DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under review.
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 2-3 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. Claims 2-3 recite the terms “coarse” and “fine”, which are indefinite because these are relative terms of degree that are not further defined by the instant claims or specification. It is unclear as to what particular particle size, if any, is required by these terms. It is unclear whether these terms require specific quantitative values for example, or whether these terms merely pertain to a broad category of particle sizes, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the claimed terms to be met by any particle size of relatively larger and smaller sizes, respectively.
Claim 11 is 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. The phrase "for example" and “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the impurities have to be metals having the claimed composition or not. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any element that would be considered to be an impurity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (US 3,288,590) in view of Villarreal-Trevino (US 6,224,649); and alternatively further in view of Werther et al. (2004, Modeling of industrial fluidized-bed reactors) and Toth et al. (2020, Combustion behavior of pulverized sponge iron as a recyclable electrofuel).
Regarding claim 1, Keith et al. discloses a method for reducing iron oxide [col.1 ln.10-15]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that a product of reduced iron oxide is metallic iron and that the initial iron oxide material to be reduced is a charge material as claimed. Keith et al. further teaches steps of:
Providing iron oxide particles having an average size of -200 mesh (approximately up to 75 micrometers as determined by the examiner) to a fluidized bed [col.2 ln.55-65, fig.1-4].
Reducing the iron oxide by flowing reducing gas through the bed (18) under a pressure of 150 psi or higher (approximately 10 atm or higher) at a temperature of 900 to 1200 degrees F (approximately 480 to 650 degrees C) and gas velocity of 5 to 25 feet per second (approximately 150 to 760 meters per second) [col.2 ln.65 to col.4 ln.40, fig.1-4].
Removing partially used, effluent gas from the fluidized bed reactor, mixing with fresh reducing gas, and is reusing for further reduction [col.3 ln.28-68, fig.1-4].
Removing the reduced iron oxide particles for further collection [col.3 ln.34-47, fig.1-4]. Keith et al. does not teach any change in particle size, such that one of ordinary skill would understand the reduced particle size to be substantially the same as the initial particle size of -200 mesh.
The examiner notes that the overlap between the parameters of Keith et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Keith et al. does not expressly teach that the reduced iron is an iron fuel as claimed. However, the examiner notes that “fuel” is an instance of intended use which does not impart any further structure to the claims because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble of “fuel” merely states the purpose or intended use of the reduced iron, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. See MPEP 2111.02. Alternatively, Toth et al. teaches that reduced, metallic iron is know to be a fully recyclable, zero-carbon fuel source [p.210]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Keith et al. by utilizing the reduced iron as an iron fuel because iron is a fully recyclable, zero-carbon fuel source as taught by Toth et al. above. Toth et al. further teaches that iron powder used for fuel can have a particle size as shown in fig.1, which falls within the claimed range of particle size of the stream of iron fuel [fig.1].
Keith et al. does not expressly teach that the particle size is a Sauter particle size as claimed. However, the examiner submits that it is commonly well known and obvious to measure particle size relative to a hypothetical sphere having the same volume as the powder, which meets the limitation of a Sauter particle size. Alternatively, Werther et al. also expressly teaches that Sauter particle size is an important factor in affecting fluid dynamics of a fluidized powder bed [p.5600]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Keith et al. by measuring a Sauter mean particle size as an important factor in determining fluid dynamics of the powder bed as taught by Werther et al.
Keith et al. does not expressly teach that removing the reduced iron material includes sub-steps as claimed. Villarreal-Trevino discloses a method of obtaining metallic iron from reduction of iron-oxide-containing particles [abstract]; wherein after desired reduction, the metallic iron can be depressurized and cooled in subsequent hoppers (ie. vessels) as is well known in the art as based on necessity [col.7 ln.33-40, col.9 ln.45-65, fig.3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Keith et al. by performing the aforementioned removal steps of Villarreal-Trevino as desired based on necessity as taught above. The examiner notes that the particular order of cooling and depressurization is prima facie obvious absent a new or unexpected result due to the order of processing steps. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Nonetheless, Villarreal-Trevino further teaches embodiments wherein cooling is first performed in a discharge zone (20, 21) and then subsequently depressurized to ambient [col.9 ln.45-65, claim13, fig.3]. Villarreal-Trevino does not expressly teach that the cooling gas is inert or a subsequent storage step; however, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that the use of inert gases for cooling and drying is commonly known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to avoid contamination. Furthermore, storage would have been a commonly known, obvious step because one of ordinary skill would readily understand that it is known to store products after production and prior to use.
Regarding claims 2-3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that reduced particles that have been fluidized are then deposited into a collection zone pile while the reducing gas is removed, followed by a further separation by means of cyclone or filters, which meets the limitation of “coarse” and “fine” particles respectively because one of ordinary skill would understand that coarser, larger particles will naturally separate and collect in piles due to gravity while finer, smaller particles will require a further, subsequent separate cyclone/filter separation steps to be removed from the reducing gas stream [col.3 ln.4-12]. Alternatively, Villarreal-Trevino further teaches that the reducing gas can be separated from particles having a size of above 0.1 mm (coarse) and subsequently smaller particles less than 0.1 mm (fine) through subsequent filtering steps [col.7 ln.15-30].
Regarding claims 4-5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that the effluent gas can be scrubbed to remove water vapor through condensation prior to being reused [col.3 ln.46-68].
Regarding claims 6-7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that the iron oxide material is preheated to a temperature of 900 to 1350 degrees C (approximately 482 to 732 degrees C) prior to introduction into the reactor, which meets the claimed range [col.2 ln.56-65].
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that the iron oxide material is pressurized to the pressure of the reduction system [col.2 ln.56-65].
Regarding claims 9-10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that the effluent gas can be reheated by means of a heat exchanger prior to reuse [col.3 ln.46-68].
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. teaches iron oxides as already explained above. Keith et al. does not expressly teach the presence of impurities; however, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that impurities are naturally present in steel unless otherwise specified. Since Keith et al. does not teach any special purifying steps, one of ordinary skill would understand the iron oxide material of Keith et al. to include normal, conventional impurities.
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. teaches expressly depicts several fluidized bed reactors in series [fig.1-4].
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Keith et al. further teaches that the reducing gas is at least 85 percent hydrogen [col.2 ln.72-75].
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Villarreal-Trevino discloses cooled in subsequent hoppers (ie. vessels), wherein said hoppers serve to transport the reduced iron from the reactors and therefore meet the limitation of simultaneous cooling and transport [col.7 ln.33-40, col.9 ln.45-65, fig.3]. Alternatively, as stated above, the examiner notes that the particular order of cooling and depressurization is prima facie obvious absent a new or unexpected result due to the order of processing steps. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (US 3,288,590) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agarwal (US 2,921,848).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 14 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a step of cooling to agglomerate the iron material as claimed. Agarwal discloses that it is commonly known to cool and agglomerate reduced iron for appropriate use [col.2 ln.1-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing cooling and agglomeration of the reduced iron such that the reduced iron can be utilized appropriately as taught by Agarwal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
