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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the metal iron-containing substance or the volatile substance with a particle size of 2 mm ore more and 6 mm or less is used" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim appears to intend to depend on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A).
Regarding Claim 1, Satoshi teaches a raw material particle for agglomeration comprising: [0011]
A central part made of iron ore powder or iron oxide with carbon; [0011]
A peripheral part (shell) that covers the central part made of iron oxide; [0011]
Regarding Claim 2, Satoshi teaches the outer layer has an alumina Al2O3 concentration of 1.57% after calcination (and more before), reading on the claimed range of 1.5% or more alumina (See Table 2)
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the central part has a size of 3 mm [0012] reading on the claimed range of 2-6 mm
Regarding Claim 9, Satoshi teaches sintering conditions of 1200 C in an oxidative atmosphere (supply air) See Table 5.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A)
Regarding Claim 4, Satoshi teaches a peripheral thickness of 1-10 mm, overlapping with the claimed range of 2-5 mm [0022] (In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)))
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A) in view of Goskel (US4239530).
Regarding Claim 2, Satoshi is silent regarding the claimed range of water of crystallization (hydrate); however, Goskel teaches a method of agglomerating pulverized iron ore concentrate mixed with carbonaceous material (abstract) and teaches a starting mixture is made by blending the mixture with a sufficient amount of water to form a moistened mixture (Col. 4, Lines 20-25) with a total amount of water of 10-20% by weight (Col. 5, Lines 45-55); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use hydrate or liquid water in the claimed range for the purpose of insuring sufficient moisture to form an agglomerated product of Satoshi.
Claim(s) 5-7, 13-14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A) in view of Holowaty (US3314780A).
Regarding Claims 5, 13-14 and 16, Satoshi teaches the raw material was prepared by crushing ironmaking dust to 70 microns or less; mixing the powder and granulating the mixture to obtain the raw material particle [0034] with a binder [0025] ; however, the prior art is silent regarding the pretreatment including grinding and classifying to achieve the desired particle size; however Holowaty teaches a process of pelletizing ore where a desired iron ore particle size may be achieved by grinding and classifying (Col. 3, Lines 2-15); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Satoshi to grind and classify the crushed powder in order to obtain a narrow uniform particle size for the raw iron powder to be mixed into a agglomerate.
Regarding Claim 6, the central part has a size of 3 mm [0012] reading on the claimed range of 2-6 mm
Regarding Claim 7, Satoshi teaches a peripheral thickness of 1-10 mm, overlapping with the claimed range of 2-5 mm [0022] (In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)))
Regarding Claim 20, Satoshi teaches sintering conditions of 1200 C in an oxidative atmosphere (supply air) See Table 5.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A) in view of Goskel (US4239530) as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Holowaty (US3314780A).
Regarding Claim 15, Satoshi teaches the raw material was prepared by crushing ironmaking dust to 70 microns or less; mixing the powder and granulating the mixture to obtain the raw material particle [0034] with a binder [0025] ; however, the prior art is silent regarding the pretreatment including grinding and classifying to achieve the desired particle size; however Holowaty teaches a process of pelletizing ore where a desired iron ore particle size may be achieved by grinding and classifying (Col. 3, Lines 2-15); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Satoshi to grind and classify the crushed powder in order to obtain a narrow uniform particle size for the raw iron powder to be mixed into a agglomerate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 10-11, 17-19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closet prior art of record is Satoshi et al. (JP2011225926A) as used above, which teaches an agglomerate containing a core and shell structure; however the prior art does not teach or suggest that upon baking, a three-layer structure is formed AND the core becomes a void after baking.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights