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 Invention |I (claims 5-7 and 14-15) for the further prosecution as filed in the response dated 05/13/2026. Claims 1-4 and 8-13 has\ve been withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 5-7 and 14-15 remain for Examination, wherein claim 5 is an independent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisele et al (US-PG-pub 2007/0209480 A1, thereafter PG’480).
Regarding claim 5, PG’480 teaches a manufacturing process for producing agglomerated ore including iron oxide particulate material with pellets form (par.[0034] and claims of PG’480). PG’480 teaches that:“ placing the mass into at least one body having a selected form and firing the mass in a furnace that is heated to a temperature that is sufficient to reduce the iron ore to metallic iron and to melt the iron whereby the iron forms at least one body of metallic iron and slag (claim 12 of PG’480). And PG’480 specify that “the iron ore is selected from the group consisting of magnetite, hematite or limonite and comprises about 65% to about 85% of the mass by weigh” (cl.11 of PG’480) and provided example with reduction rate more than 69.14% (table 1 of PG’480), which reads on the claimed iron-containing raw material in pellets form, firing, and 50% or more of the degree of reduction of the iron oxide as claimed in the instant claim. PG’480 teaches that the coke or natural gas provides the heat required as well as the reducing gases necessary to convert the ore to metallic iron (par.[0003] and [0015] of PG’480) and PG’480 indicates that :“The furnace can be heated in any well-known manner independently of the charge of material placed in the furnace, for example by the burning of solid or liquid fuel such as natural gas, propane, fuel oil or can be heated electrically with electric resistance heaters.” (par.[0037] and Fig 1 of PG’480). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to distributing a reducing gas through pellets as claimed from the disclosing of PG’480 in order to convert the ore to metallic iron (par.[0037] and Fig 1 of PG’480).
Regarding claim 7, PG’480 specify applying biomass raw material in the firing fuel (abstract and par.[0031]-[0033] of PG’480).
Regarding claim 15, PG’480 teaches obtaining reduced iron through reducing iron oxide contained in a agglomerated ore (examples and table 1 of PG’480).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’480 in view of Satomi et al (US 4,723,995, thereafter US’995).
Regarding claim 6, PG’480 does not specify different portions in the firing process. US’995 teaches a method for continuously manufacturing fired pellets (Abstract and claims of US’995). US’995 specify different portions in the firing furnace including firing the green pellets and reducing the fired pellets in blast furnace (Fig.1, and Col.6, lns.6-56 of US’995). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to firing pellets first and reducing the fired pellets in different portion of process as claimed as demonstrated by US’995 in the process of PG’480 since both PG’480 and US’995 teach the same manufacturing process to convert the ore to metallic iron from agglomerated ore as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 14, PG’480 specify applying biomass raw material in the firing fuel (abstract and par.[0031]-[0033] of PG’480).
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