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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-31 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1, 10, and 21 are amended. Claim 31 is new.
The objections to claims 1, 10, and 21 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 21 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 21 recite “a first port disposed in a bottom portion of the shell and having and an open configuration and a closed configuration, the first port fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation; and a second port disposed in a bottom portion of the shell and having an open configuration and a closed configuration, the second port disposed above the first port and fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation” in lines 9-16 of each claim, however the instant specification does not disclose either of a first or second port, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the second port is configured to transfer the at least a portion of the slag to a granulation unit” in lines 1-2. The instant specification discloses “slag produced… in the main furnace 103 can enter a slag granulation system 104” (instant specification: [0080]), however the instant specification does not disclose a second port that transfers slag to a granulation unit, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 31 recites “granulation unit based on a concentration of metal oxide present in the slag” in lines 2-3. The instant specification discloses “slag produced… in the main furnace 103 can enter a slag granulation system 104”, however the instant specification does not disclose granulation based on a concentration of metal oxide in the slag, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 10-20 and 31 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 10 recites the limitation "the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector, and a second line tangent to a cross-sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis" in lines 3-5. The limitation is indefinite as a second line tangent to a cross-sectional section of the shell (i.e., along the cross-section), that is perpendicular to the internal axis, could extend in infinitely many directions relative to a first line tangent to the injector, making unclear how the angle is actually determined.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "configured to transfer… slag to a granulation unit based on a concentration of metal oxide present in the slag" in lines 1-3. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the transfer is actually based on the concentration of metal (e.g., above a certain concentration of metal oxide the slag is transferred, below a certain concentration of metal oxide the slag is transferred, if the concentration of metal oxide is increasing or decreasing the slag is transferred).
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
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 1-9, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Eichberger (US 6524362 B1, cited in IDS dated 07/15/2025) in view of Wolf et al. (US 4214736 A).
Regarding claim 1, Eichberger teaches a furnace 1 comprising a shell defining an inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 59), comprising lances 6 (Col. 2 lines 56-60), tuyeres 10 and 11 (Col. 2 line 67 – Col. 3 line 2), and a double lance 12 (Col. 3 lines 2-6) (together equivalent to an injector) all extending into the inner volume of the shell (Fig. 1., Col. 2 line 59). Eichberger teaches a feed port 3 disposed in a top portion of the shell (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55). Eichberger teaches a bricklined bottom (i.e., a hearth) 2 disposed in a bottom portion of the inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55), the hearth configured to contain a molten bath 8 (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 2), the molten bath 8 including a layer of metal product 8a and a layer of slag 9 (Col. 2 lines 65-67). Eichberger teaches wherein the injector 10, 11, and 12 is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 1-6). Eichberger does not teach a first or second port.
Wolf teaches an arc heater melting system (Title), where metal is melted in a furnace comprising arc heaters (Abstract, Col. 1 lines 35-50), where the metal may be cast iron or steel (Col. 2 lines 8-10), and produces a metal layer and a slag layer (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 48-50) thus Wolf and Eichberger are analogous as both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metals. Wolf teaches a first port 77 disposed in a bottom portion 69 of a melting chamber 47 (analogous to a shell) (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 51-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration to be able to hold metal in the holding chamber 73 (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 49-50), and also be able to tap metal (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches the first port to be fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation (Col. 2 lines 52-53).
Wolf teaches a slag hole 71 (i.e., second port) disposed in a bottom portion 69 of the shell (Fig. 2, lines 48-49), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration. Wolf teaches the second port disposed above the first port (Fig. 2), where as the second port is a slag hole (i.e., for removing slag from the furnace), it would intrinsically be fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, with the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation.
Because Eichberger is silent with respect to where the taphole for removing metal product is located and how slag is removed from the furnace, in order to carry out the invention of Eichberger one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching ports for removing metal and slag suitable for use within the process of Eichberger, such as those taught by Wolf. As Eichberger and Wolf both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metal which produces slag and metal layers, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ports of Wolf.
Eichberger in view of Wolf does not teach wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace or wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, however as claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, the introduction of oxide feed through the feed port and the receiving of oxide feed results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Eichberger in view of Wolf teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, Eichberger in view of Wolf reads on claim 1 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 21, Eichberger teaches a furnace 1 comprising a shell defining an inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 59), comprising lances 6 (Col. 2 lines 56-60), tuyeres 10 and 11 (Col. 2 line 67 – Col. 3 line 2), and a double lance 12 (Col. 3 lines 2-6) (together equivalent to an injector) all extending into the inner volume of the shell (Fig. 1., Col. 2 line 59). Eichberger teaches a feed port 3 disposed in a top portion of the shell (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55). Eichberger teaches a bricklined bottom (i.e., a hearth) 2 disposed in a bottom portion of the inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55), the hearth configured to contain a molten bath 8 (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 2), the molten bath 8 including a layer of metal product 8a and a layer of slag 9 (Col. 2 lines 65-67). Eichberger teaches a first electrode 5 disposed in a center region of the furnace (Col. 2 lines 57-58, Col. 3 line 11, Fig. 1) and a second electrode 4 at least partially embedded in the hearth 2 (Col. 2 lines 54-56, Fig. 1). Eichberger teaches the furnace to be an arc furnace (e.g., Title, Abstract, Col. 1 lines 59-65), where as electricity (i.e., the arc) flows from one electrode to the other, the first and the second electrodes are configured to generate an arc between the first electrode and the second electrode. Eichberger teaches wherein the injector 10, 11, and 12 is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 1-6). Eichberger does not teach a first or second port.
Wolf teaches an arc heater melting system (Title), where metal is melted in a furnace comprising arc heaters (Abstract, Col. 1 lines 35-50), where the metal may be cast iron or steel (Col. 2 lines 8-10), and produces a metal layer and a slag layer (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 48-50) thus Wolf and Eichberger are analogous as both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metals. Wolf teaches a first port 77 disposed in a bottom portion 69 of a melting chamber 47 (analogous to a shell) (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 51-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration to be able to hold metal in the holding chamber 73 (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 49-50), and also be able to tap metal (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches the first port to be fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation (Col. 2 lines 52-53).
Wolf teaches a slag hole 71 (i.e., second port) disposed in a bottom portion 69 of the shell (Fig. 2, lines 48-49), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration. Wolf teaches the second port disposed above the first port (Fig. 2), where as the second port is a slag hole (i.e., for removing slag from the furnace), it would intrinsically be fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, with the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation.
Because Eichberger is silent with respect to where the taphole for removing metal product is located and how slag is removed from the furnace, in order to carry out the invention of Eichberger one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching ports for removing metal and slag suitable for use within the process of Eichberger, such as those taught by Wolf. As Eichberger and Wolf both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metal which produces slag and metal layers, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ports of Wolf.
Eichberger in view of Wolf does not teach wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace, wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, or that the arc is configured to ionize at least a portion of the fluid injected by the injector to produce an ionized gas that reduces the oxide feed, however as claim 21 is directed to an apparatus, and wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace, wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, and that the arc is configured to ionize at least a portion of the fluid injected by the injector to produce an ionized gas that reduces the oxide feed all result from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Eichberger in view of Wolf teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 21, Eichberger in view of Wolf reads on claim 21 in its entirety.
Claims 2-9 and 22-28 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claims 2-9 and 22-28 have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 10-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Eichberger in view of Schempp et al. (US 3812275 A).
Regarding claim 10, Eichberger teaches a furnace 1 comprising a shell defining an inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 59), comprising lances 6 (Col. 2 lines 56-60), tuyeres 10 and 11 (Col. 2 line 67 – Col. 3 line 2), and a double lance 12 (Col. 3 lines 2-6) (together equivalent to an injector) all extending into the inner volume of the shell (Fig. 1., Col. 2 line 59). Eichberger teaches a feed port 3 disposed in a top portion of the shell (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55). Eichberger teaches a bricklined bottom (i.e., a hearth) 2 disposed in a bottom portion of the inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 54-55), the hearth configured to contain a molten bath 8 (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 2), the molten bath 8 including a layer of metal product 8a and a layer of slag 9 (Col. 2 lines 65-67). Eichberger teaches wherein the injector 10, 11, and 12 is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 1-6). Eichberger teaches wherein a distal portion of the lances 6 (part of the injector) is at least partially submerged in the layer of slag 9 (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 17-19) and is configured to inject a fluid into the layer of metal product 8 via tuyeres 10 and 11 (Col. 2 line 67 - Col. 3 line 2).
Eichberger does not teach wherein the injector is at an angle less than 90 degrees, the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector and a second line tangent to a cross sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis.
Schempp teaches a steel production method and apparatus (Title), where steel is produced in an electric arc furnace with tuyeres (i.e., injectors) (Abstract, Col. 7 lines 31-37, Col. 8 lines 14-16), thus Schempp and Eichberger are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to arc furnaces for producing ferrous metals comprising injectors. Schempp teaches the injectors 11 may be positioned at a variety of horizontal and vertical angles relative to a vertical axis of the vessel 10 (analogous to a shell of the furnace) (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 30-37), such as so that the tuyeres are oriented at an angle relative to the center of the bath to promote mixing thereof when gas is injected into the melt (Col. 4 lines 42-45) (i.e., wherein the injector is at an angle less than 90 degrees, the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector and a second line tangent to a cross sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis, imparting a swirling motion to at least a portion of the molten bath within the furnace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have angled the injectors as taught by Schempp in the furnace of Eichberger, as doing so would promote mixing in the furnace.
Eichberger does not teach wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace or wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, however as claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, the introduction of oxide feed through the feed port and the receiving of oxide feed results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Eichberger in view of Schempp teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 10, Eichberger in view of Schempp reads on claim 10 in its entirety.
Claims 11 and 13-19 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claims 11 and 13-19 have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger in view of Schempp as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (CN 114076313 A, original document and machine translation supplied with Office Action dated 08/01/2025).
Claim 12 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claim 12 has not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger in view of Schempp as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Meeuwissen (US 5709835 A, cited in Office Action dated 08/01/2025).
Claim 20 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claim 20 has not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger in view of Wolf as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Shver (US 20090151510 A1, cited in IDS filed 07/15/2025).
Claims 29-30 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claims 29-30 have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichberger in view of Wolf as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tsymbal et al. (US 5558695 A).
Wolf teaches a second port 71 configured to transfer at least a portion of the slag (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 48-49), but does not teach transferring slag to a granulation unit.
Tsymbal teaches a process and unit for continuous metal refinement (Title), where molten metal is added to a reaction chamber (analogous to a furnace) producing a metal and a slag phase (Abstract) where the metal may be iron (Col. 4 lines 1-9), where the metal phase is removed from tap hole 20 (analogous to a first port) (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 31-33) and slag is removed from a horizontal channel 15 (analogous to a second port) (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 25-30) thus Tsymbal and Eichberger are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to furnaces for ferrous metals that produce metal and slag phases where metal and slag are withdrawn through ports in the furnace. Tsymbal teaches transferring at least a portion of the slag to a granulation unit 14 (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 19-24), based on a concentration of metal oxide present in the slag (Col. 4 lines 32-44). Tsymbal teaches the granulator produces granules suited for producing cement (Col. 3 lines 19-21, Col. 12 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the second port to transfer slag to a slag granulator as taught by Tsymbal to the furnace of Eichberger as doing so would allow the furnace to produce cement from the slag waste.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeuwissen in view of Wolf.
Regarding claim 1, Meeuwissen teaches a furnace 18 comprising a shell 32 defining an inner volume (Fig. 2, Col. 2 line 66 – Col. 3 line 1). Meeuwissen teaches an electrode 52 through which gas is injected (i.e., an injector) extending into the inner volume of the shell (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 38-43, lines 59-62). Meeuwissen teaches a feed port 37 disposed in a top portion of the shell (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 1-3). Meeuwissen teaches a hearth 24 disposed in a bottom portion of the inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 66 – Col. 3 line 1). Meeuwissen teaches the molten bath 27 including a layer of metal product and a layer of slag (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 11-13 and 17-22). Meeuwissen teaches wherein the injector 52 is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 59-62).
Wolf teaches an arc heater melting system (Title), where metal is melted in a furnace comprising arc heaters (Abstract, Col. 1 lines 35-50), where the metal may be cast iron or steel (Col. 2 lines 8-10), and produces a metal layer and a slag layer (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 48-50) thus Wolf and Meeuwissen are analogous as both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metals. Wolf teaches a first port 77 disposed in a bottom portion 69 of a melting chamber 47 (analogous to a shell) (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 51-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration to be able to hold metal in the holding chamber 73 (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 49-50), and also be able to tap metal (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches the first port to be fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation (Col. 2 lines 52-53).
Wolf teaches a slag hole 71 (i.e., second port) disposed in a bottom portion 69 of the shell (Fig. 2, lines 48-49), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration. Wolf teaches the second port disposed above the first port (Fig. 2), where as the second port is a slag hole (i.e., for removing slag from the furnace), it would intrinsically be fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, with the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation.
Because Meeuwissen is silent with respect to where the tundish outlet for removing metal product is located and how slag is removed from the furnace, in order to carry out the invention of Meeuwissen one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching ports for removing metal and slag suitable for use within the process of Meeuwissen, such as those taught by Wolf. As Meeuwissen and Wolf both are directed to arc furnaces for melting ferrous metal which produces slag and metal layers, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ports of Wolf.
Meeuwissen does not teach wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace or wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, however as claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, the introduction of oxide feed through the feed port and the receiving of oxide feed results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Meeuwissen teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, Meeuwissen in view of Wolf reads on claim 1 in its entirety.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeuwissen in view of Schempp.
Regarding claim 10, Meeuwissen teaches a furnace 18 comprising a shell 32 defining an inner volume (Fig. 2, Col. 2 line 66 – Col. 3 line 1). Meeuwissen teaches an electrode 52 through which gas is injected (i.e., an injector) extending into the inner volume of the shell (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 38-43, lines 59-62). Meeuwissen teaches a feed port 37 disposed in a top portion of the shell (Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 1-3). Meeuwissen teaches a hearth 24 disposed in a bottom portion of the inner volume (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 66 – Col. 3 line 1). Meeuwissen teaches the molten bath 27 including a layer of metal product and a layer of slag (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 11-13 and 17-22). Meeuwissen teaches wherein the injector 52 is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 59-62). Meeuwissen teaches wherein the injector 52 is configured to inject the fluid into the molten metal (Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 59-62), which would comprise wherein the distal portion of the injector is submerged in the layer of slag (Col. 3 lines 11-13 and 17-22).
Meeuwissen does not teach wherein the injector is at an angle less than 90 degrees, the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector and a second line tangent to a cross sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis.
Schempp teaches a steel production method and apparatus (Title), where steel is produced in an electric arc furnace with tuyeres (i.e., injectors) (Abstract, Col. 7 lines 31-37, Col. 8 lines 14-16), thus Schempp and Meeuwissen are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to arc furnaces for producing ferrous metals comprising injectors. Schempp teaches the injectors 11 may be positioned at a variety of horizontal and vertical angles relative to a vertical axis of the vessel 10 (analogous to a shell of the furnace) (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 30-37), such as so that the tuyeres are oriented at an angle relative to the center of the bath to promote mixing thereof when gas is injected into the melt (Col. 4 lines 42-45) (i.e., wherein the injector is at an angle less than 90 degrees, the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector and a second line tangent to a cross sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis, imparting a swirling motion to at least a portion of the molten bath within the furnace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have angled the injectors as taught by Schempp in the furnace of Meeuwissen, as doing so would promote mixing in the furnace.
Meeuwissen does not teach wherein the feed port is configured to allow introduction of an oxide feed into the furnace or wherein the hearth is configured to receive the oxide feed, however as claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, the introduction of oxide feed through the feed port and the receiving of oxide feed results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Meeuwissen teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 10, Meeuwissen in view of Schempp reads on claim 10 in its entirety.
Claims 11-15 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/01/2025. Claims 11-15 have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeuwissen in view of Wolf as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tsymbal.
Wolf teaches a second port 71 configured to transfer at least a portion of the slag (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 48-49), but does not teach transferring slag to a granulation unit.
Tsymbal teaches a process and unit for continuous metal refinement (Title), where molten metal is added to a reaction chamber (analogous to a furnace) producing a metal and a slag phase (Abstract) where the metal may be iron (Col. 4 lines 1-9), where the metal phase is removed from tap hole 20 (analogous to a first port) (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 31-33) and slag is removed from a horizontal channel 15 (analogous to a second port) (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 25-30) thus Tsymbal and Meeuwissen are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to furnaces for ferrous metals that produce metal and slag phases where metal and slag are withdrawn through ports in the furnace. Tsymbal teaches transferring at least a portion of the slag to a granulation unit 14 (Fig. 1, Col. 13 lines 19-24), based on a concentration of metal oxide present in the slag (Col. 4 lines 32-44). Tsymbal teaches the granulator produces granules suited for producing cement (Col. 3 lines 19-21, Col. 12 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the second port to transfer slag to a slag granulator as taught by Tsymbal to the furnace of Meeuwissen as doing so would allow the furnace to produce cement from the slag waste.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 21-25, and 27-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-165 of copending Application No. 18/357,040 (hereinafter the reference application) in view of Eichberger (US 6524362 B1) and Wolf (US 4214736 A).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application contains every element of claim 1, except for wherein the injector is configured to inject a fluid into the molten bath of the furnace, rather than into the furnace in general, and wherein the furnace comprises first and second ports. Eichberger teaches tuyeres 10 and 11 which inject fluid into the molten bath 8 of the furnace (i.e., an injector) (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 67- Col. 3 line 2), which would be obvious to incorporate into the process of the reference application as Eichberger teaches the tuyeres may be arranged as desired, such as submerged in the bath (Col. 2 lines 26-28), where one of ordinary skill would be motivated to place the injector in a suitable place to inject fluid into the furnace.
Wolf teaches a first port 77 disposed in a bottom portion 69 of a melting chamber 47 (analogous to a shell) (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 51-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration to be able to hold metal in the holding chamber 73 (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 49-50), and also be able to tap metal (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches the first port to be fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches a slag hole 71 (i.e., second port) disposed in a bottom portion 69 of the shell (Fig. 2, lines 48-49), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration. Wolf teaches the second port disposed above the first port (Fig. 2), where as the second port is a slag hole (i.e., for removing slag from the furnace), it would intrinsically be fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, with the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation, where it would have been obvious to incorporate a first and second port to remove metal and slag respectively, as ‘040 is silent to how metal and slag are removed from the furnace.
Further, reference claims 15, 47, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13 contain each and every further element of instant claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively, and therefore render instant claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 obvious.
Claim 1 of the reference application contains every element of claim 21, except for wherein a first electrode is disposed in a center region of the furnace, and a second electrode is at least partially embedded in the hearth, the first electrode and the second electrode configured to generate an arc between the first and second electrodes, wherein the injector is configured to injected a fluid into the molten bath specifically, rather than into the furnace in general, and wherein the furnace comprises first and second ports.
Eichberger teaches a first electrode 5 disposed in a center region of the furnace (Col. 2 lines 57-58, Col. 3 line 11, Fig. 1) and a second electrode 4 at least partially embedded in the hearth 2 (Col. 2 lines 54-56, Fig. 1). Eichberger teaches the furnace to be an arc furnace (e.g., Title, Abstract, Col. 1 lines 59-65), where as electricity (i.e., the arc) flows from one electrode to the other, the first and the second electrodes are configured to generate an arc between the first electrode and the second electrode, where it would have been obvious to incorporate a means such as the electrodes of Eichberger to heat the furnace.
Further, Eichberger teaches tuyeres 10 and 11 which inject fluid into the molten bath of metal product 8 of the furnace (i.e., an injector) (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 67- Col. 3 line 2), which is submerged below slag layer 9 (Fig. 1), which would be obvious to incorporate into the process of the reference application as Eichberger teaches the tuyeres may be arranged as desired, such as submerged in the bath (Col. 2 lines 26-28), where one of ordinary skill would be motivated to place the injector in a suitable place to inject fluid into the furnace.
Wolf teaches a first port 77 disposed in a bottom portion 69 of a melting chamber 47 (analogous to a shell) (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 51-52), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration to be able to hold metal in the holding chamber 73 (Fig. 2, Col. 2 lines 49-50), and also be able to tap metal (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches the first port to be fluidically coupled with the layer of metal product and configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the metal product from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation (Col. 2 lines 52-53). Wolf teaches a slag hole 71 (i.e., second port) disposed in a bottom portion 69 of the shell (Fig. 2, lines 48-49), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to have an open configuration and a closed configuration. Wolf teaches the second port disposed above the first port (Fig. 2), where as the second port is a slag hole (i.e., for removing slag from the furnace), it would intrinsically be fluidically coupled with the layer of slag, with the second port configured to be transitioned to the open configuration to remove at least a portion of the slag from the inner volume while the furnace is in operation, where it would have been obvious to incorporate a first and second port to remove metal and slag respectively, as ‘040 is silent to how metal and slag are removed from the furnace.
Further, reference claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 47, 1, 44, and 43 contain each and every further element of instant claims 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30 respectively, and therefore render instant claims 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30 obvious.
Claims 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-165 of copending Application No. 18/357,040 (hereinafter the reference application) in view of Eichberger in view of Schempp et al. (US 3812275 A).
Claim 1 of the reference application contains every element of claim 10, except for wherein a distal portion of the injector is at least partially submerged in the layer of slag and is configured to inject a fluid into the layer of metal product, rather than into the furnace in general; and where the shell comprises an axis, and the injector is at an angle of less than 90 degrees. Eichberger teaches tuyeres 10 and 11 which inject fluid into the molten bath of metal product 8 of the furnace (i.e., an injector) (Fig. 1, Col. 2 line 67- Col. 3 line 2), which is submerged below slag layer 9 (Fig. 1), which would be obvious to incorporate into the process of the reference application as Eichberger teaches the tuyeres may be arranged as desired, such as submerged in the bath (Col. 2 lines 26-28), where one of ordinary skill would be motivated to place the injector in a suitable place to inject fluid into the furnace.
Schempp teaches injectors 11 may be positioned at a variety of horizontal and vertical angles relative to a vertical axis of the vessel 10 (analogous to a shell of the furnace) (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 30-37), such as so that the tuyeres are oriented at an angle relative to the center of the bath to promote mixing thereof when gas is injected into the melt (Col. 4 lines 42-45), which would have been obvious to incorporate into the furnace of ‘040 as doing so would mix the bath in the furnace (i.e., wherein the injector is at an angle less than 90 degrees, the angle defined between a first line tangent to the injector and a second line tangent to a cross sectional section of the shell perpendicular to the internal axis, imparting a swirling motion to at least a portion of the molten bath within the furnace).
Further, reference claims 16, 17, 1, 39, 40, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 27 contain each and every further element of instant claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 respectively, and therefore render instant claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered with the following effect:
Applicant’s arguments (see pg. 7-9 of remarks), with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 10 and their dependents as anticipated by or unpatentable over Eichberger (US 6524362 A) or Meeuwissen (US 5709835 A) and claim 21 and its dependents as anticipated by or unpatentable Eichberger have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn, however, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Wolf et al. (US 4214736 A), Schempp et al. (US 3812275 A), and Tsymbal et al. (US 5558695 A).
Regarding Applicant's intent to address the double patenting rejections when the claims are otherwise indicated as allowable (see pg. 10 of remarks), the Examiner notes that MPEP 804. (I) B. 1. states a complete response to a non-statutory double patenting rejection requires either a showing that the instant claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer. As such a showing or a terminal disclaimer have not been filed, claims 1-2, 4-25, and 27-30 remain rejected as subject to non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733