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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/3/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the briquetting unit (104) being driven by a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) at a predefined speed within a range of 20-60 percent and more preferably 50-60 percent”.
The ‘briquetting unit’ being driven by a VFD introduces new matter, because a VFD was only disclosed once in the specification to drive the ‘inclined conveyor unit’ [no paragraph numbers are provided].
Also, a new preferred range, even if it lies within the disclosed operating range, introduces new matter as it is a new finding. The new narrower range is a narrower scope of invention, and would need to be supported in the original specification to avoid a new matter rejection.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the claim 1 amendments of “the briquetting unit (104) being driven by a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) at a predefined speed within a range of 20-60 percent and more preferably 50-60 percent” on pages 6-13, as this presents new matter.
The ‘briquetting unit’ being driven by a VFD, and a new preferred VFD operating range, introduces new matter, because a VFD was only disclosed to drive the ‘inclined conveyor unit’ in the specification and previous claim sets.
A continuation-in-part should be considered for the introduction of these amendment elements.
A VFD being associated with the briquetting unit also does not define whether it would drive conveyance and/or vibration, or some other aspect of briquetting unit. For example, the prior art of Gans (RU2312019C2) teaches a briquetting device wherein a variable-speed punch is driven by a VFD to press briquettes [P. 3, ¶ 2]. This Gans teaching would meet the new subject matter amendment of claim 1.
The VFD range could also be considered a result-effective variable, as it would vary based on the power output of the VFD used. As it is understood by the Examiner, a variable frequency drive controls the power provided to a device (pump, motor, etc.) to control its operation. It is feasible that a smaller VFD would have a higher operating range than a larger VFD replacement to provide the same output to a device. For example, a small VFD could operate at 70-80% while a more powerful VFD could operate at 50-60%, with each driving identical briquetting units and providing the same unit output.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s page 13 arguments regarding the prior art of record not teaching the proper number of engraved pockets or their dimensions in claims 9-10. The prior arts of record do not teach away from these claim elements. The MPEP states the sizes, proportions, shapes, and quantities of a component may not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. These precedents are further described in detail in the rejections of claims 8-10.
The page 13 argument that briquette dimensions and shape are critical for providing a required mechanical briquette strength are not elements presented in the claim set, but it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to modify the pocket to produce a desired briquette shape and size, and to optimize the method of operating this system to arrive at the required mechanical briquette strength.
Claim Interpretation
The ‘briquetting unit’ comprises not only “one or more briquette rollers having a plurality of grooves configured for compression of the sodium nitrite salt feed into sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes, wherein the plurality of grooves are roll compactors [claim 1]”, but additionally a ‘cutting assembly’ and ‘breaker unit’, as disclosed in the instant specification [¶ not available]. A variable frequency drive could be configured to drive any one of these components of the briquetting unit.
‘Briquetting unit’, along with other uses of the terms ‘unit’ or ‘assembly’ in the claims, does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as they are modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or the functional language preceding ‘unit’ provides the structure, and the term “unit” is not needed.
Other such claim limitations are: feed hopper unit, drying unit vibrating sieve unit, inclined screw conveyor unit, breaker unit, double deck vibrating sieve unit, multi-effect evaporator unit, and cutting assembly; cited in claims 1, 3, & 11.
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, 3 and 6-10 are 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.
Claim 1 presents the new subject matter of “the briquetting unit (104) being driven by a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) at a predefined speed within a range of 20-60 percent and more preferably 50-60 percent”. The ‘briquetting unit’ being driven by a VFD, and a new preferred VFD operating range, introduces new matter, because a VFD was only disclosed to drive the ‘inclined conveyor unit’ in the specification and previous claim sets.
Claims 3 & 6-10 are rejected as they are dependent to claim 1.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergendahl (US5666638A), in view of Doubt (US2933377A), Minyan (DE201010053953A1), and Schneider (US20170029709A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A system for manufacturing a briquette of sodium nitrite, comprising: a feed hopper unit, wherein the feed hopper unit is enabled for continuous feeding of a sodium nitrite salt feed from a drying unit; a vibrating sieve unit, wherein the vibrating sieve unit is configured to separate lumps from a powder form of the sodium nitrite salt feed received from the feed hopper unit,
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Bergendahl teaches a system for manufacturing a briquette of sodium nitrite, comprising: a feed hopper unit (Fig. 1, item 3), wherein the feed hopper unit is enabled for continuous feeding of a ‘hot, fine’ ore to a briquetting unit [Col. 1, lines 5-10].
Bergendahl teaches an inclined screw conveyer unit (Fig. 1, item 7) configured for pushing the sodium nitrite salt feed into a briquetting unit [Col. 4, lines 10-15]. Bergendahl teaches the briquetting unit (Fig. 1, item 8), comprises one or more briquette rollers (Fig. 1, item 10) having a plurality of ‘pockets’, or grooves, configured for compacting the feed material into briquette stripes (Fig. 1, item 32; [Col.4, lines 20-33; Col. 5, lines 8-12]).
Bergendahl is silent on a forming a briquette using a sodium nitrite salt feed. Bergendahl instead teaches a sponge iron feed.
The Examiner notes that the material worked upon is not necessarily a positively recited element of an apparatus claim (See MPEP 2115).
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the prior art of Doubt teaches a system for press-forming granular metallic salt into pellets, via compression rollers forming sodium nitrite salt pellets [Col. 2, lines 7-14].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the sodium nitrite salt feed, taught by Doubt, in place of the sponge iron feed from the system of Bergendahl, predictably resulting in the modified system of Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, using to roller-press granules forming a sodium nitrite salt briquette.
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, is silent on a drying unit and vibrating sieve unit before the screw conveyor briquetting unit. Bergendahl teaches the feed enters the system as a ‘hot fine ore’ [Col. 1, line 8].
As the feed ore is ‘hot’, there is prima facie obviously a heating device before the feed inlet to the system that has not been explicitly detailed by Bergendahl. Bergendahl supports that heating promotes drying, as ‘residual heat within the briquettes will continue to dry the briquette after compaction and a water bath steps’ [Col. 6, lines 12-15], but does not explicitly teach a drying unit before briquetting.
As the feed ore is ‘fine’, the Bergendahl system is silent on the need for a vibrating sieve unit. However, motivation to have a vibrating sieve unit for the incoming feed ore is that a sieving device would be needed if there were any factor that hinders particle size control to the incoming feed ore (e.g., a change in suppliers of the supply ore, or switching to a lower cost but lower control quality ore).
The prior art of Minyan teaches a coal briquetting system and details pretreatment components. Minyan teaches a drying system (Fig. 1, item B) that comprises a steam-heated tube dryer (Fig. 1, item 6), among other components [P. 6, ¶ 6-8]. Minyan teaches a vibrating trough (Fig. 1, item 14) and sifter (Fig. 1, item 15) after the drying/heating process ‘to separate oversized particles from target grain’ [P. 6, ¶ 11], which is placed before the briquetting process (Fig. 1, items D & E). The original German patent of Minyan teaches “Mehrdecksiebmachine”, which translates to a ‘a multi-deck sieve machine’. While not explicitly stated by Minyan, the Examiner takes official notice that it would be well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a multi-deck sieve component requires vibration to produce a sifting effect which separates the feed ores by size.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the drying/heating system that comprises a steam-heated tube dryer and the vibrating trough and sifter separating system taught by Minyan, before the briquetting components, to improve the similar briquetting system taught by Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, in the same way. The modification in view of Minyan would define heating/drying equipment for the system that was not detailed by Bergendahl, and would provide a means of separating oversized particles from the feed ore leading to the briquetting components. The modification of Bergendahl, in view of Doubt and Minyan could prima facie obviously connect the Minyan components of the vibrating trough and sifter separating system feeding a conveyor (Minyan Fig. 1, conveyor leading from item C to D) to feed into Bergendahl components of a continuous conveyor (Bergendahl Fig. 1, item 23), the inclined screw conveyor, then briquetting rollers. Motivation for this modification would be to provide a known means to transfer feed ore to the briquetting devices after the sifting process has been completed.
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt and Minyan, is silent on the type of motor controlling the vibrating trough and sifter.
However, in an analogous field of art, the prior art of Schneider teaches a vibrating conveyor ‘having a variable frequency drive to control the speed and an amplitude adjustment to control the vibration level’ [0072].
Minyan does not explicitly teach the adjacent vibrating components of trough and multi-deck sifter being coupled together.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a variable frequency drive to control the amplitude of vibration, taught by Schneider, to control both the vibrating trough and sifter in the system of Bergendahl, in view of Doubt and Minyan, to improve the modified system in the same way. This modification would predictably result in a comparable means for conveying and sifting granular feed material, but with improved control of the conveyor speed and the vibration levels of the conveyor and sifter due to use of the VFD.
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider are silent on the diameter and a length of each roll compactor of the roll compactors is between 50-400 mm and 280-490 mm, respectively.
Bergendahl teaches the roll diameter can range from 1000 to 1800 mm, which is significantly outside of the claimed range. Bergendahl teaches the poor feeding of the fine sponge iron ore makes a larger roll compactor diameter advantageous [P. 3, lines 26-31]. However, these poor feeding concerns could be moot due to the modification of Doubt to a sodium nitrate salt feed, would allow for a smaller compactor diameter.
Considering this modification, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to modify and reduce the size and proportion of the compactor roller diameter and length to a desired or optimal size that could meet the claimed dimensions, as the claimed relative dimensions would not be expected to perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Bergendahl teaches a breaker unit configured to break the briquette stripes into small pieces, wherein the breaker unit (Fig. 3, items 33) comprises a cutting assembly (Fig. 3, items 33, 34, 35) configured to cut the small pieces of briquette stripes to obtain briquettes [Col. 5, lines 15-33]. Bergendahl teaches a double deck vibrating screen (Fig. 1, items 19, 22), acting as a sieve to separate returns below a specific size from the briquettes, positioned after the briquetting unit [Col. 5, lines 34-53].
6. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a belt conveyer is enabled to transfer the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes to a bucket elevator.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider teaches a belt conveyor feeding sodium nitrite salt feed to a bucket elevator leading to the briquetting components.
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider is silent on a belt conveyer is enabled to transfer the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes to a bucket elevator.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the known conveying equipment of a belt conveyor and bucket elevator could be duplicated to also be the delivery system for the briquette stripes to the separation equipment, as needed, based on the locations of components to be connected. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least two briquette rollers are configured for compressing the sodium nitrite salt feed into the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes by maintaining a compressive strength through pressure adjustment in a range of 10-20 kg/cm2, and wherein the pressure adjustment is controlled based on the clearance between the at least two briquette rollers using a hydraulic system.
With respect to claim 7, Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider teaches at least two briquette rollers are configured for compressing the sodium nitrite salt feed into the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes by maintaining a compressive strength wherein the pressure adjustment is controlled based on the clearance between the at least two briquette rollers using a hydraulic system. Bergendahl teaches one roller position is fixed, and “by contrast, the second press roll 10 has a movable bearing housing 15, whereby the nip between the first and second press rolls 9 and 10 can be adjusted. The necessary displacement path and the necessary contact pressure of the two press rolls 9 and 10 are obtained through hydraulic cylinders 16 which act on the displaceable bearing housing 15” [Col. 4, lines 20-65].
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider, is silent on maintaining a compressive strength through pressure adjustment in a range of 10-20 kg/cm2.
However, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). Bergendahl teaches the structural limitations of instant claim 7, as briquetting press rollers control pressure by hydraulic means.
8. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the roll compactors are made with engraved pockets or dies configured to compact the sodium nitrite salt feed into the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes.
With respect to claim 8, As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Doubt teaches sodium nitrite salt feed is compacted into the sodium nitrite salt briquette stripes.
Bergendahl teaches the roll compactors are made with engraved pockets (Fig. 2, items 11; [Col. 4, lines 20-33]).
9. The system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the total number of engraved pockets is 4000 with a pitch of 10-15 mm center to center and a gap of 1-3 mm between each engraved pocket.
With respect to claim 9, Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider, is silent on the total number of engraved pockets is 4000 with a pitch of 10-15 mm center to center and a gap of 1-3 mm between each engraved pocket.
However, the press rollers taught by Bergendahl could be modified to meet the claim 9 elements of pocket quantity, size, and shape in order to meet a corresponding desired product dimensions and output. Reconfigurations to the quantity, size, and shape of pockets on the press rollers are would not be considered limiting patentable elements, because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A, B) and 2144.04(VI)(B).
10. The system as claimed in claim 8, wherein a length of each engraved pocket is 7-10 mm, a width of each engraved pocket is 1-4 mm, and a depth of each engraved pocket is between 1-4 mm.
With respect to claim 10, Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider, is silent on a length of each engraved pocket is 7-10 mm, a width of each engraved pocket is 1-4 mm, and a depth of each engraved pocket is between 1-4 mm.
Bergendahl teaches the maximum grain size of fine ore fed to the roller press is less than 2 mm, preferably less than 0.5 mm. From this teaching it is understood by the Examiner that the minimum pocket dimension should be at least 2mm to accommodate the maximum grain size; this teaching does not teach away from the claimed dimensions of length, width, and depth.
However, the press rollers taught by Bergendahl could be modified to meet the claim 9 roller pocket dimensions in order to meet corresponding desired product dimensions. Reconfigurations to the roller pocket dimensions would not be considered limiting patentable elements, because limitations relating to the roller pocket dimensions were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
The pocket sizes taught by Bergendahl could be modified to meet the claim 10 elements of length, width and depth in order to meet a corresponding desired product dimensions and output. Reconfigurations to the pocket dimensions would not be considered limiting patentable elements, because limitations relating to the sizes were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A, B) and 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergendahl (US5666638A), in view of Doubt (US2933377A), Minyan (DE201010053953A1) and Schneider (US20170029709A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Lazerson (US20190276328A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the drying unit is a Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) unit.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Minyan teaches a drying system (Fig. 1, item B) that comprises a steam-heated tube dryer (Fig. 1, item 6), among other components [P. 6, ¶ 6-8].
Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider, is silent on the drying step comprising an evaporator unit.
However, in an analogous field of art, the prior art of Lazerson teaches an alternative drying unit is a Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) unit for a system for a sodium chloride salt briquetting process [0035-0036]. Lazerson teaches the MEE unit has increased efficiency to reuse of heat in several stages.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the drying unit type from a steam-heated tube dryer in the system of Bergendahl, in view of Doubt, Minyan, and Schneider, to a Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) unit taught by Lazerson to obtain predictable results of similar drying effectiveness of the salts worked upon, with improved energy efficiency.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748