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
The Applicant has elected Species 3 (cl.7); Species 4 (Cl.8); and Species 7 (Cl.12) for the further prosecution as filed in the response dated 4/27/2026. Claims 5-6, 9, 11, and 13-15 has been withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, and 12 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “HBI” should clarified with whole term (hot briquette iron: HBI – refer to par.[0036] of US-PG-pub 2024/0167109 A1—Corresponding to the specification of the instant application). 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: (C/S)criticat (a critical basicity of HBI) has no clear definition. It is unclear the “hot briquette iron: HBI” has a fixed (C/S)criticat or it depends on the composition and manufacturing process of the reduced iron molded product. Since claim 4 need further clarification, this claim does not including in the following examination.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, claim 7 depend on claim 1, the claimed basicity range in claim 7 (there is no proper low limit) is outside the basicity range in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibaraki et al (US-PG-pub 2011/0023657 A1, listed in IDS filed on 10/30/2023, thereafter PG’657) in view of Yasuda et al (US 2010/0206131 A1, listed in IDS filed on 10/30/2023, thereafter PG’131).
Regarding claim 1, PG’657 teaches a manufacturing process of a method for producing pig iron for producing hot metal by reducing and melting the partial reduced iron (reduced-iron containing material) in a blast furnace or a vertical shaft furnace with tuyere. (Title, Abstract, Fig.3, and claims of PG’657), which reads on the process for producing pig iron using a blast furnace with a tuyere as claimed in the instant claim. PG’657 specify applying alternately charging ore layer and coke layer (Fig.3 and par.[0049]-[0068] of PG’657) with air blowing with temperature control and the massive reduced iron (Hot Briquette Iron (HBI) or DRI) is molten together with the scrap in the production of melting the scrap, thereby producing pig iron (Par.[0012]-[0013] and [0085] of PG’657), which reads on the process of layers charging, reducing and melting in blast furnace, and applying reduced iron molded product as calmed in the instant claim. PG’657 provides examples #2 and #3 in table 1 with amount of CaO, MgO, and SiO2 reads on the claimed basicity of reduced iron molded product as claimed in the instant claim. PG’657 does not specify including iron ore pallets as claimed in the instant claim. PG’131 teaches a manufacturing process of a self-fluxing pellets with sintered ore and to a method for making the pellets for a blast furnace (Abstract, par.[0001], and claims of PG’131). PG’131 specify a CaO/SiO2 mass ratio C/S is 0.8 or more and a MgO/SiO2 mass ratio M/S is 0.4 or more (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’131), which reads on the claimed iron ore pellets with greater or equal to 0.9 of basicity as calmed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply iron ore pellets with basicity (CaO + MgO)/SiO2) as disclosed in PG’131 in the process of PG’657 in order to modify self-fluxing pellets to be used as an iron raw material for a blast furnace (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’131).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, PG’131 teaches a manufacturing process applying self-fluxing pellets for charging a blast furnace (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’131), which reads on the limitation of applying iron ore pellet as major iron ore material as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, PG’131 teaches a manufacturing process of a self-fluxing pellets with sintered ore and to a method for making the pellets for a blast furnace (Abstract, par.[0001], and claims of PG’131), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, PG’131 specify a CaO/SiO2 mass ratio C/S is 0.8 or more and a MgO/SiO2 mass ratio M/S is 0.4 or more (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’131), which overlaps the calmed basicity range as claimed in the instant claim, which creates a prima facies 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 basicity (CaO + MgO)/SiO2) of the iron ore pellets as disclosed in PG’131 in the process of PG’657 in order to modify self-fluxing pellets to be used as an iron raw material for a blast furnace (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’131).
Regarding claim 12, PG’657 provides examples in table 1 having MgO greater than 1 mass%, which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claim.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibaraki et al (US-PG-pub 2011/0023657 A1, thereafter PG’657) in view of Yano Masaki et al (JP 2012126947 A listed in IDS filed on 7/30/2024, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’947).
Regarding claim 1, PG’657 teaches a manufacturing process of a method for producing pig iron for producing hot metal by reducing and melting the partial reduced iron (reduced-iron containing material) in a blast furnace or a vertical shaft furnace with tuyere. (Title, Abstract, Fig.3, and claims of PG’657), which reads on the process for producing pig iron using a blast furnace with a tuyere as claimed in the instant claim. PG’657 specify applying alternately charging ore layer and coke layer (Fig.3 and par.[0049]-[0068] of PG’657) with air blowing with temperature control and the massive reduced iron (Hot Briquette Iron (HBI) or DRI) is molten together with the scrap in the production of melting the scrap, thereby producing pig iron (Par.[0012]-[0013] and [0085] of PG’657), which reads on the process of layers charging, reducing and melting in blast furnace, and applying reduced iron molded product as calmed in the instant claim. PG’657 provides examples #2 and #3 in table 1 with amount of CaO, MgO, and SiO2 reads on the claimed basicity of reduced iron molded product as claimed in the instant claim. PG’657 does not specify including iron ore pallets as claimed in the instant claim. JP’947 teaches a manufacturing process of a fired pellet for charging a blast furnace in which pores are unevenly distributed in a surface layer portion (Abstract and claims of JP’947). JP’947 specify the composite basicity (CaO + MgO)/SiO2) is mixed to be 1.5-2.0 (claim 3 and table 1 of JP’947). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply iron ore pellets with basicity (CaO + MgO)/SiO2) of 1.5-2.0 as disclosed in JP’947 in the process of PG’657 in order to obtain excellent reducibility in the blast furnace (Abstract, examples, and claims of JP’947).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, JP’947 teaches a manufacturing process of a fired pellet for charging a blast furnace in which pores are unevenly distributed in a surface layer portion (Abstract and claims of JP’947), which reads on the limitation of applying iron ore pellet as major iron ore material as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, JP’947 specify the composite basicity (CaO + MgO)/SiO2) is mixed to be 1.5-2.0 (claim 3 and table 1 of JP’947), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, PG’657 provides examples in table 1 having MgO greater than 1 mass%, which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6 of copending application No. 18/042876 (US 12,545,970 B2).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 12, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other with Claims 1-6 of copending application No. 18/042876 (US 12,545,970 B2). Claims 1-6 of copending application No. 18/042876 (US 12,545,970 B2) indicates manufacturing pig iron by blast furnace with alternately layer charging and including reduced iron molded product, which reads on the all of the essential process steps as recited in the instant claims. Claims 1-6 of copending application No. 18/042876 (US 12,545,970 B2) indicates similar basicity and porosity of the reduced iron molded product as claimed in the instant claims. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the Claims 1-6 of copending application No. 18/042876 (US 12,545,970 B2).
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 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 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights