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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Below are produced Figure 1 of the Applicant’s application and Figure 2 of Houseman et al. (US 4,567,857), respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Office contends that the only difference between the two inventions is the heat source or exhaust stream, the applicant’s being from a steel furnace, whilst the prior art’s is from an internal combustion engine. Lovstad et al. (US 2024/0417626) was used to teach using an alternative exhaust stream, such as that from a steel furnace, in order to utilize what would be waste energy.
The Applicant has argued that Lovstad operates in a different direction, i.e., consumes hydrogen, not produces it, which is true, but not the logic behind the combination as mentioned above.
Regarding claims 20-26, the applicant has argued that Houseman et a. (US 4,567,857), Lovstad et al. (US 2024/0417626), and Baldauf et al. (US 2014/0130639) is not an obvious combination because the three inventions address unrelated problems, the Office respectfully disagrees because the core problem solved is recapturing waste heat in the form of exhaust from a process (steel production or diesel combustion) the addition of Baldauf remedies the problem of excessive production of iron oxide, which is undesirable in steel processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houseman et a. (US 4,567,857) in view of Lovstad et al. (US 2024/0417626).
Regarding claim 1, Houseman (H) discloses a system comprising: a residual heat source (C5, L34-42); at least one conversion reactor (10) configured to receive a first material having a first heating value (C6,L43-47,i.e., Methanol (CH3OH)), the at least one conversion reactor being coupled to the residual heat source (Via 20, Figure 2), the at least one conversion reactor configured to catalytically convert the first material to a second material (C5,L17-27, hydrogen) having a second heating value greater than the first heating value. Houseman does not disclose that the residual heat source is from a steel processing unit.
However, Lovstad (L) discloses a system comprising a steel processing unit having a residual heat source ([0013], production of ferroalloys) for use with a conversion reactor (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize waste heat (Off-gas from a blast furnace) instead of exhaust from a diesel engine because capturing waste heat to operate the reactor reduces fuel cost (diesel is not required) and thus efficiency of the operation.
Regarding claim 2, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the residual heat source is from off gas that is inductively, convectively, or radiatively transferred (H- C6,L59-C7,L15,10, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the steel processing unit is an electric arc furnace, a blast furnace ([0022]), or a direct reduction unit.
Regarding claim 4, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first material is methanol (H-C5,L48-62)
Regarding claim 5, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first material is heated to a temperature from ambient to about 180° C. prior to being received by the at least one conversion reactor (H- Figure 1, C4,L60-68 discloses that the idea temperature is below 200 C.).
Regarding claim 6, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first material is vaporized prior to being received by the at least one conversion reactor (H-C3, L31-33).
Regarding claim 7, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second material is hydrogen (H-C5,L48-62).
Regarding claim 8, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises collecting or storing the hydrogen (H-C10,L1-3, i.e., collected for burning).
Regarding claim 9, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one conversion reactor is thermally coupled to the steel processing unit ([0022], via off-gas from blast furnace).
Regarding claim 10, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one conversion reactor is configured to receive the first material at a temperature from ambient to about 180° C (H- Figure 1, C4,L60-68 discloses that the idea temperature is below 200 C.).
Regarding claim 11, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one conversion reactor comprises a catalyst selected from copper-zinc, copper-chromium or zinc-chromium (H-C6,L43-47).
Regarding claim 12, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one conversion reactor is configured to catalytically convert the first material to a third material, wherein the third material is carbon monoxide (H-C5, L17-20), for introduction to the steel processing unit ([0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Houseman (H) discloses a method comprising: providing at least one conversion reactor thermally coupled to a residual heat source (C5, L34-42); receiving a first material having a first heating value (C6,L43-47,i.e., Methanol (CH3OH)), wherein the first material is methanol; catalytically converting the first material to a second material (C5,L17-27, hydrogen) having a second heating value greater than the first heating value, wherein the second material is hydrogen.
Houseman does not disclose that the residual heat source is from a steel processing unit.
However, Lovstad (L) discloses a system comprising a steel processing unit having a residual heat source ([0013], production of ferroalloys) for use with a conversion reactor (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize waste heat (Off-gas from a blast furnace) instead of exhaust from a diesel engine because capturing waste heat to operate the reactor reduces fuel cost (diesel is not required) and thus efficiency of the operation.
Regarding claim 14, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the steel processing unit is an electric arc furnace, a blast furnace, or a direct reduction unit ([0022]),
Regarding claim 15, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, heating the first material to a temperature from ambient to about 180° C. prior to being received by the at least one conversion reactor (H- Figure 1, C4,L60-68 discloses that the idea temperature is below 200 C.).
Regarding claim 16, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, further comprises collecting or storing the hydrogen (H-C10,L1-3, i.e., collected for burning).
Regarding claim 17, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, heating the at least one conversion reactor to a temperature from 180° C. to 800° C (H- Figure 1, C4,L60-68 discloses that the idea temperature is below 200 C.).
Regarding claim 18, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one conversion reactor comprises a catalyst selected from copper-zinc, copper-chromium or zinc-chromium (H-C6,L43-47).
Regarding claim 19, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising catalytically convert the first material to a third material, wherein the third material is carbon monoxide (H-C5, L17-20).
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houseman et a. (US 4,567,857), Lovstad et al. (US 2024/0417626), and Baldauf et al. (US 2014/0130639).
Regarding claim 20, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, but not the step of introducing the third material to the steel processing unit.
However, Baldauf (B) discloses a steel processing method (Abstract) with the step of introducing the third material to the steel processing unit ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize the carbon monoxide generated as a process gas for the furnace to reduce or eliminate the need for solid carbon introduction.
Regarding claim 21, Houseman (H) discloses a method of reducing or eliminating solid carbon introduction into a steel process, the method comprising: providing at least one conversion reactor (10) thermally coupled to a residual heat source (C5, L34-42); receiving methanol (C6,L43-47) in the at least one conversion reactor; catalytically converting the methanol to a carbon monoxide stream and a hydrogen stream (C5,L17-27, hydrogen). Houseman does not disclose that the heat source is a steel processing plant or separating the carbon monoxide stream from the hydrogen stream; and introducing the carbon monoxide stream into the steel processing unit so as to reduce or eliminate solid carbon introduction.
However, Lovstad (L) discloses a system comprising a steel processing unit having a residual heat source ([0013], production of ferroalloys) for use with a conversion reactor (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize waste heat (Off-gas from a blast furnace) instead of exhaust from a diesel engine because capturing waste heat to operate the reactor reduces fuel cost (diesel is not required) and thus efficiency of the operation.
Additionally, Baldauf (B) discloses a steel processing method (Abstract) with the step of introducing the third material to the steel processing unit ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize the waste heat of the plant and carbon monoxide generated as a process gas for the furnace to reduce or eliminate the need for solid carbon introduction and to save energy
Regarding claim 22, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the steel processing unit is an electric arc furnace, a blast furnace, or a direct reduction unit (L-[0022]).
Regarding claim 23, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 21, heating or vaporizing the methanol to a temperature from ambient to about 180° C. prior to being received by the at least one conversion reactor.
Regarding claim 24, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one conversion reactor is configured to continuously or semi-continuously receive the methanol and continuously or semi-continuously produce the carbon monoxide stream and the hydrogen stream (H- C5,L48-62, via 22, Figure 2)
Regarding claim 25, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 21, heating the at least one conversion reactor to a temperature from 180° C. to 800° C (H- Figure 1, C4,L60-68 discloses that the idea temperature is below 200 C.).
Regarding claim 26, Houseman (H), as modified, discloses the method of claim 21, further comprises collecting or storing the hydrogen stream (H-C10,L1-3, i.e., collected for burning).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JOHN E. BARGERO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights