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
Claim 2, 4, 7-11,13, and 15-18 have been cancelled; Claim 1 has been amended; Claim 19 is added as a new claim. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12, 14, and 19 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Claim Objections/Rejections
Previous rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 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Zhan et al (CN 109909057 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/11/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’057) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/remarks with amendments” filed on 7/17/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 2, 7-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’057 in view of Higuchi et al (JP 2001303142 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/11/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’142) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/remarks with amendments” filed on 7/17/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 6 and 11-18 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35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’057 in view of Sakamoto et al (US 4,851,038, thereafter US’038) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/remarks with amendments” filed on 7/17/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/remarks with amendments” filed on 7/17/2026, newly recorded reference(S), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has been listed as following:
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) 1, 3, 5, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109909057 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/11/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’057) in view of Higuchi et al (JP 2001303142 A1, listed in IDS filed on 12/11/2023, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’142).
Regarding claim 1, CN’057 teaches an 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 and the proportion of the particles with a particle size of less than 63 mm greater than 70 mass %as claimed in the instant claim. 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 mm 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 been 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 3, 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.
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.
Regarding claim 19, CN’057 indicates that: “the first-stage grinding further comprises pre-processing step before the pre-treatment step is the open rock melting iron ore raw ore respectively for crushing, crushing and fine crushing, specifically firstly using a jaw crusher for crushing, crushing granularity range is 6-38mm, then using the roll crusher crushing, at last using roll crusher for crushing, the particle size after crushing is 5-15mm.” (par.[0015], examples, and claim 6 of CN’057), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’057 in view of JP’142, and further in view of Sakamoto et al (US 4,851,038, thereafter US’038)
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 14, CN’057 teaches an iron ore crushing manufacturing process (Title, abstract and claims of CN’057), but CN’057 in view of JP’142 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 been 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 view of JP’142 in order to obtain the desired pellet product. (Abstract, Examples, and claims of US’038).
Notes: Yang et al (WO 2020/010934 A1, with on-line translation) has been recorded as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12, 14, and 19 have been considered but they are moot in the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the amended features as claimed in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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 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
Prosecution Insights