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
Applicant elected Invention II, Claims 4-7 and 9-20, drawn to a product of an agglomerated ore, C22B1/16, with travers since “the subject matter of all claims and species is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims or species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims and species”. In response, as pointed out in the “Requirement for Restriction/Election” dated 6/15/2026, the common feature of “an agglomerated ore with cluster features” is known in the art. Mizutani et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0224285 A1) discloses “an agglomerated ore fine” with preventing clustering (par.[0032]-[0036] of US-PG-pub 2020/0224285 A1). Invention I-II lacks the same or corresponding special technical feature. Therefore unity of invention is lacking and restriction is appropriate. Furthermore, Invention I and Inventions II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product II (a product of an agglomerated ore) as claimed can be made by another materially different process, such as forming cluster within a shaft furnace as shown in Mizutani et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0224285 A1). Therefore, the “Requirement for Restriction/Election” is still proper.
Therefore, Claims 1-3 and 8 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims, Claims 4-7 and 9-20 remain for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Document 20180320246 in IDS filed on 3/12/2026 has been crossed out since it duplicate same document in IDS filed on 12/18/2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “…” in Formula (2) should be deleted. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. 1) claim 4 should be written as an independent claim; 2) the limitation in claim 1 for CS should be included in the instant claim 4; 3) CS30 need proper definition (For example, 30 is the maximum particle diameter in unit mm).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. 1) claim 9 should be written as an independent claim; 2) the limitation in claim 1 and 2 for CS should be included in the instant claim 9; 3) CS30 need proper definition (For example, 30 is the maximum particle diameter in unit mm).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. 1) claim 10 should be written as an independent claim; 2) the limitation in claim 1 and 3 for CS should be included in the instant claim 10; 3) CS30 need proper definition (For example, 30 is the maximum particle diameter in unit mm).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, claim 5 depends on claim 4, claim 11 depends on claim 9, and claim 12 depends on claim 10 separately, the claimed particle diameter range has no up limit, which contrary to the limitation of having maximum particle diameter (CS30) in the corresponding independent claims. The claimed Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 4-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al (NPL: Clustering phenomena during iron oxide reduction in shaft furnace, Tetsu-to-hagane, the 64th year (1978), No.6, pp.681-690, listed in IDS filed on 12/18/2023, thereafter NPL-1).
Regarding claim 4. 9, and 10, NPL-1 teaches a clustering phenomenon during iron oxide reduction in shaft furnace (Title and abstract of NPL-1). NPL-1 teaches cluster strength for the agglomerated ore with the same CS definition as disclosed in the instant invention (as shown in the withdrawn claim 1) and provides examples having particle range in 9.5-19 mm (Page 682-683, b) CS test and section 2.2 of NPL-1) and NPL-1 provides examples having CS strength 0% (Fig.5 and 11 of NPL-1), which reads on the claimed CS30 as recited in the instant claims. Since NPL-1 teaches the same reduced aggregate with the same CS30 as claimed in the instant claims. Claims 4 and 9-10 are anticipated by NPL-1. Regarding the reducing temperature and tumble treatment conditions in the instant claims, which are recognized as process limitation in a product-by process claim. The claimed agglomerated reduced iron ore in the instant claims manipulated by the iron ore product property itself. Therefore, the detailed manufacturing process steps and parameters in the instant claims do not add weight on the patentability of the instant claims. MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claims 5 and 11-12, NPL-1 provides examples having particle range in 9.5-19 mm (Photo 1 and Page 683, section 2.2 of NPL-1), which is within the claimed particle diameter range as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 13-16, NPL-1 provides example having total Fe 63.81 mass% (Example #C in table 1 of NPL-1), which reads on the claimed total Fe amount in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 17-20, NPL-1 provides example having SiO2 5.66 mass% (Example #C in table 1 of NPL-1), which reads on the claimed formula (2) in the instant claims.
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