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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/026958 application originally filed March 17, 2023.
Amended claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-21, filed December 16, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 3 and 8 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 06, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe (WO 2018/033712 A1) in view of Morioka et al. (JP 2002-212646 A) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Morioka”.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-21
MetCalfe discloses in the abstract, a briquette comprising: (i) a particulate material; and (ii) a binder, the binder comprising (a) at least partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and (b) an alkali metal alkyl siliconate or polyalkylsilicic acid; wherein the particulate material is selected from a carbonaceous material, metal, metal ore, mineral waste or a mixture thereof.
MetCalfe discloses on pages 2 and 3, the carbonaceous material may, for example, be coke, graphite, carbon black, peat or coal. Coal may be any grade of coal, including lignites, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, steam coal or anthracite. Mineral wastes include mill scale, mill sludges, fines from ores or metal containing wastes. The metal may be, or the metal ore mineral waste, may contain iron, zinc, nickel, copper, chromium, manganese, gold, platinum, silver, titanium, tin, lead, vanadium, cadmium, beryllium, molybdenum, uranium or mixtures thereof or elemental metal or in the form of, for example, oxides or silicates.
MetCalfe discloses on page 3, polyvinyl alcohol is typically commercially formed from polyvinyl acetate by replacing the acetic acid radical of acetate with a hydroxyl radical by reacting the polyvinyl acetate with sodium hydroxide in a process called saponification. Partially saponified means that some of the acetate groups have been replaced by hydroxyl groups and thereby forming at least a partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol containing vinyl alcohol residues. Typically, the PVA has a degree of saponification of at least 80% saponification.
MetCalfe discloses on page 3, typically the briquette contains 0.01-0.8% by weight of PVA binder.
MetCalfe further discloses on page 4, phenol formaldehyde resins are generally known in the art. Typically the resin is a resole resin made with formaldehyde to phenol ratios of greater than 1, typically around 1.5. The resin may be mixed into the finings as powder or as an aqueous solution.
MetCalfe disclose on page 6 and 7, typically the briquette comprises < 15%, < 10% or < 5% by weight of water (moisture content). Water content may be reduced by drying as, for example, adding burnt lime (calcium oxide) at up to typically 3%.
MetCalfe further discloses on page 7, the strength and resilience of the briquette made, can be further improved by addition of a suitable cross-linking agent. Suitable cross-linking agents include, for example, glutaraldehydes, for example at 0.01 to 5% w/w. Sodium hydroxide, for example 0.1% weight/weight, may also be used as a cross-linking agent. Other cross-linkers for PVA include glyoxal, glyoxal resin, PAAE resin (polyamidoamine epichlorohydrine), melamine formaldehydes, organic titanates (eg Tizor™, Du Pont), boric acid, ammonium, zirconium carbonate and glutaric dialdehyde-bis-sodium bisulphate. Typically, up to 5% and more typically 3% or 2% by weight of the cross-linking agent is used. This allows, for example, the amount of PVA to be reduced from, for example, 0.8% by weight or 0.5% by weight to, for example, 0.3% by weight or 0.4% by weight PVA.
MetCalfe discloses on page 7, the water resistance of the briquette may be further improved by, for example, providing a waterproofing agent, such as a layer of waterproofing agent. Waterproofing agent is typically sprayed onto the outer surface of the briquette after the briquette has been formed. Typically, waterproofing agents include styrene-acrylate copolymers such as Vinnapas™ SAF 34 (Wacker Chemie AG, Munich, Germany) which is typically a fine particles dispersion of a styrene acrylate copolymer, typically free from alkyl phenol ethoxylate, optionally this may contain 0.05 to 1% guar gum.
MetCalfe discloses on page 6, the particulate material is typically of a diameter of 4 mm or less. Typically, at least 10% by weight of particulate material is capable of passing through a 100 µm sieve prior to forming into a briquette. The presence of the smaller particles of the particulate material improves the packing of the material.
MetCalfe discloses on page 8, mixing the particulate material with binders as defined above; compressing the mixture to form a briquette; and curing the briquette. Compressing may, for example, be the use of a mold or alternative, for example, by roller- pressing or extruding the material.
MetCalfe discloses on page 10, the binder may be used in amounts up to 4% total w/w up to 2% w/w phenol formaldehyde may be typically used by fixing as an aqueous solution or with the hardener. The hardener may be, for example, glycol triacetate and a gum such as guar gum, acacia gum, gum arabic. Typically, 0.1 - 0.5% w/w glycol triacetate and 0.1 - 0.5% w/w gum are used. This may be cold cured. Methods of forming the briquettes for this and other embodiments are also provided and may be carried out as defined above, optionally with one or more features such as briquette size, waterproofing etc. as described above.
It is to be noted, MetCalfe discloses the production of a briquette comprising a particulate material and binders but fails to further teach the addition of fibers in particular properties (i.e. length and diameter), as presently claimed in the present invention.
However, it is known in the art to add fibers to a briquette in particular lengths, diameters and amounts, as taught by Morioka.
Morioka discloses in paragraph 0014, a method for producing iron ore pellets, characterized in that an organic fiber, a clay material, and an organic adhesive are added to a mixed raw material for a pellet, mixed and fired by a conventional method.
Morioka further discloses in paragraph 0014, a method for producing iron ore pellets, characterized in that an organic fiber, a clay material, and an organic adhesive are added to a mixed raw material for a pellet, mixed and fired by a conventional method. The iron ore pellet according to any one of the first to third aspects, wherein 80% by mass or more of the organic fiber is a fiber having a length and diameter of 1 to 2000 µm (0.001mm-2mm), overlapping the claimed length and diameter of the presently claimed invention. The organic fiber is a cellulosic wood fiber, a woven fiber, or a mixture thereof. Morioka discloses in paragraph 0035, the amount of the organic fiber added is preferably 0.01 to 1.0 part by mass, based on 100 parts by mass (dry basis) of the mixed raw material for sintering. Morioka discloses in paragraph 0037, as the organic fibers, for example, cellulose wood fibers obtained by pulverizing wastepaper may be used, cloth-dyed sludge containing woven fibers generated from the cloth-dyeing step may be used, or these may be mixed. As the clay substance, for example, clay, bentonite, kaolin, talc and the like may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more kinds. As the organic adhesive, in addition to lignin, for example, starch, dextrin, molasses or the like may be used alone or in combination of two or more. Alternatively, these may be appropriately added to wastepaper sludge to adjust and use the ratio of the organic fiber, the clayey substance, and the organic adhesive.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add fibers to a briquette in particular amounts and lengths, as taught by Morioka to the briquette of MetCalfe. The motivation to do so is to add fibers to a particulate and binder briquette in order to aid in the stable framework and stability of the process of molding the briquette.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and Declaration Under 37 C.F.R.§1.132, filed August 06, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-21 under Stumpf et al. (WO 2018/141318 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the Declaration Under 37 C.F.R.§1.132 and arguments state Stumpf discloses the use of fibres at a range of 0.5 - 5 wt%, which falls outside of the scope of the instantly claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Metcalfe (WO 2018/033712 A1) in view of Morioka et al. (JP 2002-212646 A) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Morioka”.
Applicant's arguments filed August 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Metcalfe explicitly teaches that its binder system is sensitive to the composition of the particulate material, noting that certain materials can cause the PVA to fall out of solution. This demonstrates that the binder system of Metcalfe relies on maintaining a stable chemical environment and is susceptible to disruption. Morioka uses fibres as a primary binder component in the formation of green pellets, effectively replacing or supplementing conventional binders. As above, introducing fibres as taught in Morioka would be expected to interfere with the system of Metcalfe. In particular, fibre swelling and water absorption could disrupt the distribution and effectiveness of the binder, prevent formation of a coherent binding matrix and reduce both strength and moisture resistance of the systems in Metcalfe. Accordingly, the skilled person would not have a reasonable expectation that the Metcalfe binder system would continue to function effectively following the introduction of fibres in accordance with Morioka.”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, Metcalfe modified by Morioka discloses the claimed briquette. It is to be noted, Metcalfe does not teach away from adding additional materials used to aid in binding the powder material, i.e. fibers. Therefore, as stated in the above rejection, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add fibers to a briquette in particular amounts and lengths, as taught by Morioka to the briquette of MetCalfe in order to aid in the stable framework and stability of the process of molding the briquette.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Michalek et al. (US 2007/0251143) discloses in the abstract, a synthetic fuel pellet, the pellet comprising a compressed agglomeration of: (a) coal fines; (b) a fibrous cellulosic material wherein the fibers of the fibrous cellulosic material have been substantially disintegrated; and (c) at least one binder, the binder adapted to form a pellet of the coal fines and the fibrous cellulosic material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights