DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending and are rejected.
Priority
Foreign priority:
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to application no. IT102022000011573 filled on 05/31/2022. The certified copy has been received.
PCT:
The current application is a 371 of the PCT application no. PCT/IT2023/050127 filled on 05/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Drawings filled on 11/25/2024 are acceptable for the examination purpose.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendments to claims 1-11 filled on 11/25/2024 are being fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites multiple limitations as described below which are vague or unclear because of grammatical error due to English translation from foreign language.
Claim 1 starts with Method. It includes grammatical error. Claim should start with A method.
For the examination purpose, Method is construed as, A method.
Claim 1 further recites, wherein said method provides to:. It includes grammatical error and therefore is ambiguous.
For the examination purpose, wherein said method provides to: is construed as, the method comprising:
Claim 1 further recites the limitation, at least one storage system… Broadest reasonable interpretation of storage system can mean multiple different types of storage system such as data storage, material storage, power storage (battery). Claim doesn’t clarify this and therefore it cannot be reasonably construed what type of storage system is recited by the claim. Applicant’s specification describes a power/energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, at least one storage system is construed as, at least one energy storage system.
Claim 1 further recites, absorb at least part of the energy delivered by said electric network and absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. The limitation absorb at least part of the energy and absorb the possible excess energy are inconsistent with the earlier recited claim language “power absorbed” or “power.” To maintain consistency, applicant may consider changing these limitations to, absorb at least a part of power delivered by said electric network and absorb any excess power delivered by said electric network (please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejections).
Claim 1 further recites, …., then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. The word “then” describes that there are a sequence of operation and “absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network” happens after one other operation. Therefore, use of “then” here is grammatically incorrect. Before the last limitation, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network, “and” is missing.
For the examination purpose, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network is construed as, and absorb any excess power delivered by said electric network.
Claims 2-6 recite in the preamble Method as in claim... It includes grammatical error. Claims should start with “The method as in claim…”
For the examination purpose, “Method as in claim... is construed as, The method as in claim…
Claim 3 recites the limitation, said storage system… As described above in parent claim 1. Claim doesn’t clarify this and therefore it cannot be reasonably construed what type of storage system is recited by the claim. Applicant’s specification describes a power/energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, said storage system is construed as, said at least one energy storage system.
Claim 5 recites, supplying, by means of said power compensation system, at least an amount of power to said at least one furnace and/or to said one or more user devices so as to integrate the power supplied by said at least one alternative energy source.
The phrase, “so as to” integrate the power supplied by said at least one alternative energy source is vague, it’s not clear how supplying power from power compensation system helps integrating or required for integrating power supplied by alternative energy source that is different power source than the power compensation system. This limitation is vague due to the translation from a foreign language.
Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
Claim 7 preamble starts with Apparatus. It includes grammatical error. Claim should start with “An apparatus.”
For the examination purpose, Apparatus is construed as, An apparatus.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation, at least one storage system… Broadest reasonable interpretation of storage system can mean multiple different types of storage system such as data storage, material storage, power storage (battery). Claim doesn’t clarify this and therefore it cannot be reasonably construed what type of storage system is recited by the claim. Applicant’s specification describes a power/energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, at least one storage system is construed as, at least one energy storage system.
Claim 7 further recites, said power compensation system being electrically connected to said power supply system and configured to absorb energy. The limitation absorb energy are inconsistent with the earlier recited claim language “power absorbed” or “power.” To maintain consistency, applicant may consider changing this limitation to, absorb power.
Claim 7 further recites, …., then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. The word “then” describes that there are a sequence of operation and “absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network” happens after one other operation. Therefore, use of “then” here is grammatically incorrect. Before the last limitation, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network, “and” is missing.
For the examination purpose, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network is construed as, and absorb any excess power delivered by said electric network (please also see the 35 USC 112(b) rejections).
Claims 8-10 recite in the preamble Apparatus as in claim... It includes grammatical error. Claims should start with “The apparatus as in claim…”
For the examination purpose, Apparatus as in claim... is construed as, The apparatus as in claim…
Claims 8 recites the limitations, said storage system and one or more storage devices. As described above in parent claim 7. Claim doesn’t clarify this and therefore it cannot be reasonably construed what type of storage system is recited by the claim. Applicant’s specification describes a power/energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, said storage system is construed as, said at least one energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, one or more storage devices is construed as, one or more energy storage devices.
Claims 9-10 recite the limitations, said storage system and said storage devices. As described above in parent claim 7. Claim doesn’t clarify this and therefore it cannot be reasonably construed what type of storage system is recited by the claim. Applicant’s specification describes a power/energy storage system.
For the examination purpose, said storage system is construed as, said at least one energy storage system.
The limitation said storage devices is inconsistent with the one or more storage devices recited in parent claim 8.
For the examination purpose, said storage devices is construed as, said one or more energy storage devices.
Claims 11 recites in the preamble Steel plant, comprising at least one apparatus as in claim 7.
Regarding the limitation Steel plant, it includes grammatical error. Claim should start with “A steel plant.”
For the examination purpose, Steel plant is construed as, A steel plant.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 7:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a control system configured to control the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices in claim 7.
The claim limitations as described above uses generic placeholders for performing the claimed function such that the generic placeholders are modified by functional language as discussed below, in claim 7 -
the generic placeholder a control system is modified by the functional language configured to control the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a control system being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure control system 41 (specification paragraph 112) along with algorithm for performing the function of control the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices (specification paragraph 112, 130-131) as described in the specification:
¶112: The control system 41 is configured to monitor one or more parameters of either operating status, quality, quantity and/or cost of the electric energy available from the electric network 15 and from the at least one alternative energy source 40, and the amount of energy required by the one or more lines 11, 21 and/or by the one or more user devices 17, 18, 19, for example by the melting line 11 and/or by the rolling line 21, and select one, the other, or both in order to supply electric energy to the melting line 11 and/or to the rolling line 21 at least as a function of the respective operating status and the overall energy costs.
¶130: where phases F1-F9 are substantially known in the design phase, it is also possible to make the power ramp-ups and ramp-downs less steep by using the power compensation system 50, for example by intervening in advance to divert power to such system or to draw some of the power from such system.
¶131: These ramps can also be modified in real time by the control system 41 on the basis of a comparison between the real trend of the melting or rolling process in progress with respect to the predefined model, for example carried out on the basis of position/speed/temperature data or other parameters of the product being worked, gathered by means of a plurality of suitably positioned sensors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
-Insufficient antecedent basis or Unclear limitations:
Claim 1:
Claim recites the limitation comprising at least one of either a furnace for melting metal material or one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace…
Claim recites that it comprises either “furnace for melting metal material” or “one or more user devices” and then requires that one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace. Such that the preamble makes the furnace optional as described above; however, later rely on it such that making it a required component. Therefore, it is not clear whether a furnace is actually required.
For the examination purpose, it cannot be construed whether furnace is a required component.
Claim 1 further recites, in order to keep the power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value. Claim earlier recites, 1. the power absorbed from said electric network by said at least one furnace and/or by said one or more user devices, and 2. at least one storage system and at least one other user device, and configured to absorb at least part of the energy delivered by said electric network. Thus, claim recites two different instances of power absorptions that are in broadest reasonable interpretation, can be two different amounts of power absorption.
The limitation the power absorbed from said electric network makes it unclear and vague because it is not clear whether this “the power absorbed” here refers to a total power absorbed from said electric network by all the power consuming devices recited by the claim, or power absorbed by said furnace and/or said one or more user devices, or power absorbed by at least one storage system and at least one other user device.
For the examination purpose, in light of the specification, in order to keep the power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value… is construed as, in order to keep a total power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value…
Claim 1 further recites, in order to keep the power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value.
The term “within a range of the given value” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term within a range of the given value is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim doesn’t specifically describe what is the size of the range around the given value. The specification doesn’t provide any specific details about a standard or boundary of the size of the range around the given value.
For the examination purpose, it cannot be construed what is a specific range the power absorbed is kept.
Claim 1 further recites, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network in the claim. Claim never defines possible excess energy delivered by said electric network before refereeing back to it with “the”.
Regarding the limitation, possible excess energy delivered by said electric network, the phrase “possible excess energy” makes this limitation vague.
The term “possible excess energy” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term possible excess energy is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “possible” makes it unclear whether this limitation excess energy is required. Further, the word “excess energy” doesn’t state any reference point to clearly describe how it is being determined that there is any excess energy.
For the examination purpose, in light of the specification, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network is construed as, and absorb any excess power delivered by said electric network.
Appropriate corrections required.
Claim 7:
Claim 7 recites the limitation comprising at least one of either a furnace for melting metal material or one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace…
Claim recites that it comprises either “furnace for melting metal material” or “one or more user devices” and then requires that one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace. Such that the preamble makes the furnace optional as described above; however, later rely on it such that making it a required component. Therefore, it is not clear whether a furnace is actually required.
For the examination purpose, it cannot be construed whether furnace is a required component.
Claim 7 further recites, control the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices in the claim.
For the examination purpose, the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices is construed as, a power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices.
Claim 7 further recites, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network in the claim. Claim never defines possible excess energy delivered by said electric network before referring back to it with “the”.
Regarding the limitation, possible excess energy delivered by said electric network, the phrase “possible excess energy” makes this limitation vague.
The term “possible excess energy” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term possible excess energy is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “possible” makes it unclear whether this limitation excess energy is required. Further, the word “excess energy” doesn’t state any reference point to clearly describe how it is being determined that there is any excess energy.
For the examination purpose, in light of the specification, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network is construed as, and absorb any excess power delivered by said electric network.
Appropriate corrections required.
Claim 8:
Claim recites the limitation said common bus.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because the parent claim 7 doesn’t recite any common bus, this limitation is recited by claim 3 which is a method claim and not an apparatus claim.
For the examination purpose, said common bus is construed as, a common bus.
Appropriate corrections required.
Claims 9-10:
Claim 9 recites the limitation, wherein said storage system is static and said storage devices comprise batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors or suchlike.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, turbogenerators powered by renewable fuels such as palm oil, mini-hydro turbines or suchlike.
The terms “suchlike” and “such as” in the claims are relative terms that render the claims indefinite. The terms “suchlike” and “such as” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim doesn’t specifically describe suchlike and such as and what they can include and what they exclude. Therefore, these terms leaves the scope of the claim open ended.
Appropriate corrections required.
Dependent Claims:
Based on their dependencies in claim 1, claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Based on their dependencies in claim 7, claims 8-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
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 filling 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molteni et al. (WO2021234751A1, listed in the IDS filled 11/25/2024) [hereinafter Molteni] and further in view of Prosser et al. (US20120245744A1) [hereinafter Prosser].
Regarding claim 1:
Molteni discloses, Method for supplying electric energy in a steel plant, [page 4, lines 9-11: an electric power supply apparatus for an industrial plant for treating materials, wherein the plant comprises one or more lines for treating materials and one or more user devices…
page 4, lines 30-31: This plant can be…a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action];
comprising at least one of either a furnace for melting metal material [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein the melting line is provided with at least one furnace…
page 8, lines 7-8: The melting line 11 is provided with at least one user device, in particular a furnace 12 for melting metal material
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding the claim language “either” a furnace or user devices as set forth in this office action];
or one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein…the rolling line comprises one or several user devices…
page 8, lines 6-8, 10-11: The line 21 for rolling the metal material is provided with one or more user devices 17, 18, 19… The molten metal material produced by the melting line 11 can be transferred to the rolling line 21 for example by means of a continuous casting process.
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding the claim language “either” a furnace or user devices as set forth in this office action];
which are electrically powered by means of power supply means comprising at least one transformer connected to an electric network and [page 7, lines 24-28: The plant 20 comprises one or more lines 11, 21 for treating materials and one or more user devices 12, 17, 18, 19 powered in alternating current by power supply means 13 of the apparatus 10, which comprise at least one transformer 14 connected to a mains power network 15 and a power supply system 16 located downstream of the transformer 14…
page 8, lines 7-8: The melting line 11 is provided with at least one user device, in particular a furnace 12 for melting metal material];
a power supply system located downstream of said transformer, wherein said method provides to: [page 7, lines 26-28: at least one transformer 14 connected to a mains power network 15 and a power supply system 16 located downstream of the transformer 14…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action];
controlling, by means of a control system, the power absorbed from said electric network by said at least one furnace and/or by said one or more user devices; and [page 13, lines 10-15: The present apparatus 10 can also comprise a management unit 41 configured to monitor one or more parameters between…the quantity and/or the cost of the electrical energy available from the mains power network 15 and from the at least one alternative energy source 40, and the quantity of energy required by the one or more lines 11, 21 and/or by the one or more user devices 17, 18, 19…
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding “the power absorbed” as set forth in this office action];
electrically connecting said power supply system to a power compensation system comprising at least one storage system and at least one other user device, and configured to absorb at least part of the energy delivered by said electric network… then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. [page 10, lines 26-27: The accumulation system 29 can comprise one or more accumulation devices 30…
page 10, lines 32-33: The accumulation system 29 can be static, therefore comprising accumulation devices 30 such as batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors…
page 11, lines 1-6: The accumulation system 29 can be chemical, for example by means of systems for producing hydrogen by electrolysis, gas compression, hydrogen fuel cells or other…
page 11, lines 8-9: the surplus of energy in the period in which it is idle can be accumulated by means of one of the accumulation system 29…
Examiner notes that, Molteni teaches power compensation system 29 with storage system 30 such as battery and one other device such as systems for producing hydrogen by electrolysis.
Examiner notes the claim objections regarding “at least one storage system” as set forth in this office action], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Prosser discloses, …absorb at least part of the energy delivered by said electric network when said furnace and/or said one or more user devices require, from said electric network, a power lower than a given value, in order to keep the power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value, absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network [¶36: threshold power consumption value at 20… monitor power consumption of the loads at the site at 21….determines whether present power consumption exceeds the threshold value at 22….If it has not exceeded that value, the controller determines whether the storage system charge has fallen below a maintenance charge level at 24…If it has fallen below that level, the controller directs the storage system to recharge at 25 using power…then the controller resumes its monitoring function at 21….
¶31: If it has exceeded that value, the controller instructs the storage system to supply excess energy above the threshold value to the load at 23.
Examiner notes that Prosser discloses, as described above and as described in figure 2.; when the power consumption of the loads are below threshold, the surplus energy is absorbed by the storage/battery so that the total power absorbed from the electrical energy supplying system is kept within threshold (fig. 2 control loop 22 to 25 and then going back to 20 to 22).
Examiner notes the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections as set forth in this office action].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of absorbing by power compensation system at least part of the energy delivered by said electric network when said furnace and/or said one or more user devices require, from said electric network, a power lower than a given value, in order to keep the power absorbed from said electric network within a range of the given value, absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network in order to make the energy consumption more stable and thereby reducing or eliminating peak or spike in consumption at that time taught by Prosser with the method taught by MOLTENI as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to make the energy consumption more stable and thereby reducing or eliminating peak or spike in consumption at that time [Prosser, ¶10: energy consumption is made more level at a site and peaks in power consumption are reduced… thereby reducing or eliminating a peak or spike in consumption at that time.]
Regarding claim 2:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Method as in claim 1, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said at least one furnace is part of at least one melting line and said one or more user devices are part of a rolling line. [page 8, lines 4-9: The plant can comprise at least one line 11 for melting metal material and at least one rolling line 21 for rolling the metal material produced by the melting line 11. The melting line 11 is provided with…a furnace 12 for melting metal material. The line 21 for rolling the metal material is provided with one or more user devices 17, 18, 19.
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 3:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Method as in claim 1, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said storage system is electrically connected to a common bus associated with direct current connection systems electrically connected to said at least one furnace and/or to said one or more user devices. [page 10, lines 24-25: The present apparatus 10 can comprise an energy accumulation system 29 electrically connected to the common bus 24…
page 10, lines 26-27: The accumulation system 29 can comprise one or more accumulation devices 30…
page 8, lines 22-26: these direct current connection systems 22 and 23 located respectively between the alternative energy source 40 and the melting furnace 12 and between the alternative energy source 40 and the user devices 17, 18, 19 of the rolling line 21 are associated with at least one common direct current connection line or bus 24…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 4:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Method as in claim 1, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein electric energy is supplied to said at least one furnace and/or to said one or more user devices by means of at least one alternative energy source, different and independent from said electric network. [page 7, lines 29-33 to page 8, line 1: the power supply means 13 also comprise at least one alternative energy source 40 provided upstream of the power supply system 16 and able to supply power energy to the one or more lines 11, 21 for treating the materials and/or to the one or more user devices 12, 17, 18, 19 in addition, or as an alternative, to the electrical energy supplied by the mains power network 15, in particular a public mains power network 15.].
Regarding claim 5:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Method as in claim 4, and
Molteni further discloses, further comprising supplying, by means of said power compensation system, at least an amount of power to said at least one furnace and/or to said one or more user devices so as to integrate the power supplied by said at least one alternative energy source. [page 10, lines 29-31: The accumulation system 29 can be useful, for example, in compensating for the discontinuity typical of the renewable energy sources 25 that are used, for example photovoltaic or wind power plants.…
page 11, lines 10-12: In the event the accumulation system 29 is provided in the apparatus 10, the converters 27, 28 have to be of the bi-directional type, that is, capable of both transferring energy to the load
Examiner notes that, since these limitations are vague as described in the claim objection section, in broadest reasonable interpretation, it is construed that both of the power sources such as power compensation system and alternative energy source are independent such that power can be supplied by any of the power compensation system or alternative energy source.
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 7:
Molteni discloses, Apparatus for supplying electric energy in a steel plant [page 4, lines 9-11: an electric power supply apparatus for an industrial plant for treating materials, wherein the plant comprises one or more lines for treating materials and one or more user devices…
page 4, lines 30-31: This plant can be…a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action];
comprising at least one of either a furnace for melting metal material [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein the melting line is provided with at least one furnace…
page 8, lines 7-8: The melting line 11 is provided with at least one user device, in particular a furnace 12 for melting metal material
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding the claim language “either” a furnace or user devices as set forth in this office action];
or one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein…the rolling line comprises one or several user devices…
page 8, lines 6-8, 10-11: The line 21 for rolling the metal material is provided with one or more user devices 17, 18, 19… The molten metal material produced by the melting line 11 can be transferred to the rolling line 21 for example by means of a continuous casting process.
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding the claim language “either” a furnace or user devices as set forth in this office action];
which are electrically powered by means of power supply means comprising at least one transformer connected to an electric network [page 7, lines 24-28: The plant 20 comprises one or more lines 11, 21 for treating materials and one or more user devices 12, 17, 18, 19 powered in alternating current by power supply means 13 of the apparatus 10, which comprise at least one transformer 14 connected to a mains power network 15 and a power supply system 16 located downstream of the transformer 14…
page 8, lines 7-8: The melting line 11 is provided with at least one user device, in particular a furnace 12 for melting metal material];
and a power supply system located downstream of said transformer, wherein said apparatus comprises [page 7, lines 26-28: at least one transformer 14 connected to a mains power network 15 and a power supply system 16 located downstream of the transformer 14…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action];
a control system configured to control the power absorbed by said at least one furnace and/or said one or more user devices [page 13, lines 10-15: The present apparatus 10 can also comprise a management unit 41 configured to monitor one or more parameters between…the quantity and/or the cost of the electrical energy available from the mains power network 15 and from the at least one alternative energy source 40, and the quantity of energy required by the one or more lines 11, 21 and/or by the one or more user devices 17, 18, 19…
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding “the power absorbed” as set forth in this office action.
Examiner notes the claim interpretations as set forth in this office action];
and a power compensation system comprising at least one storage system and at least one other user device, said power compensation system being electrically connected to said power supply system and configured to absorb energy… then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. [page 10, lines 26-27: The accumulation system 29 can comprise one or more accumulation devices 30…
page 10, lines 32-33: The accumulation system 29 can be static, therefore comprising accumulation devices 30 such as batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors…
page 11, lines 1-6: The accumulation system 29 can be chemical, for example by means of systems for producing hydrogen by electrolysis, gas compression, hydrogen fuel cells or other…
page 11, lines 8-9: the surplus of energy in the period in which it is idle can be accumulated by means of one of the accumulation system 29…
Examiner notes that, Molteni teaches power compensation system 29 with storage system 30 such as battery and one other device such as systems for producing hydrogen by electrolysis.
Examiner notes the claim objections regarding “at least one storage system” as set forth in this office action], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Prosser discloses, … absorb energy when said furnace and/or said one or more user devices require a power lower than a given value, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network. [¶36: threshold power consumption value at 20… monitor power consumption of the loads at the site at 21….determines whether present power consumption exceeds the threshold value at 22….If it has not exceeded that value, the controller determines whether the storage system charge has fallen below a maintenance charge level at 24…If it has fallen below that level, the controller directs the storage system to recharge at 25 using power…then the controller resumes its monitoring function at 21….
¶31: If it has exceeded that value, the controller instructs the storage system to supply excess energy above the threshold value to the load at 23.
Examiner notes that Prosser discloses, as described above and as described in figure 2.; when the power consumption of the loads are below threshold, the surplus energy is absorbed by the storage/battery so that the total power absorbed from the electrical energy supplying system is kept within threshold (fig. 2 control loop 22 to 25 and then going back to 20 to 22).
Examiner notes the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections as set forth in this office action].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of absorbing by power compensation system energy when said furnace and/or said one or more user devices require a power lower than a given value, then absorb the possible excess energy delivered by said electric network in order to make the energy consumption more stable and thereby reducing or eliminating peak or spike in consumption at that time taught by Prosser with the apparatus taught by MOLTENI as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to make the energy consumption more stable and thereby reducing or eliminating peak or spike in consumption at that time [Prosser, ¶10: energy consumption is made more level at a site and peaks in power consumption are reduced… thereby reducing or eliminating a peak or spike in consumption at that time.]
Regarding claim 8:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Apparatus as in claim 7, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said storage system is provided with one or more storage devices connected to said common bus by means of a corresponding high frequency converter. [page 10, lines 24-25: The present apparatus 10 can comprise an energy accumulation system 29 electrically connected to the common bus 24…
page 10, lines 26-28: The accumulation system 29 can comprise one or more accumulation devices 30 connected to the common bus 24 by means of a corresponding high-frequency converter 31.
Examiner notes the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 9:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Apparatus as in claim 8, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said storage system is static and said storage devices comprise batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors or suchlike. [page 10, lines 32-33: The accumulation system 29 can be static, therefore comprising accumulation devices 30 such as batteries, fuel cells, supercapacitors.
Examiner notes the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 10:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Apparatus as in claim 8, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said storage system is dynamic and said storage devices comprise flywheel energy storage batteries, turbogenerators powered by renewable fuels such as palm oil, mini-hydro turbines or suchlike. [page 11, lines 1-4: the accumulation system 29 can be dynamic, thus comprising accumulation devices 30 such as FES (Flywheel Energy Accumulation) batteries, turbogenerators powered by renewable fuels such as palm oil, turbines for mini hydroelectric or other.
Examiner notes the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as set forth in this office action.].
Regarding claim 11:
Molteni and Prosser disclose apparatus as in claim 7 as described above in claim 7, and
Molteni further discloses, Steel plant, comprising at least one apparatus as in claim 7, [page 4, lines 9-11: an electric power supply apparatus for an industrial plant for treating materials, wherein the plant comprises one or more lines for treating materials and one or more user devices…
page 4, lines 30-31: This plant can be…a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line…
Examiner notes the claim objections as set forth in this office action.];
at least one furnace for melting metal material [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein the melting line is provided with at least one furnace…
page 8, lines 7-8: The melting line 11 is provided with at least one user device, in particular a furnace 12 for melting metal material];
and one or more user devices that use the metal material obtained from said at least one furnace. [page 4, lines 30-33: a steel plant and comprise at least one line for melting metal material and at least one rolling line, wherein…the rolling line comprises one or several user devices…
page 8, lines 6-8, 10-11: The line 21 for rolling the metal material is provided with one or more user devices 17, 18, 19… The molten metal material produced by the melting line 11 can be transferred to the rolling line 21 for example by means of a continuous casting process.]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molteni and Prosser and further in view of ASTORIA et al. (US20200385827A1) [hereinafter ASTORIA].
Regarding claim 6:
Molteni and Prosser disclose Method as in claim 1, and
Molteni further discloses, wherein said other user device is an electrolyzer configured to produce hydrogen [page 10, lines 29-31: The accumulation system 29 can be chemical, for example by means of systems for producing hydrogen by electrolysis,], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
ASTORIA discloses, electrolyzer configured to produce hydrogen and send it to a reactor configured to produce Direct Reduced Iron. [¶10: The main steps of the process are: (a) recirculation of the spent reducing gas from the shaft furnace to an electrolyzer (i.e., oxygen-removal) step, preferably a solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC); (b) a non-quenching dust collection step; (c) direct utilization of steam from the shaft furnace top gas to produce hydrogen; and (d) direct utilization of heat present in gas post electrolyzer…
¶11: direct utilization of process gas sensible heat within the electrolyzer; and ease of integration with post reduction carburizing and other DRI carbon adjusting technologies…
¶12: method for the direct reduction of iron, including: using hydrogen as a chemical carrier for removal of oxygen from iron ore and regenerating resulting steam by electrolysis;
¶2: direct reduced iron (DRI)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of producing hydrogen by electrolyzer and sending it to a reactor configured to produce Direct Reduced Iron in order to minimize energy consumption and easily integrate the use of produced hydrogen for Direct Reduced Iron taught by ASTORIA with the method taught by MOLTENI and Prosser as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to minimize energy consumption and easily integrate the use of produced hydrogen for Direct Reduced Iron [ASTORIA, ¶11: ease of integration with post reduction carburizing and other DRI carbon adjusting technologies… ¶20: minimizes fuel consumption in the plant].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document.
Backes et al. (US20150167500A1): Metallurgical plant:
¶9: The metallurgical plant operates in isolation on a standalone basis and includes two or more metallurgical sub-plants, a separate autonomous network for distributing electrical energy, at least one power generating plant for providing electrical energy in the separate autonomous network, and a control device.
Ballatine et al. (US20120267952A1): DC Micro-Grid:
¶89: In an embodiment, the common DC bus 738 may be a bus which ties the power generator buses 705, 708, and 712, the energy storage buses 716, 720, and 724, and the load buses 728, 732, and 736 together. The common DC bus 738 may be controlled such that the power requirement for the loads 726 a, 726 b, 730 a, 730 b, 734 a, and 734 b is maintained such that:
P(to storages)=P(generators)−P(loads), if P(generators)>P(loads); or i.
P(from storages)=P(loads)−P(generators), if P(generators)<P(loads), ii.
where P is Power..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
