Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/268,723

TWO-STEP THERMAL TREATMENT OF NICKEL-CONTAINING SULFIDES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FERRONICKEL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
MORALES, RICARDO D
Art Unit
1738
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Governing Council Of The University Of Toronto
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
350 granted / 431 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
463
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.6%
+16.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 431 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. Claim 3 is 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. The term “low-grade ultramafic nickel sulfide ore” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 21-23, 26, 31, 36, 38, 40, 46, 51, 56, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US2668107) in view of Sadykhov et al. (WO2016171579A1). Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 26 and 63, Gordon teaches a method of forming alloys from sulfide containing pentlandite (a nickel sulfide containing material derived from low grade ultramafic nickel sulfide ore and having a nickel content of around 34% Ni, reading on claim 8); mixing and agglomerating the concentrate with other powder such as Fe or Cu concentrate and heating to form a molten phase (slag), gangue phase and (dust) particle phase (See Figure 1) where the particles are cooled at the furnace exit (See Col. 10, Lines 40-45); However, Gordon does not explicitly teach FeNi particles are formed or that a reducing atmosphere is used for heating. However, Sadykhov teaches a method of forming ferronickel by mixing laterite ores with fluxing additives (abstract); briquetting the mixture and reducing roasting the briquette (abstract) instead of smelting [0008]; and teaches that heating under a reducing atmosphere of inert gas- argon [0046] and cooled; where the roasted product is crushed and FeNi particles were separated from the slag with magnetic separation [0046]; where Ferronickel FeNi is produced as valuable and essential raw material for making various grades of stainless steel [0005]; Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Gordon to mix Nickel sulfide and iron sulfide concentrates for the purpose of forming ferronickel products and roasting the mixed powder in a briquette in an inert or reducing atmosphere for the purpose of reducing iron oxide in the mixture to reactively form FeNi product and partially melting to form a slag phase, gangue and FeNi particles; cooling and separating the FeNi particles for the purpose of forming FeNi particles as a valuable and essential raw material. The cooled particles are considered to have an increased particle size and Ni content compared to non-cooled particles. Regarding Claim 10, the iron containing material comprises metallic iron. Regarding Claims 12, 15 and 36, Sadykhov teaches iron oxide [0011] is mixed with sulfide material and coal [0012] are present in the mixture (the genus of reducing atmosphere of inert gas is considered to comprise hydrogen or CO) Regarding Claim 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to analyze the contents of nickel material to determine its contents for the purpose of accurately producing FeNi particles of a desired composition. Regarding Claims 22 and 23, one of ordinary skill in the art, under routine experimentation would have been motivated to modify the ratio of iron equivalent for the purpose of ensuring the desired content of Fe in the FeNi product is acceptable. Regarding Claim 31, Sadykhov teaches heating to 700-1000 C [0013] overlapping with the claimed range of 750-1300 C (See MPEP 2144.05(I)) Regarding Claims 38 and 40, Sadykhov teaches cooling quickly with water [0014] but does not teach cooling to an intermediate temperature and cooling to room temperature; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to air cool to room temperature after quenching to an intermediate temperature as less high-rate cooling is required closer to room temperature. Air cooling is considered less than 10 C/min. Regarding Claim 46, heat treatment is considered to maintain at the heating temperature for a period of time. Regarding Claims 51 and 56, since cooling is performed in a similar fashion to the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a similar particle size increase from cooling to be present under the expectation that products formed from similar methods have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I)) Allowable Subject Matter Claim 41 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Gordon et al. (US2668107) in view of Sadykhov et al. (WO2016171579A1) as used above where the prior art teaches cooling with water cooling (high rate of cooling); where as claim 41 limits the cooling rate from heating temperature to an intermediate cooling temperature of 500-800 C to be limited to a rate of at most 10 C/min; the prior art does not teach or suggest this limitation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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. /RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599970
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING UNDER PROTECTIVE GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595537
TIN BLACKPLATE FOR PROCESSING AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595526
HOT-ROLLED STEEL SHEET FOR HYPER TRAIN TUBE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595539
QT HEAT TREATED HIGH CARBON HOT ROLLED STEEL SHEET, HIGH CARBON COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET, QT HEAT TREATED HIGH CARBON COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET, AND MANUFACTURING METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595964
OXYGEN LANCE GUIDING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 431 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month