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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. JP2021-062578, filed April 1, 2021, acknowledged.
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 1, and dependent claims 2-4, 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.
The term “miniaturized” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “miniaturized” 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. Examiner interprets a size less 1000um (see Fig. 3, grain sizes less than 1000um).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda (cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 22, 2023, US 20100206131 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasuda discloses a method for producing iron ore pellets for operation of a blast furnace (Abstract; para. [0002]; para. [0012]),
wherein the iron ore pellets have a CaO/SiO2 mass ratio of 0.8 or more and a MgO/SiO2 mass ratio of 0.4 or more (Abstract; see Table 1 C/S (CaO/SiO2) and M/S (MgO/SiO2) values), there method comprising:
balling green pellets by adding water to an iron ore material and dolomite (para. [0036]-[0037]; pelletizing reads on the balling; raw pellets read on green pellets as claimed; see also para. [0005] and para. [0022] regarding dolomite);
firing the green pellets (para. [0038]), and
wherein the auxiliary raw materials (dolomite) is ball milled before or after blending to comprise a grain size of 44um or less, which reads on the claimed miniaturized state of the dolomite in the structure of the green pellets (para. [0036]; see 112b rejection above).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 22, 2023, US 20100206131 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Kreiger (US 4004916 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasuda disclose preparing the dolomite as claimed (para. [0036]; ball milling reads on preparing), but Yasuda is silent towards a Blaine specific surface area of the dolomite of 4,000cm2/g.
Kreiger teaches wherein fume (raw pulverized material mixture to be balled for green iron ore pellet) conventionally comprises a size of 25um or less (Col. 1, lines 35-39; Table 1, wherein raw material comprises MgO and CaO; dolomite comprises MgO and CaO), and comprises a Blaine surface area of 8,000-12,000 cm2/g in order to successfully ball the material into strong agglomerates (Col. 5, lines 39-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a grain size of 25um or less and a Blaine surface area of 8,000-12,000 cm2/g for the granulated materials forming the green pellet, including the MgO and CaO containing materials, and therefore the dolomite of Yasuda, as taught by Kreiger, for the invention disclosed by Yasuda, in order to successfully ball the material into strong agglomerates (see teaching above).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 2 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 22, 2023, US 20100206131 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Sakamoto (JP 2008127636 A, English Machine Translation) and Ferraris (“Identifying improved standardized tests for measuring cement particle size and surface area”).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasuda disclose preparing the dolomite as claimed (para. [0036]; ball milling reads on preparing), but Yasuda is silent towards the Blaine specific surface area of the dolomite.
Ferraris teaches wherein the fineness of a particle is proportional to the Blaine surface area, and teaches wherein a particle d90 size of 39.9um comprises a Blaine surface area of 4320 cm2/g (432 m2/kg) (Pg. 4, lines 10-12; Pg. 9, Table 1).
Sakamoto similarly teaches wherein the Blaine surface area indicates particle size, and that the Blaine surface area may easily be tailored by changing the degree of pulverization and therefore particle size (para. [0023]; para. [0045]). Sakamoto discloses a mixture of raw material comprising dolomite which has a Blaine surface area of 4,300 cm2/g and is therein mixed with other components with much smaller Blaine surface areas in order to comprise an optimum Blaine surface area for the final mixture, thereby improving the strength of the pellet formed while preventing bursting (Abstract; para. [0033]; para. [0035], post grinding raw material A including dolomite; para. [0036]; Table 1, see inventive case (c) for example).
It would be obvious that the dolomite of Yasuda, which comprises a grain size of 44um or less, comprise a Blaine surface area of 4320 cm2/g, as taught by Ferraris, because Ferraris and Sakamoto teach wherein the Blaine surface area is representative of the particle size, and Ferraris further teaches where the particle sizes of Yasuda (39.9um is 44um or less) would comprise the claimed Blaine surface area of 4,000cm2/g or more (see teachings by Ferraris and Sakamoto above).
Additionally, it would be obvious to comprise dolomite with a Blaine surface area of 4300 cm2/g, as taught by Sakamoto, for the invention of Yasuda, as this surface area is conventionally known in the art for dolomite as a raw material for a pellet mixture (see para. [0035] of Sakamoto), and in order to tailor the Blaine surface area of the final pellet mixture to be within the optimum range for pellet strength while suppressing bursting (see teaching by Sakamoto above).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 3 and Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (cited by Applicant in IDS filed December 22, 2023, US 20100206131 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Valenti (US 4497661 A) and Hedley (GB 2042499 A).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 4, Yasuda disclose preparing the dolomite as claimed (para. [0036]; ball milling before mixing reads on preparing), but Yasuda is silent towards calcining the dolomite.
Yasuda teaches wherein dolomite is used as a CaO and MgO source (para. [0002]; para. [0014]).
Valenti teaches wherein dead-burned or calcined dolomite may have a MgO content of 80% or more as the MgO source (Abstract; Col. 6, line 41-42 and line 48; Col. 9, lines 17-52).
Hedley teaches a stable dead burned (calcinated) dolomite useful as a refractory material which has low resistance to chemical attack and tendency of hydration (Pg. 1,; lines 5-15; Pg. 2, lines 14-19; dead-burned reads on calcined). Hedley teaches wherein the dead-burned (calcined) product comprises 40-90% MgO and is formed using a dead-burning temperature of 1350-2000C (Pg. 1, lines 42-44; Pg. 2, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calcined the dolomite at a temperature of 1350-2000C, as taught by Hedley, for the invention disclosed by Yasuda, in order to provide a stable MgO source which is less susceptible to chemical attack and hydration, and one which comprises increased amounts of MgO (magnesia source) of 80% or more (see teachings above). The temperature range 1350-2000C reads on the claimed calcining temperature range of (Claim 3) 900C or more and (Claim 4) 1250C or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paul (US 3397070 A): teaches calcining dolomite at 3300F (about 1815C) or greater in order produce a dolomite grain with at least 98% MgO.CaO and having a hydration susceptibility of less than 5% (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735