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 Claims 1-18 remains for examination , wherein claim 1 is an independent claim . 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 , 3-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhan et al ( CN 109909057 A1 , listed in IDS filed on 12/ 11 /2023, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’057 ). Regarding claim 1, CN’057 teaches a n iron ore crushing manufacturing process (Title, abstract and claims of CN’057), which reads on the claimed ore crushing method as claimed in the instant claim. CN’057 provides coarsely crushing for iron ore particle size range 6-38 mm (claim 6 and table 2 of CN’057), which reads on the coarsely crushing with a particle size of greater than or equal to 1 mm as claimed in the instant claim.CN’057 specify applying finely crushing to obtain particle size with 0-0.045 mm over 80% (cl.1 and par.[0006] of CN’057), which reads on the finely crushing as claimed in the instant claim. Since CN’057 teaches all of the limitation as claimed in the instant claim, claim 1 is anticipated by CN’057). Regarding claims 3 -4 and 9 , CN’057 specify that feeding particle size for crushing is 150x125mm (table 2 of CN’057), which reads on the proportion of the particle size greater than or equal to 1 mm in the iron ore before crushing as claimed in the instant claim 3 . CN’057 specify to obtain particle size with 0-0.045 mm over 80% (cl.1 and par.[0006] of CN’057) , which reads on the claimed proportion of particle size after crushing as claimed in the instant claims 3-4 and 9 . Regarding claim 5, CN’057 specify applying ball-mill with water (XMQ-67 two stage grinding) (table 2 and par.[0011], [0014] of CN’057), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant 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) 2 , 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’057 in view of Higuchi et al ( JP 2001303142 A 1 , listed in IDS filed on 12/11/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’142 ). Regarding claim 2, CN’057 does not specify the claimed pore size in the iron ore as claimed in the instant claim. JP’142 teaches a manufacturing process for a sintered one having many fine pores, excellent in the characteristic at high temperature. (Abstract and claims of JP’142). JP’142 teaches using iron ore with fine pore size ≤ 10 m m in order to obtain sintered product with excellent in the characteristic at high temperature (Abstract, Figs, and examples of JP’142). Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the iron ore with proper pore size as demonstrated by JP’142 in the process of CN’057 in order to obtain sintered product with excellent in the characteristic at high temperature (Abstract, Figs, and examples of JP’142) . Regarding claims 7-8 and 10 , which depends on claim 2, CN’057 specify that feeding particle size for crushing is 150x125mm (table 2 of CN’057), which reads on the proportion of the particle size greater than or equal to 1 mm in the iron ore before crushing as claimed in the instant claim 7. CN’057 specify to obtain particle size with 0-0.045 mm over 80% (cl.1 and par.[0006] of CN’057), which reads on the claimed proportion of particle size after crushing as claimed in the instant claims 7-8 and 10 . Claim(s) 6 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’057 in view of Sakamoto et al (US 4,851,038, thereafter US’038) Regarding claim s 6 and 11-18 , CN’057 teaches a n iron ore crushing manufacturing process (Title, abstract and claims of CN’057) , but CN’057 does not specify the claimed pellet production after crushing process. However, applying a powder iron ore for pellet production is a well-known technique as demonstrated by US’038. US’038 teaches a method for manufacturing agglomerates of fired pellets comprising the steps of: the first pelletization step of adding and mixing fluxes to fine iron ores containing 30 to 95 wt. % of those of 0.125 mm or less in particle size to form a mixture and to pelletize the mixture into green pellets (Abstract and claims of US’038), which reads on the claimed pellet production method as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is applying a powder iron ore for pellet production , as demonstrated by US’038 in the process of CN’057 in order to obtain the desired pellet product . (Abstract, Examples, and claims of US’038) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIE YANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1884 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JIE YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734