DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are pending, and claims 1-9 and 11-16 are currently under review.
Claims 17-19 and 21-22 are withdrawn.
Claims 10, 20, and 23 are cancelled.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 and 11-16, in the reply filed on 2/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-19 and 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/09/2026.
Claim Objections
The terms “the organic binder” and “the inorganic binder” in claims 5-7 should be corrected to recite “an organic binder” and “an inorganic binder”. Alternatively, dependency of claims 5-7 should be amended to be dependent upon claim 4 to avoid potential antecedent basis issues. 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are 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 1 recites the term “C-grade iron fines”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what specific features are required by the term “C-grade”. The instant specification expressly states that the term “C-grade fines” is intended to be given its common meaning in the industry [p.4 instant spec.]. However, “C-grade” is not readily recognized as a common classification of iron fines in the art of metallurgy. Furthermore, the instant specification also provides a narrower interpretation that C-grade fines include any metallic iron and/or ferroalloy material and have a size range of 50 micrometers to 10 mm [p.4 instants spec.]. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner as to what particular features, if any, are required by the recitation of “C-grade”. The examiner interprets the claim to merely require any iron particles having a small particle size.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 4, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pickett (WO2018193243).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 9, Pickett discloses a pellet made of iron ore particles having a size of 4 mm or less (ie. C-grade iron fines) in addition to a polymeric binder such as PVA [p.2-3].
Regarding claim 12, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 9 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can further include phenol-formaldehyde resin [p.3].
Regarding claims 13-15, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can further include a cellulose material in an amount of 0.2 weight percent, which falls within the claimed range [p.8]. The examiner notes that the cellulose material of Pickett having the same cellulosic composition would be entirely capable of achieving a stabilizing effect and therefore meets the functional language of a “stabilizer” as claimed.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859).
Regarding claim 1, Beaudoin et al. discloses a solid agglomerate (ie. pellet) of fine metal iron particles having a size of 600 micrometers or less (ie. C-grade iron fines) and a lubricant (ie. binder) [abstract, 0009-0010].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett (WO2018193243).
Regarding claim 2, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the pellets are made of up to 1 weight percent binder and up to 20 weight percent carbonaceous material, which results in a remainder of iron ore material of at least 79 percent as calculated by the examiner [p.2-4]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Pickett and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches a size range of up to 4 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.2]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Pickett further teaches that the binder is included in an amount of up to 1 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.3]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can include polyacrylamide resin, resole resin, novolac resin, PVA, polysaccharide, and phenol-formaldehyde among others [p.2-4].
Regarding claims 13-15, Pickett discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can further include a cellulose material as a binding material in an amount of up to 1 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.2-4]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that the cellulose material of Pickett having the same cellulosic composition would be entirely capable of achieving a stabilizing effect and therefore meets the functional language of a “stabilizer” as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett (WO2018193243) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martikainen et al. (US 2014/0033872) alone; or alternatively further in view of Pietsch (US 4,032,352) and/or Steeghs et al. (EP0541181).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the binder includes an inorganic binder of two or more silicates as claimed. Martikainen et al. discloses a binder for agglomerating iron ore fines [abstract]; wherein said binder can further include organic or inorganic components such as an inorganic monomeric electrolyte of sodium, ammonium, potassium, calcium, and or magnesium silicate in an amount of 5 to 60 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [0027]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Martikainen et al. further teaches that the binder components may be dry (ie. solid particulate) or aqueous and mixed with water (ie. liquid form) [0014-0015, 0034, 0037-0038].
Alternatively, the prior art does not expressly teach utilizing the binders as a solid and liquid mixture. Pietsch discloses that it is well known to utilize a blend of dry and liquid binders for agglomerating ferrous pellets [col.1, col.4 ln.1-6]. Steeghs et al. also discloses that it is known to perform agglomeration with binders provided in any well-known, typical form known by one of ordinary skill such as dry or liquid [p.3]. Therefore, the prior art discloses all of the claimed features, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to modify the pellet composition of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing both liquid and solid silicate binders, as suggested by Martikainen et al., Pietsch, and Steeghs et al., to arrive at the predictable result of utilizing well-known forms of binders as desired by one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, the examiner submits that any particular phase of binder (ie. dry or wet) would have been an obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill depending on the desired pelletizing parameters as also supported by the aforementioned prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett (WO2018193243) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arapov (RU2227165, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a binder viscosity as claimed. Arapov discloses a binder for ferrous pellets [0020]; wherein it is known to control a viscosity of the polymer binder to range from 5,000 to 200,000 MPas such that a desirably high viscosity level can be achieved [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a binder viscosity as taught by Arapov in order to achieve a desirable viscosity level. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed range of Arapov and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett (WO2018193243) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP2009280849, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 9 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art teaches PVA as a binder material as explained above; however the aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a molecular weight range as claimed. Yamaguchi et al. discloses a method for granulating ferrous material for iron making [0001]; wherein it is known to utilize methyl acrylic based polymers having a molecular weight of 1,000 to 100,000 to achieve desirable binding properties [0010-0011, 0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a molecular weight range as taught by Yamaguchi et al. for the benefits disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed range of Yamaguchi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett (WO2018193243) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sims et al. (EP3124628).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a cross-linking agent as claimed. Sims et al. discloses that it is known to include a cross-linking agent to a polymer binder for ferrous agglomerates to improve bonding forces of the polymer binder [0001, 0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by adding a cross-linking agent for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Sims et al.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859).
Regarding claim 2, Beaudoin et al. discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Beaudoin et al. further teaches that the pellet includes at least 55 weight percent of iron material [0041]. The examiner notes that the range of Beaudoin et al. overlaps with that as claimed, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Beaudoin et al. discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Beaudoin et al. teaches a particle size of iron powder materials of 600 micrometers or less, which overlaps with the claimed range [0010]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859) in view of Pickett (WO2018193243).
Regarding claims 4-5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a binder as claimed. Pickett discloses a binder composition for agglomerating iron ore [abstract]; wherein said binder can be an organic binder included in an amount of up to 1 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.3]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Said binder of Pickett is disclosed to achieve desirable pellet properties such as a desirable porosity, reactivity, and cost [p.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by adding or substituting the specific binder composition of Pickett for the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can include polyacrylamide resin, resole resin, novolac resin, PVA, polysaccharide, and phenol-formaldehyde among others [p.2-4].
Regarding claims 13-15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). Pickett further teaches that the binder can further include a cellulose material as a binding material in an amount of up to 1 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [p.2-4]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that the cellulose material of Pickett having the same cellulosic composition would be entirely capable of achieving a stabilizing effect and therefore meets the functional language of a “stabilizer” as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pickett (WO2018193243) and Arapov (RU2227165, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a binder viscosity as claimed. As stated above, Pickett demonstrates the obviousness of utilizing organic polymer binders; and Arapov further discloses a binder for ferrous pellets [0020]; wherein it is known to control a viscosity of the polymer binder to range from 5,000 to 200,000 MPas such that a desirably high viscosity level can be achieved [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a binder viscosity as taught by Arapov in order to achieve a desirable viscosity level. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed range of Arapov and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859) and others as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP2009280849, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 9 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art teaches PVA as a binder material as explained above; however the aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a molecular weight range as claimed. Yamaguchi et al. discloses a method for granulating ferrous material for iron making [0001]; wherein it is known to utilize methyl acrylic based polymers having a molecular weight of 1,000 to 100,000 to achieve desirable binding properties [0010-0011, 0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a molecular weight range as taught by Yamaguchi et al. for the benefits disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed range of Yamaguchi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pickett (WO2018193243) and Sims et al. (EP3124628).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a cross-linking agent as claimed. As stated above, Pickett demonstrates the obviousness of utilizing organic polymer binders; and Sims et al. discloses that it is known to include a cross-linking agent to a polymer binder for ferrous agglomerates to improve bonding forces of the polymer binder [0001, 0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the pellet of the aforementioned prior art by adding a cross-linking agent for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Sims et al.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin et al. (US 2016/0244859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martikainen et al. (US 2014/0033872) alone; or alternatively further in view of Pietsch (US 4,032,352) and/or Steeghs et al. (EP0541181).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the pellet of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the binder includes an inorganic binder of two or more silicates as claimed. Martikainen et al. discloses a binder for agglomerating iron ore fines [abstract]; wherein said binder can further include inorganic components such as an inorganic monomeric electrolyte of sodium, ammonium, potassium, calcium, and or magnesium silicate in an amount of 5 to 60 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [0027]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Martikainen et al. further teaches that the binder components may be dry (ie. solid particulate) or aqueous and mixed with water (ie. liquid form) [0014-0015, 0034, 0037-0038].
Alternatively, the prior art does not expressly teach utilizing the binders as a solid and liquid mixture. Pietsch discloses that it is well known to utilize a blend of dry and liquid binders for agglomerating ferrous pellets [col.1, col.4 ln.1-6]. Steeghs et al. also discloses that it is known to perform agglomeration with binders provided in any well-known, typical form known by one of ordinary skill such as dry or liquid [p.3]. Therefore, the prior art discloses all of the claimed features, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to modify the pellet composition of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing both liquid and solid silicate binders, as suggested by Martikainen et al., Pietsch, and Steeghs et al., to arrive at the predictable result of utilizing well-known forms of binders as desired by one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, the examiner submits that any particular phase of binder (ie. dry or wet) would have been an obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill depending on the desired pelletizing parameters as also supported by the aforementioned prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734