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
Status of claims
Claims 16-21 are amended, Claims 1-15 have been cancelled; Claims 23-35 are withdrawn as non-elected claims, claims 16-21 remain for examination, wherein claim 16 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claim 22 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/3/2026.
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over Daniel (WO 2019033187 A1, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 6/20/2023, thereafter WO’187) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’187 in view of SARRA et al (EP 4011624 A1, thereafter EP’624) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/3/2026.
In view of the Applicant’s amendments in the instant claims, newly recorded reference(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection is added as following:
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) 16-17, 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 Bush et al (US-PG-Pub 2010/0294725 A1, thereafter PG’725).
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. PG’725 teaches binders of components in solid and aqueous media for metal or mineral ore beneficiation. (claims, and par.[0003]-[0007] and [0049] of PG’725). PG’725 indicates including alkanolamine as water-soluble organic amine (Par.[0094] of PG’725) with solution amount adjustment (par.[0096] of PG’725). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply alkanolamine as demonstrated by PG’725 for the binder of WO’187 since PG’725 indicates including alkanolamine as water-soluble organic amine (Par.[0094] of PG’725).
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
0.1-1 wt%
--
Included (PG’725)
--
Included (PG’725)
From instant claim 17
Comprising at least one of
0.5-10wt% gypsum
Including gypsum with optimized amount (par.[019] )
included
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 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). 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 WO’187 since WO’187 teaches the same binder composition as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
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.
Claims 18 and 20 is/are rejected 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).
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 PG’725 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 PG’725 since all of EP’624, PG’725, 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
--
--
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 to 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
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 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 date of this final action.
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