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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2024, and 10/21/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 17, drawn to a product, an iron briquette, in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that,
“the groups are related and therefore belong to the same claim. The Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not provided the requisite showing to demonstrate that Groups I and II lack of unity with one another. While the Office Action generally asserts that Groups I and II lack unity because the technical feature common to these Groups is not a special technical feature, the Office Action fails to adequately describe, much less even mention, the unique special technical feature in each group, as is required to support a lack of unity of invention requirement. More particularly, the Office Action fails to identify the unique special technical feature of Group I or the unique special technical feature of Group II, much less both. First, Groups I and II are respectively directed to a product (an iron briquette) and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product, as reflected by the fact that claim 13 is directed to a process for producing an iron briquette according to claim 1. In other words, Groups I and II have unity of invention according to 37 CFR §1.475(b)(1 )”.
The traversal is not found persuasive because: Applicant agrees that the Group I is directed to a product (an iron briquette), more particularly, a product by process claim, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
According to claim 1 of the Group I, the product is “an iron briquette” and the limitations of the products are “an iron briquette comprising compressed sponge iron pellets and carbon powder located in interstitial spaces between the compressed sponge iron pellets, wherein the iron briquette comprises at least 0.2 wt.% carbon powder”, rest of the part of the claims are the process limitations for making the product. On the other hand, claim 13 of the Group II only recites “an iron briquette” as a product feature and rest of the claimed are process limitations. Therefore, the common technical feature of these two groups is still “an iron briquette”.
With respect to applicant’s argument that “claimed Amended independent claim 1 and claim 13 therefore each recite sponge iron pellets that have a median diameter of greater than about 7 mm, comprise at least 0.5 wt.% iron oxide and are essentially free of carbon, comprising less than about 0.1 wt.% carbon” is not a common technical feature as shown above, as claim 1 is directed to a product of “iron briquette” and can be produced without the process step of “providing sponge iron pellets that have a median diameter of greater than about 7 mm, comprise at least 0.5 wt.% iron oxide and are essentially free of carbon, comprising less than about 0.1 wt.% carbon”, this traversal is also not found persuasive as the same reason mentioned above, in addition, the previously cited prior art as shown in Michel Beaudoin, et.al. [US20160244859A1] (provided in the IDS) already discloses an iron briquette (a solid ferrous brick made from DRI), see Michel’s Abstract and [0021]) without the process steps of providing the sponge iron pellets.
Therefore, the Office Action adequately describe, that the unique special technical feature “an iron briquette” in each group has a lack of unity of invention requirement, as the groups relating to each other as product, and process for its manufacture shows unity a priori, that is before considering the prior art, unity of invention still requires a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), a requirement which is not met in this case as explained in the Restriction Requirement over the previously cited prior art as shown in Michel Beaudoin, et.al. [US20160244859A1] (provided in the IDS) discloses an iron briquette (a solid ferrous brick made from DRI), see Michel’s Abstract and [0021]).
With respect to applicant’s argument about “the European Patent Office, acting as the International Searching Authority ("ISA") in the corresponding PCT application, found absolutely no lack of unity concerns with respect to claims 1 and 13 of the PCT application (which substantially correspond to original claims 1 and 13, respectively, of the present application). This determination should be dispositive in view of the ISA's vast experience with unity of invention determinations”, does not seem persuasive, as the determination of unity of invention according to United States Patent and Trademark Office is different than the European Patent Office, please see [MPEP § 1850, II] for further details.
The restriction requirement mailed on April 09, 2026, is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim claims 13-15, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a method for producing an iron briquette, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 066.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant cancelled claim 16,
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 17 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "10 000” in line 2 interpreted as typographical error and this is suggested to read as “10000”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 1-12 and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “essentially free of carbon comprising less than about 0.1 wt.% carbon” renders the claim indefinite, because “A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. [See MPEP § 2173.05(c)]”. In the present instance, claim recites the broad recitation of “essentially free of carbon”, and the claim also recites “comprising less than about 0.1 wt.% carbon” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “at least 0.5 wt.% iron oxide” renders the claim indefinite, because the claim does not recite the upper limit of the iron oxide, the specification of the disclosure also does not provide any guidelines about it as stated in the page of 6 the specification of the disclosure, iron oxide can be at least 4 wt.%, without any upper limit, therefore the maximum limit of iron oxide is not clear.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 17, each of the claim recite the word “about” before a limitation, for limiting a numeric value and/or a range, renders the claim indefinite, because the term “about” in corresponding claims is “a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 [See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III A.]”, therefore, it is unclear, what does the word “about” mean, i.e. whether the word “about” permits the range and/or the numeric value can be outside of the claimed recited range of the instant claims or whether these numeric values or range recited are not certain.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Regarding claims 11 recites the phrase “years before present” renders the claim indefinite, because “present” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the “present” defines any time before the invention, or “present” refers to the time at the invention or any other timeline.
Claim 2, 8, and 12 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Italo Iacotti et.al. [GB1541995A] (Iacotti hereafter) and further in view of Gunter Heitmann et.al. [US3219436] (US’436 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, Iacotti discloses an iron briquette produced by providing sponge iron pellets (carburized sponge iron briquettes (i.e. briquettes containing carbon either combined or not), see Iacotti’s Abstract), by providing sponge iron pellets (iron sponge, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2, claim 1), providing carbon powder (coke or graphite having a grain size of less than 1 mm (powder), see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2, claim 3), producing a mixture comprising the sponge iron pellets and the carbon powder (mixing with solid material (added singly or in combination) and homogenizing of the mix, see Iacotti’s , page 2, left col. left, line 12-13, EXAMPLE 1 and 2, claim 2) and briquetting the mixture to provide an iron briquette (briquetting using standard techniques, see Iacotti’s , page 2, col. left, line 19-20, EXAMPLE 1 and 2, claim 2), comprising compressed sponge iron pellets and carbon powder located in interstitial spaces between the compressed sponge iron pellets (the briquettes should contain between carbon (depending on the residual oxygen content of the pre-reduced materials) either as finely scattered particles throughout the sponge or as carbon combined with the iron of the sponge (see Iacotti’s page 1, col. left, line 41-49) and the hot briquettes are exposed to the action of hot liquid and/ or gaseous carburizing agents, under these conditions, the carburizing agents undergo thermal decomposition and form a layer of carbon deposits which may either remain entirely on the surface of the briquette or be partially diffused within it, see Iacotti’s col. page 2, col. left, line 25-33), i.e. with all these Iacotti’s teachings of carbon finely scattered throughout the sponge or as carbon combined or diffused within the sponge iron would meet the limitation of carbon powder is located in interstitial spaces between the compressed sponge iron pellets. Iacotti further discloses the iron briquette comprises carbon powder 2.6 wt. % of carbon powder, (112 g of powdered iron sponge, and 3 g of coke powder, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2), therefore, calculated wt. % of carbon powder would be = {3/(112+3)} X 100 = 2.6 %, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim, and wherein the sponge iron are essentially free of carbon, comprising 0.04% (iron sponge carbon content of 0.04%, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having carbon powder content in iron briquettes and in sponge iron from the teachings of Iacotti, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Iacotti then discloses that the sponge iron comprises iron oxide (the function of the carbon content is primarily that of reacting in the liquid phase with the ferrous oxide retained by the sponge to give carbon monoxide during further processing i.e. in steel making, see Iacotti’s page 1, col. left, line 47-49, col. right, line 1-3), but Iacotti is silent about the wt.% of iron oxide.
Iacotti also discloses wherein the carbon powder is less than 1 mm, (see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2), therefore, it would expect that the sponge would have at least a diameter of more than carbon powder, i.e. 1 mm, but Iacotti is silent about the sponge iron pallets have a median diameter of 7 mm prior to briquetting.
However, US’436 discloses an iron briquette produced by providing sponge iron pellets (sponge iron pellets are formed into briquettes, see US’436’s col. 4, line 66-67), wherein the sponge iron pellets have a median diameter of greater than about 7 mm prior to briquetting (having diameters of from 15 to 20 mm, see US’436’s col. 4, line 60-61), are essentially free of carbon, comprising 0.05 wt.% carbon (0.05 wt.% carbon, see US’436’s col. 4, line 34), and 2.55 wt.% iron oxide (as shown US’436’s total iron is 97.0 percent and metallic iron is 95.0 percent and sponge iron is produced from iron oxide ore (see US’436’s col. 4, line 26-34), from these teachings of US’436, if US’436’s sponge iron is 100 g, “total iron is 97.0 %” means total Fe content (not oxide mass) in (FeO + Fe⁰) = 97.0 g, and metallic iron is 95.0 %” means metal Fe = 95 g, therefore, remaining Fe would be in the form of iron oxide (FeO) = 97.0 − 95.0 = 2.0 g Fe. As molar mass of FeO: 71.85 g/mol (Fe: 55.85 + O: 16.00) and molar mass of Fe: 55.85 g/mol, therefore, FeO mass = {(2.0/55.85) × 71.85} = 2.55 g, i.e. calculated wt.% of iron oxide of US’436 would be = (2.55/100) × 100= 2.55%, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
US’436 discloses the portion of the fine particles in the sponge iron produced, that is the portion below a size of 8 mm are separated and removed and the green pellets are introduced into the furnace in the same manner as pre-roasted pellets, (see US’436’s col. 4, line 39-44), i.e. US’436’s sponge iron pellets have a median diameter of greater than about 8 mm prior to briquetting which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a sponge iron contain an iron oxide wt.% and pellet size from the teachings of US’436, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
US’436 further discloses advantages of having a pellets with a much larger range of sizes extending, for about 3 to 25 millimeters in diameter and larger, increases the range of usable pellet size and the metallic iron forms an elastic and very porous metal jacket on each sponge iron pellet, which enhances the entrance of the reduction gases, and then be pressed together to form a briquette for having a dense smooth surface, see US’436’s col.2, line 50-72).
US’436 is directed to produce an iron briquette produced by providing sponge iron pellets and therefore, analogous to the instant claim and Iacotti.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have US’436’s teachings of sponge iron pallet size to modify Iacotti’s for providing sponge iron pellets to have a usable size of iron briquettes produced by providing sponge iron pellets and also to get an iron briquette with a dense smooth surface.
Regarding claim 2, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein Iacotti further discloses the iron briquette is produced by hot briquetting the mixture (hot-forming of the sponge iron briquettes and/or on the hot briquettes after forming, in the briquetting plant the sponge iron is compacted at high temperature into briquettes, see Iacotti’s page 1, col. left, line 21-34).
Regarding claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, wherein Iacotti discloses the iron briquette comprising 97.4 wt.% sponge iron pellets and 2.6 wt. % of carbon powder, (112 g of powdered iron sponge, and 3 g of coke powder, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2), therefore, calculated wt.% sponge iron would be = {112/(112+3)} X 100 = 97.4 %, and wt. % of carbon powder would be = {3/(112+3)} X 100 = 2.6 %, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having an sponge iron content and carbon powder content from the teachings of Iacotti, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Regarding claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 4, in addition, Iacotti discloses the iron briquette having an effective density of greater than about 4440 kg/m3 (converted from 4·44 g/cm3, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1 and 2), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having an effective density from the teachings of Iacotti, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Regarding claim 6, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 6, but Iacotti is silent about the sponge iron pellets have a median diameter of greater than about 10 mm prior to briquetting.
However, US’436 discloses the iron briquette having a smallest dimension of greater than about 8 mm (the sponge iron produced, below a size of 8 mm is discarded and reduced pellets having diameters of more than 20 mm (see US’436’s col. 4, line 35-40 and 63-64), which are within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a sponge iron pellets size from the teachings of US’436, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Regarding claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 8, but Iacotti is silent about the sponge iron pellets have a metallization of greater than 85%.
However, US’436 discloses the sponge iron pellets have a metallization of greater than 98% (reduced to 98% metallic iron, see US’436’s col. 4, line 36-37), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a sponge iron pellets with metallization from the teachings of US’436, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Regarding claim 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 9, but Iacotti is silent about the sponge iron pellets comprise greater than about 85 wt.% total iron.
However, US’436 discloses the sponge iron pellets comprise greater than about 97.0 wt.% total iron (97.0 wt.% of total iron, see US’436’s col. 4, line 27-32), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a sponge iron pellets with a total iron from the teachings of US’436, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Regarding claims 10, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 10, in addition, Iacotti discloses the carbon powder comprises greater than about 89.5 wt.% carbon (the coke having a composition: ash, 9%; volatile materials, 0·5%; sulphur, 1 %, see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 1) therefore, Iacotti’s calculated amount of carbon would be {100 – (9+0.5+1.0)} = 89.5 wt. %, which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a carbon content in carbon powder from the teachings of Iacotti, that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Italo Iacotti et.al. [GB1541995A] (Iacotti hereafter) and in view of Gunter Heitmann et.al. [US3219436] (US’436 hereafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Michel Beaudoin, et.al. [US20160244859A1] (provided in the IDS) (Beaudoin hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 5, but Iacotti is silent about the iron briquette having a smallest dimension of greater than about 20 mm.
US’436 discloses the sponge iron having a dimension of greater than about 20 mm (reduced pellets having diameters of more than 20 mm (see US’436’s col. 4, line 63-64) and diameters ranging from about 3 to 25 mm (see US’436’s claim 5), but US’436 is silent about the iron briquette having a smallest dimension of greater than about 20 mm.
However, Beaudoin discloses a solid agglomerate have the shape of a briquette (see Beaudoin’s [0013], comprising a metal particles (direct reduction processes of iron oxides (DRI), an iron powder water atomized in a commercial powder manufacturing plant, this coarse iron powder comprising a minimum metallic iron content of about 94% w/w (see Beaudoin’s [0051], [0053]) and carbon powder (reductant materials (e.g. carbon units such as graphite, coke, anthracite, etc. see Beaudoin’s [0056]), and a binder (see Beaudoin’s [0056], [0057]) and then compacted together to form the solid agglomerate (see Beaudoin’s [0057]). Beaudoin’s solid agglomerate may have any desired shape including, but not limited to, the shape of a briquette, a brick, a ball, a block, a puck, a cube or cuboid, a circle, an oval, an ellipse, a frustum, a triangle, etc., such examples are shown in FIGS. 3, 4 and 5, and In preferred embodiments, the solid agglomerate has a shape of Type A, Type B or Type C (see Beaudoin’s FIGS. 3, 4 and 5, [0057]). As shown in Beaudoin’s FIGS. 3, the iron briquette having the smallest dimension is equal to or greater than about 40 mm, which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a dimension from the teachings of Beaudoin that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Beaudoin further discloses mixture of blended materials is fed into a die or mold cavities for having a desired shape and having a capacity adjusted as a function of the finished product height (see Beaudoin’s [0058]) and compacting to obtain a desired solid form (e.g. a brick, briquette or the like) to be useful for different purposes such as quality charge material for steel plants, blast furnaces and foundries (see Beaudoin’s [0036]).
Beaudoin is directed to produce an iron briquette from sponge iron pellets and therefore, analogous to the instant claim and Iacotti as well as US’436.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Beaudoin teachings of iron briquette size to modify Iacotti’s iron briquette in view of US’436 for providing iron briquette with a desired size and shape to be useful for different purposes such as quality charge material for different intended use.
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 7, but Iacotti is silent about the wherein the sponge iron pellets have a bulk density of from about 1500 kg/m3 to about 2000 kg/m3 prior to briquetting.
US’436 discloses wherein the sponge iron pellets have a density of each pellet is uniformly very low and amounted to about 1300 kg/m3 (calculated from 1.3 g/cm3, prior to briquetting, see US’436’s col. 4, line 52-54), which is out of the range as recited in the instant claim.
However, Beaudoin discloses compacting the iron powder mixture reduces volume by a factor of about two or more, in one embodiment, to a first density is about 2000 kg/m3 (converted from the density of 2g/cm3) (see Beaudoin’s [0019]), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced iron briquettes having a sponge iron with a density from the teachings of Beaudoin that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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].
Beaudoin further discloses the solid agglomerates possess a desirable density, a suitable resistance to crumbling and dusting during handling, that can resist to high temperature and humidity (see Beaudoin’s [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Beaudoin teachings of density to modify Iacotti’s iron briquette in view of US’436 for providing an sponge iron having a desired density to have a suitable resistance to crumbling and dusting during handling, to resist to high temperature and humidity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Italo Iacotti et.al. [GB1541995A] (Iacotti hereafter) and in view of Gunter Heitmann et.al. [US3219436] (US’436 hereafter), as applied to claim 1. Two evidentiary references are being introduced here,
“Radiocarbon Dating” licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 modified 14 June’ 2025” (“Radiocarbon Dating”, hereafter).
“Graphite Electrode Manufacturing Process”, Copyrighted ©2018 Jinsun New Materials Technolgy Co. (“Graphite Electrode”, hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 11, but both Iacotti and US’436 are silent about the carbon powder has a radiocarbon age of less than 10000 years before present.
With respect to meet this difference, Examiner introduces two evidentiary references, wherein “Radiocarbon Dating” reference defines the term “radiocarbon dating” for dating a carbon-containing substance how old they are (see “Radiocarbon Dating”, page 1, para. 1), and “Graphite Electrode” reference describes the graphite electrode producing process, wherein the raw materials of cokes mixed and produced through graphitization and machining for being used in the electric arc furnace (see “Graphite Electrode”, page 1), combining these teachings from the evidentiary reference, it would have been expected that, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, would have produced graphite electrode anytime at least within the claimed range of years for using in the steel production. And as Iacotti’s example carbon powder is electrode graphite, (see Iacotti’s EXAMPLE 2), therefore, combining all the teachings from the evidentiary reference, and Iacotti, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, that Iacotti’ electrode graphite powder would have a radiocarbon age of less than 10000 years before present.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Italo Iacotti et.al. [GB1541995] (Iacotti hereafter) and in view of Gunter Heitmann et.al. [US3219436] (US’436 hereafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gunter Heitmann et.al. [US3469970] (US’970 hereafter).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 12 and 17, but both Iacotti and US’436 are silent about the iron briquette further comprising added flux.
US’970 discloses an iron briquette produced by providing sponge iron pellets by providing sponge iron pellets (the separated sponge is being pelletized and then hardening the pellets under reducing conditions to provide the hardened pellets (iron briquette) contain at least 80% metallic iron, see US’970’s Abstract), providing carbon powder, producing a mixture comprising the sponge iron pellets and the carbon powder and briquetting the mixture to provide an iron briquette (sponge iron lumps with bonded carbon, sponge iron to harden said hardened pellets (iron briquette), see US’970’s col. 3, line 48-51, claim 1).
US’970 discloses the iron briquette further comprising added flux, and the added flux is present in an amount from about 0.1 wt.% to about 4 wt.% (The green strength of the pellet increased by known admixtures for increasing the green strength, such as comprising 0.1 to 3.0 by weight of bentonite if this is desired. It is particularly desirable to add lime, particularly hydrate of lime, because this addition will increase the green strength as well as the final strength and is not only harmless but even beneficial in view of the end use of the product, see US’970’s col. 3, line 1-5, claim 6-7).
US’970’ is directed to produce an iron briquette from sponge iron pellets and therefore, analogous to the instant claim and Iacotti as well as US’436.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have US’970’ teachings of iron briquette comprising added flux to modify Iacotti’s iron briquette in view of US’436 for obtaining iron briquette with increasing green strength, as well as the final strength as required by the end use of the product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights