, and 37-39 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 21-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. EP 3425070 A1 in view of NPL Diemer et al.
Regarding Claim 21, Grant et al. ‘070 teaches a steel manufacturing method comprising producing hot metal and a blast furnace top gas in a blast furnace, wherein hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace and the blast furnace top gas is at least partly sent to a biochemical plant to produce hydrocarbons [0036]. Grant et al. ‘070 teaches exemplary injection of 200 Nm3 and 300 Nm3 of hydrogen per ton of hot metal to be produced into the blast furnace [0074], falling within the instantly claimed range of from 200 Nm3 to 700 Nm3.
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).
Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches its steel manufacturing plant includes an electric arc furnace at [0024], but does not expressly detail the production of direct reduced iron.
However, NPL Diemer et al. teaches a steel manufacturing method including producing direct reduced iron and a reduction top gas in a direct reduction plant using a reducing gas, the reduction top gas being at least partly recycled as the reducing gas (Page 24). NPL Diemer et al. further teaches producing molten metal and electric furnace gas in an electric furnace using at least a part of the produced direct reduced iron (Page 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the steps of NPL Diemer et al. in the plant of Grant et al. ‘070 in order to minimize the production of carbon dioxide in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 28) and the teachings of Grant et al. ‘070 at [0007], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches at [0045] injecting hydrogen into the blast furnace at a temperature between 700 and 1300 °C, overlapping the instantly claimed range of comprised between 750 and 1100 °C, 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).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches at [0027, 0050] injecting hydrogen into a shaft of the blast furnace, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, NPL Diemer et al. further teaches at least one hydrogen source of the hydrogen injected into the blast furnace is a tar gas (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for waste gas from chemical industry) at (Page 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to supply the blast furnace of Grant et al. ‘070 with waste gas from chemical industry in order to reduce pollution and minimize the production of carbon dioxide in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 28) and the teachings of Grant et al. ‘070 at [0007], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. Grant et al. ‘070 teaches coke oven gas as fuel for its blast furnace at [0097] but does not expressly detail the claimed step of producing coke and coke oven gas in a coke plant.
However, NPL Diemer et al. further teaches producing coke and coke oven gas in a coke plant, the coke being at least partly charged into the blast furnace for the production of hot metal, the coke oven gas being a hydrogen source of the hydrogen injected into the blast furnace (Pages 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to supply the blast furnace of Grant et al. ‘070 with coke oven gas in order to reduce environmental effect of a coke oven plant in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 27), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
NPL Diemer et al. further teaches the reducing gas for the production of direct reduced iron includes the coke oven gas (Page 23), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Diemer et al. further teaches the reduction top gas is hydrogen sources of the hydrogen injected into the blast furnace (Page 30), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches its steel manufacturing plant includes an electric arc furnace at [0022], but does not expressly detail the production of direct reduced iron.
However, NPL Diemer et al. further teaches the reduction top gas is at least partly injected as reductant (Page 24). As set forth above, Grant et al. ‘070 teaches at [0027, 0050] injecting hydrogen reductant into a shaft of the blast furnace.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle top gas from the production of direct reduced iron into the shaft of the blast furnace of Grant et al. ‘070 in order to minimize the production of carbon dioxide in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 28) and the teachings of Grant et al. ‘070 at [0007], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches its steel manufacturing plant includes an electric arc furnace at [0022], but does not expressly detail the production of direct reduced iron.
However, NPL Diemer et al. further teaches the reduction top gas is at least partly sent to a biochemical plant to produce hydrocarbons (Page 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle top gas from the production of direct reduced iron at least partly to a biochemical plant in order to minimize the production of carbon dioxide in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 28) and the teachings of Grant et al. ‘070 at [0007], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace and the blast furnace top gas generated is at least partly sent to a biochemical plant located downstream the blast furnace to produce hydrocarbons [0038], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the reducing gas includes at least at least 70%v of hydrogen [0056], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the reducing gas includes hydrogen generated by biological and or electrolytic water decomposition [0034], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for green hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the molten metal produced in the electric furnace is transformed in liquid steel in a converter [0022], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches biologically generated hydrogen is injected into the blast furnace [0033-0035], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for green hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 35, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the blast furnace top gas is recycled as reductant in the blast furnace [0047], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 37, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Grant et al. ‘070 teaches powering all the steps with renewable energy [0042], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 38, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
NPL Diemer et al. further teaches the hot metal is used in the electric furnace to produce molten metal (Pages 28, 30), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 39, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Diemer et al. further teaches scrap is used in the electric furnace to produce molten metal (Page 28), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 40, modified Grant et al. ‘070 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Grant et al. ‘070 teaches a blast furnace producing hot metal and a blast furnace top gas provided with at least one injection location for receiving an exemplary 200 Nm3 and 300 Nm3 of hydrogen per ton of hot metal to be produced [0074], falling within the instantly claimed range of from 200 Nm3 to 700 Nm3.
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).
Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches the blast furnace top gas generated is at least partly sent to a biochemical plant located downstream the blast furnace and able to produce hydrocarbons [0036]. Hydrogen is supplied to at least one injection location of the blast furnace [0070].
As set forth above, Grant et al. ‘070 further teaches its steel manufacturing plant includes an electric arc furnace at [0022], but does not expressly detail the production of direct reduced iron.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Diemer et al. teaches a steel manufacturing method including producing direct reduced iron and a reduction top gas in a direct reduction plant using a reducing gas, the reduction top gas being at least partly recycled as the reducing gas (Page 24). NPL Diemer et al. further teaches producing molten metal and electric furnace gas in an electric furnace using at least a part of the produced direct reduced iron (Page 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to integrate the known steelmaking steps of Grant et al. ‘070 and NPL Diemer et al. and form a network of plants in order to minimize the production of carbon dioxide in the steelmaking process based on the teachings of NPL Diemer et al. at (Page 28) and the teachings of Grant et al. ‘070 at [0007], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. EP 3425070 A1 in view of NPL Diemer et al. as applied to Claims 21-35 and 37-40 above and further in view of NPL Bailera et al.
Regarding Claim 36, Grant et al. ‘070 modified by NPL Diemer et al. teaches the limitations above but does not expressly teach recovering all gases emitted during steel production in a gas hub.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Bailera et al. teaches recovering all the gasses emitted during steel production that recycles top gas as reducing gas (Introduction), produces hot metal and blast furnace top gas in a blast furnace, sends top gas at least partly to the production of hydrocarbons (Section 4.2), produces molten metal and electric furnace gas in an electric furnace using at least a part of the produced direct reduced iron, and recovering all the gases emitted during steel production in a gas hub and redirecting the recovered gases for recycling within the steel production process. e.g. (Introduction, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recover all gasses emitted during steel production in the process of Grant et al. ‘070 modified by NPL Diemer et al. in a gas hub and redirect the recovered gases for recycling within the steel production process in order to reduce environmental effects and meet energy demands based on the teachings of NPL Bailera et al. at (Section 3). Persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to reduce carbon emission to recycle recovered gases in a gas hub, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10526670 B2 teaches metal production by redirecting carbon dioxide and recovering produced furnace gases.
US 4889323 A teaches a mill arrangement for the production of steel including a converter and coking plant designed to improve recycled reduction gas composition.
US 20160348195 A1 teaches a plant complex for steel production including a converter, coke oven plant, blast furnace and renewable energy sources.
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