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 .
The amendments filed 3/2/26 overcome the rejections set forth in the office action mailed 12/9/25. New grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanci (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0163822) in view of Long (U.S. Pat. No. 3,933,596).
In paragraph 27 and Figure 4 Quanci discloses a coke oven, as recited in claim 11, comprising a crown air inlet 114 having air dampers 116, as recited for the oven of claim 1. In paragraphs 26, 28, and 31 Quanci indicates that the oven is configured to process coal, meeting the limitations of the carbonaceous feedstock of claim 1. In paragraphs 42-43 and 46 Quanci indicates that the oven is configured to operate at a temperature within the range recited in claims 1 and 9.
The coke produced by the coke oven of Quanci meets the limitations of the processed materials of claim 6. In paragraph 35 Quanci discloses that the coke can be quenched and sized, which will produce some coke breeze as well, meeting the limitations of claim 7.
Quanci does not disclose the further inclusion of a pelletization assembly in a production system along with the coke oven.
Long, in column 1 lines 3-6, discloses a process for the desulfurization of coke. In the flow chart of figure 1, Long discloses that coke subjected to grinding (step 10) followed by agglomeration (step 11). In column 3 lines 44-53 Long discloses that the coke can be obtained by a variety of processes, including the carbonization of coal in a coke oven. In column 4 lines 10-19 Long discloses that the ground coke can be combined with a binder and pelletized in a pelletizer in the agglomeration step, where the pelletization assembly meets the limitations of the pelletization assembly of claim 1 and the binder meets the limitations of the additive. Long teaches that the coke is combined with sodium carbonate, leading to pellets comprising sodium, as recited in claim 17.
It is noted that the claims are drawn to a production system, not a method of making pellets or processing input materials in the oven, and as long as the system of the prior art is configured to process the various feedstocks, processed materials, or additives recited in the claims or to achieve the temperatures recited in those claims, it meets the limitations of those claims even if it does not teach the specific feedstocks, processed materials, additives, or temperatures. The pelletizer of Long will be capable of pelletizing a combination of the coke and specific binders such as those recited in claims 14-15 and having the diameter recited in claim 20. Disk or drum pelletizers, as disclosed in column 4 lines 10-13, are configured to mix materials, and therefore would be capable of combining the coke with the second processed materials of claim 18. Furthermore, the oven of Quanci would be at least capable of processing the feedstocks of claims 2-3, feedstocks having the size recited in claim 4, and processing the material for the period of time recited in claim 8. The oven of Quanci and pelletizer of Long would also be capable of processing feedstocks leading to the production of pellets comprising char and/or biochar, as recited in claim 19. Pelletizers can have an output rate meeting the limitations of claim 21 and can produce pellets having higher density than the input material and therefore meet the limitations of claim 22.
Combining the oven of Quanci and the system of Long, including the pelletizer, into a single system therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the oven of Quanci and system of Long, including the pelletizer of Long, into a single system, in order to desulfurize the coke produced in the coke oven of Quanci.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanci in view of Long as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of Wienert (U.S. Pat. No. 4,419,186).
The discussion of Quanci and Long in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Quanci and Long disclose a system meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraphs 3-4 and 31 Quanci indicates that crushed coal particles are fed to the coal oven, but Quanci does not specifically disclose the inclusion of a grinder or a mill in the system prior to the oven.
Wienert discloses a method for making metallurgical coke. In column 1 lines 29-48 and column 4 lines 20-24 Wienert discloses that the coal is ground prior to feeding to the coal oven, and that particle sizes smaller than about 0.15 mm are preferably avoided in order to not clog the grinding equipment. Wienert therefore teaches the inclusion of a grinder configured to reduce the size of coal prior to feeding to a coke oven, meeting the limitations of claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the grinder of Wienert prior to the coke oven in the system of Quanci and Long, meeting the limitations of claim 5, since Wienert teaches that it is suitable equipment for forming coal particles to be fed to a coke oven.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanci (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0163822) in view of Zhao (CN 113023729 A)
In paragraph 27 and Figure 4 Quanci discloses a coke oven, as recited in claim 11, comprising a crown air inlet 114 having air dampers 116, as recited for the oven of claim 1. In paragraphs 26, 28, and 31 Quanci indicates that the oven is configured to process coal, meeting the limitations of the carbonaceous feedstock of claim 1. In paragraphs 42-43 and 46 Quanci indicates that the oven is configured to operate at a temperature within the range recited in claims 1 and 9.
The coke produced by the coke oven of Quanci meets the limitations of the processed materials of claim 6. In paragraph 35 Quanci discloses that the coke can be quenched and sized, which will produce some coke breeze as well, meeting the limitations of claim 7.
Quanci does not disclose the further inclusion of a pelletization assembly in a production system along with the coke oven.
An English-language machine translation of Zhao, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the page and paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
Zhao, in paragraphs n0024-n0028 on pages 13-15, discloses a process of combining crushed coke with fluorite and quicklime ground in a ball mill, adding a binder, kneading the mixture and then granulating the mixture in a pelletizer. Zhao therefore discloses a pelletization assembly as recited in claim 1, noting that the comprising language of claim 1 also allows for the production system to comprise additional unrecited elements. The binder, quicklime, and fluorite all meet the limitations of the additive of claim 1. In paragraph n0018 on page 11 Zhao discloses that a preferred binder is carboxymethyl cellulose, as recited in claim 14. Zhao also discloses polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which is amphipathic as recited in claim 15, as a preferred binder. The ball mill for the quicklime and fluorite and the kneader meet the limitations of the mill of claim 16. Quicklime and fluorite both comprise calcium and the pellets will therefore comprise calcium, as recited in claim 17.
It is noted that the claims are drawn to a production system, not a method of making pellets or processing input materials in the oven, and as long as the system of the prior art is configured to process the various feedstocks, processed materials, or additives recited in the claims or to achieve the temperatures recited in those claims, it meets the limitations of those claims even if it does not teach the specific feedstocks, processed materials, additives, or temperatures. The kneader in the pelletization assembly of Zhao, discussed above, is configured to mix materials, and therefore would be capable of combining the coke with the second processed materials of claim 18. Furthermore, the oven of Quanci would be at least capable of processing the feedstocks of claims 2-3, feedstocks having the size recited in claim 4, and processing the material for the period of time recited in claim 8. The oven of Quanci and pelletizer of Zhao would also be capable of processing feedstocks leading to the production of pellets comprising char and/or biochar, as recited in claim 19. Pelletizers can have an output rate meeting the limitations of claim 21 and can produce pellets having higher density than the input material and therefore meet the limitations of claim 22. It is noted that fluorite and quicklime both have a higher bulk density than coke.
Combining the oven of Quanci and the apparatus of Zhao including the pelletization assembly, into a single system therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 14-22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the oven of Quanci and the system used in the method of Zhao, in order to carry out the coking of the coal in the first step of the method of Zhao in a manner that obtains the advantages taught in paragraph 24 of Quanci.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanci in view of Zhao as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 14-22 above, and further in view of Wienert (U.S. Pat. No. 4,419,186).
The discussion of Quanci and Zhao in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference. Quanci and Zhao disclose a system meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraphs 3-4 and 31 Quanci indicates that crushed coal particles are fed to the coal oven, but Quanci does not specifically disclose the inclusion of a grinder or a mill in the system prior to the oven.
Wienert discloses a method for making metallurgical coke. In column 1 lines 29-48 and column 4 lines 20-24 Wienert discloses that the coal is ground prior to feeding to the coal oven, and that particle sizes smaller than about 0.15 mm are preferably avoided in order to not clog the grinding equipment. Wienert therefore teaches the inclusion of a grinder configured to reduce the size of coal prior to feeding to a coke oven, meeting the limitations of claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the grinder of Wienert prior to the coke oven in the system of Quanci and Zhao, meeting the limitations of claim 5, since Wienert teaches that it is suitable equipment for forming coal particles to be fed to a coke oven.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-13 are 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 prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, does not disclose an oven configured to allow the coke to cool inside the oven, and paragraphs 43 and 35 indicate that the temperature rises throughout the coking process and that the coke is removed from the oven at the end of the coking process. The prior art also does not disclose or provide motivation to modify the coke oven of Quanci to include the second and third ovens recited in claim 12-13. While paragraph 47 and claims 33 and 43 of Quanci disclose the inclusion of a second oven, Quanci does not disclose a second oven configured to heat materials that undergo an exothermic process wherein the heat generated in the exothermic process of the second oven is transferred to the first oven.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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 at 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights