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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled; Claims 16-17 are amended, Claims 22-35 are withdrawn as non-elected claims, claims 16-21 remain for examination, wherein claim 16 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 16-17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel (WO 2019033187 A1, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 6/20/2023, thereafter WO’187) in view of Bush et al (US-PG-Pub 2010/0294725 A1, thereafter PG’725) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 8/13/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’187 in view of PG’725 and further in view of SARRA et al (EP 4011624 A1, thereafter EP’624) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 8/13/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 8/13/2026, and newly recorded reference(s), a new ground rejection has listed as following:
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the instant case the limitation of “amount of alkanolamines 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%” should be amended as “amount of alkanolamines 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% based on the weight of the total binder composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel (WO 2019033187 A1, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 6/20/2023, thereafter WO’187) in view of Cuypers et al (WO 2012/013780 A1, thereafter WO’780).
Regarding claim 16, WO’187 teaches a cold pelletization of iron-ore fines with mixture flexibility, with a grain size range of zero to 6.4 mm, said fines being inevitably generated by miners and steel industries with binders (Abstract and pa.[05] and [015] of WO’187), which reads on the binder composition for the cold forming of metal ore pellets as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison of the claimed binder composition and those disclosed by WO’187 is listed in the following table. WO’187 teaches the claimed binder composition comprising hydraulic component and additive with 63 and 65% alite (C3S) in the clinker; and overlapping the claimed fineness, Blaine fineness, and calcium oxide amount, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the fineness, Blaine fineness, and calcium oxide amount from the disclosures of WO’187 since WO’187 teaches the same binder composition as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. WO’187 does not specify including alkanolamines in the hydraulic binder as claimed in the instant claim. WO’780 teaches a compacted body, particularly a briquette, suitable for use as mineral charge including binder with amine component (Abstract and claims of WO’780). WO’780 indicates including alkanolamine with proportion of at least 0.4 (page 12, 1st paragraph of WO’780), which overlaps the claimed amount of alkanolamine in the binder as claimed in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply optimized amount of alkanolamine as additive in the binder as demonstrated by WO’780 in the binder of WO’187 since WO’187 and WO’780 teach the same binder for metal ore pellets application as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Binder composition
From instant Claim 16
From WO187
overlapping range
Hydraulic component and additive
included
This special cement characterized above contains between 60 and 65% calcium oxide in the hydrated silicate (par/[023])
Reads on
Fineness
At least
D95 < 40mm
D50 < 12mm
D10 < 5mm
fine grinding is available in granulometry 98% lower than 44 mm (cl.6)
Overlapping:
D95 < 40mm
D50 < 12mm
D10 < 5mm
Blaine fineness
6500-9000cm2/g
minimum Blaine of 560 m2 /kg (cement strength) (par.[018])
Overlapping:
6500-9000cm2/g
CaO
> 62.5wt%
60 and 65% calcium oxide (par.[023])
Overlapping
> 62.5-65 wt%
CS3
> 60wt%
alite (C3S) in the clinker, between 63 and 65% (par.[016])
63 and 65%
Alkanolamines
Wt%
0.1-1
At least 0.4
Included (WO’780)
Overlapping
0.4-1
From claims 19 and 21
Further including
Including flux(cl.19)
Limestone or dolomite (cl.21)
Including dolomite (par.[020] and [042])
Reads on
Regarding claims 19 and 21, WO’187 teaches including dolomite as flux in the binder (par.[020] and [042]), which reads on the claimed limitations as calmed in the instant claims.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’187 in view of WO’780, and further in view of Fan et al (CN 105861851 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’851).
Regarding claim 17, WO’187 specify that the gypsum dosage should be optimized through laboratory tests that optimize gypsum, aiming to raise the resistance of the cement; the gypsum to be dosed must be the natural mineral (Par.[019] and cl.6 of WO’187). WO’187 in view of WO’780 does not specify the amount of gypsum in the binder. CN’851 teaches a high-effective secondary resource enrichment method of platinum group metal with metal ore pellets including binder (Abstract, Figs. and claims of CN’851). CN’851 specify adjusting the amount of gypsum in the binder (cl.2 an example 3 of CN’851), which overlaps the claimed amount of gypsum in the binder. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the gypsum amount from the disclosures of CN’851 in the binder of WO’187 in view of WO’780 in order to obtain high-effective secondary resource enrichment (claim 2 and example 3 of CN’851).
Claims 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’187 in view of WO’780 and further in view of SARRA et al (EP 4011624 A1, thereafter EP’624).
Regarding claim 18, WO’187 provides example #AH in table 1 having Al2O3, Fe2O3, and SO3 within the claimed ranges. WO’187 in view of WO’780 does not specify including C3A and C4AF in the binder. EP’624 teaches hydraulic binder with a low CO2 footprint, having a low milled cement clinker content, and exhibiting a higher early strength than existing LC3 type binders (abstract of EP’624). EP’624 provides example #PC-M in table B having 65.8wt% C3S; 11.5wt% C3A; and 1.5wt% C4AF, which are within the claimed ranges of C3A and C4AF. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper amount of C3A and C4AF as demonstrated by EP’624 for the binder of WO’187 in view of WO’780 since all of EP’624, WO’780, and WO’187 teach the same hydraulic binder as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and EP’624 teaches proper binder composition for a higher early strength than existing LC3 type binders (abstract of EP’624).
From claim 18 (wt%)
#AH in table 1 of WO’187 (wt%)
Within range (wt%)
Further including
Al2O3 >4
Fe2O3 <4
SO3 >4
C3A >2
C4AF <11
Al2O3: 4.71
Fe < 1.69
SO3: 4.01
C3A:--
C4AF: --
Al2O3: 4.71
Fe < 1.69
SO3: 4.01
C3A:--
C4AF: --
From claim 20 (wt%)
Aluminate cement
2-20
--
2 and 10 wt% (EP’624)
--
Reads on (EP’624)
Regarding claim 20, EP’624 teaches applying a 0.5 to 40% by weight of calcium aluminate cement (CAC) or calcium sulfo aluminates cement (CSA), preferably between 2 and 10 wt% (par.[0028] of EP’624), which is within the claimed aluminate cement range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper amount of aluminate cement as demonstrated by EP’624 for the binder of WO’187 since both of EP’624 and WO’187 teach the same hydraulic binder as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and EP’624 teaches proper binder composition for a higher early strength than existing LC3 type binders (abstract of EP’624).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection of Claim(s) 16-21 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights