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 .
Status of Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-20
Rejected: claims 1-20
Objected to: claims 1, 10, and 14
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10 recite the parameter “CR” but does not define “CR”. In the interest of compact prosecution, “CR” will be interpreted as the solid fuel fraction.
Claim 14 recites “and then the reactants that react in contact with water”, which is an incomplete clause; this should be corrected to “and then the reactants that react in contact with water are made available”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “K: is a constant comprised between 1.0 and 2.5”, which is indefinite because if K is a constant, i.e. a single value, it cannot also be an infinite number of values between 1.0 and 2.5.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “in a percentage by weight comprised between 2% and 10%”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 5% and 9%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites “wherein first the solid reactants are made available, and then the reactants that react in contact with water”; the limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds are of making the reactants ‘available’, or in other words, what scope is defined by this limitation.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent on claim 14.
Claim 19 is rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
The remainder of the claims are rejected based on their dependency to claims 1 or 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiburzio et al. (WO 2020065691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “Solid agglomerated product, such as a briquette, usable as charge material for an electric arc furnace, said solid agglomerated product comprising: at least one by-product fraction deriving from a steel plant and comprising a first part containing ferrous oxide FeO and a second part containing ferric oxide Fe2O3;” Tiburzio teaches a solid agglomerated product containing FeO and a second part containing Fe2O3 (page 3, lines 15-18).
With regard to the claimed “a solid fuel fraction containing a quantity of carbon;
at least one inorganic binder to agglomerate said at least one by-product fraction and said solid fuel fraction together;” Tiburzio teaches a solid fuel fraction containing a quantity of carbon C_fix (page 3, line 19)
With regard to the claimed “at least one organic binder to agglomerate said at least one by-product fraction and said solid fuel fraction together”, Tiburzio teaches at least one inorganic binder at least partly comprising slag in order to agglomerate the at least one fraction of by-product and the fraction of solid fuel with each other (page 3, lines 20-23).
With regard to the claimed “wherein said solid fuel fraction is present in a quantity by weight determined by the relation CR=K*CS/C_fix, wherein:
K: is a constant comprised between 1.0 and 2.5;
CS: is a quantity by weight of stoichiometric carbon defined by the relation
CS=0.11*(Fe2+_tot)+0.16*(Fe3+_tot), where Fe2+_tot is a quantity by weight of iron contained in said first part, and Fe3+_tot is a quantity by weight of iron contained in said second part.”, Tiburzio teaches “According to one aspect of the present invention, the fraction of solid fuel is present in a quantity in weight determined by the formula CR=K*CS/C_fix, wherein:
K: is a constant comprised between 1.2 and 2.5;
CS: is a quantity of stoichiometric carbon in weight defined by the formula CS=0.11 *(Fe2+_tot)+0.16*(Fe3+_tot), where Fe2+_tot is a quantity in weight of iron contained in the first part, and Fe3+_tot is a quantity in weight of iron contained in the second part.” (page 3, lines 26-33).”
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 9, Tiburzio anticipates the limitations (see page 8, lines 6-7 of claims 2 and 4; see page 16, claim 9 of Tiburzio for instant claim 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3, 8, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiburzio et al. (WO 2020065691 A1), as applied to claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 16, and 19, Tiburzio teaches the products of claims 2 and 3 above; Tiburzio meets the limitations (page 8, lines 6-21); regarding the ranges in claims 8, 16, and 19, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Claims 5-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiburzio et al. (WO 2020065691 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Boll (EP 3760748 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 17-18, Tiburzio teaches the product of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the use of an organic binder.
Boll teaches calcined iron and chrome containing pellets, and further teaches the use of a saccharide/polysaccharide binder [0013], [0028]-[0029] (meeting claim 5), which is an organic binder, wherein the saccharide may be starch (meeting claims 7 and 17). The amount of saccharide may be in the range of about 1-5 wt% [0031], which overlaps with the range in claims 6 and 18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tiburzio to include using a saccharide binder in the binder mixture, because it is an organic binder, and organic binders are expected to have no large impact on the cold crush strength after firing, as they burn off at low temperatures below 500°C [0010].
Claims 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiburzio et al. (WO 2020065691 A1) in view of Boll (EP 3760748 A1).
Regarding claim 10, with regard to the claimed “Method for making a solid agglomerated product comprising:
making available at least one by-product fraction comprising a first part containing ferrous oxide FeO and a second part containing ferric oxide Fe2O3;
making available a solid fuel fraction containing a quantity of carbon;
mixing at least said by-product fraction with said solid fuel fraction and with at least one inorganic binder and with at least one organic binder,
wherein, before said mixing, it comprises determining a quantity by weight of said solid fuel fraction by means of the relation CR=K*CS/C_fix, wherein:
K: is a constant comprised between 1.0 and 2.5;
CS: is a quantity by weight of stoichiometric carbon defined by the relation CS=0.11*(Fe2+_tot)+0.16*(Fe3+_tot), where Fe2+_tot is a quantity by weight of iron contained in said first part, and Fe3+_tot is a quantity by weight of iron contained in said second part”, Tiburzio teaches “Method to produce a solid agglomerated product comprising:
- making available at least one fraction of by-product (M; Ml , M2, M3) comprising a first part containing ferrous oxide FeO and a second part containing ferric oxide Fe2O3;
- making available a fraction of solid fuel (CR) containing a quantity of carbon C_fix;
- mixing at least said fraction of by-product (M; Ml, M2, M3) with said fraction of solid fuel (CR) and with at least one inorganic binder in order to obtain said solid agglomerated product,
characterized in that before said mixing, the method comprises determining a quantity in weight of said fraction of solid fuel (CR) by means of the formula CR=K*CS/C fix, wherein:
K: is a constant comprised between 1.2 and 2.5;
CS: is a quantity of stoichiometric carbon in weight defined by the formula CS=0.11 *(Fe2+_tot)+0.16*(Fe3+_tot), where Fe2+_tot is a quantity in weight of iron contained in said first part, and Fe _tot is a quantity in weight of iron contained in said second part, wherein the inorganic binder at least partly comprises slag.” (see claim 11 of Tiburzio).
Tiburzio is silent regarding the use of an organic binder.
Boll teaches calcined iron and chrome containing pellets, and further teaches the use of a sachharide binder [0013].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tiburzio to include using a saccharide binder in the binder mixture, because it is an organic binder, and organic binders are expected to have no large impact on the cold crush strength after firing, as they burn off at low temperatures below 500°C [0010].
Regarding claim 11, Tiburzio meets the limitations (see page 8, lines 6-7 and claims 12-13 of Tiburzio).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Tiburzio and Boll teach the method of claim 10 above, and as discussed above, Boll teaches calcined iron and chrome containing pellets, and further teaches the use of a saccharide binder [0013]. The saccharide may be a polysaccharide [0028]-[0029], such as starch [0029], or organic binder such as carboxymethylcellulose [0006].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tiburzio to include using a saccharide binder in the binder mixture, because it is an organic binder, and organic binders are expected to have no large impact on the cold crush strength after firing, as they burn off at low temperatures below 500°C [0010].
Regarding claim 13, Tiburzio and Boll teach the method of claim 10 above, and Tiburzio further teaches mixing in an order based on particle size (see claims 15-16 of Tiburzio). Furthermore, it has been held that a selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPE 2144.04 IV. C.).
Regarding claim 14, Tiburzio and Boll teach the method of claim 13 above, and Tiburzio further teaches preparing the solid reactants before adding water (Fig. 1; page 11, lines 2-6; page 13, lines 5-11). Furthermore, it has been held that a selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPE 2144.04 IV. C.).
Regarding claim 15, Tiburzio teaches the method of claim 14 above, and with regard to the order of steps, it has been held that a selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPE 2144.04 IV. C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights