DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending, and claims 1-5 are currently under review.
Claim 6 is withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of a coal agglomerate, claims 2-5, in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
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 5 is 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 5 recites that the second composition can include a “non-coking coal, coke grindings, or coal residues.” However, claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1, wherein claim 1 already recites that the second composition is “non-coking coal or a residue thereof”. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the second composition can be coke grindings, which one of ordinary skill would understand to not necessarily be required to be a non-coking coal or residue thereof. For example, coke grindings can be derived from coking coals, which is contrary to independent claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is 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. As stated above, claim 5 serves to broaden the scope to include coking grindings which can be derived from coking coals and is therefore contrary to independent claim 1. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104263395, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. discloses a briquette material (ie. solid agglomerate) which includes a high-rank coal briquette layer (ie. core formed by a first composition) and a low-rank coal layer (ie. coating formed by a second composition) formed on the high-rank coal layer [0010-0013]. Said low-rank coal of Lin et al. is disclosed to have low carbon content, high moisture content, easy pulverization (ie. low agglomeration), and high volatile content, all of which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be characteristics of non-coking coal [0004]. Lin et al. further teaches combining said low-rank coal with an additive which can be a binder [0012].
The examiner notes that the limitation of “for use in a steel reduction furnace” is merely an instance of intended use which is not considered to impart any further structure to the claims because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed agglomerate rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. See MPEP 2111.02(II). Therefore, the briquette of Lin et al. having the same structure as claimed as explained above would be entirely capable of being used in a steel reduction furnace.
The examiner notes that the limitation of “acts as an inert sacrificial material…” is merely an instance of functional language of the claimed agglomerate which is not considered to impart any further structure other than what is already recited in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The composition/structure of Lin et al. is the same as the instant claim as explained above and would therefore be entirely capable of achieving the claimed function.
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, the disclosure of Lin et al. pertains to coal materials.
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al. discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). Lin et al. further teaches that the low-rank coal layer includes less than 50 weight percent binder (and therefore at least 50 weight percent low-rank coal), which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0015]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104263395, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Creglow (US 3,185,635).
Lin et al. discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). Lin et al. does not expressly teach that the high-rank coal includes a binder or inclusion ratios as claimed. Creglow discloses that it is usual in the prior art to form agglomerated coal fines through mixing and molding with a binder such as inorganic binders which do not decompose during coking, said binder being included in an amount of at least 1 weight percent [col.2 ln.56-62, col.4 ln.33-55, col.5 ln.9-14]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the agglomerate of Lin et al. by including a binder component in the high-rank coal for the aforementioned benefit and because using binders for briquetting of coals is usual and well-known in the art as taught by Creglow. The examiner notes that the aforementioned ranges of Creglow further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam-Johansen (WO2006/015597) in view of Creglow (US 3,185,635) and/or Von Stroh (US 3,377,146).
Regarding claim 1, Dam-Johansen discloses an encapsulated solid fuel for blast furnaces [abstract]; wherein said fuel includes a core portion including anthracite, bituminous coal, etc. (ie. core formed by a first portion) and a shell portion including slag, fly-ash, cement, etc., which one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to be residues of non-coking coals (ie. coating formed by a second composition) [abstract, fig.3].
Dam-Johansen does not expressly teach the presence of a binder in the shell portion. Creglow discloses that it is usual in the prior art to form agglomerated coal fines through mixing and molding with a binder such as inorganic binders which do not decompose during coking [col.2 ln.56-62, col.4 ln.33-55, col.5 ln.9-14]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the agglomerate of Lin et al. by including a binder component in the high-rank coal for the aforementioned benefit and because using binders for briquetting of coals is usual and well-known in the art as taught by Creglow. Alternatively, Von Stroh also discloses that it is well-known to utilize binders in forming agglomerates such that a desired hardness and homogeneity of the agglomerate can be obtained [col.2 ln.46-55]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the agglomerate of Dam-Johansen by including binders in the shell portion of Dam-Johansen for the aforementioned benefits.
The examiner notes that the limitation of “for use in a steel reduction furnace” is merely an instance of intended use which is not considered to impart any further structure to the claims because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed agglomerate rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. See MPEP 2111.02(II). Therefore, the agglomerate suggested by the aforementioned prior art having the same structure as claimed as explained above would be entirely capable of being used in a steel reduction furnace. Nonetheless, Dam-Johansen expressly teaches use in a blast furnace [abstract].
The examiner notes that the limitation of “acts as an inert sacrificial material…” is merely an instance of functional language of the claimed agglomerate which is not considered to impart any further structure other than what is already recited in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The composition/structure of Dam-Johansen et al. is the same as the instant claim as explained above and would therefore be entirely capable of achieving the claimed function. Nonetheless, Dam-Johansen further expressly teaches that the shell portion serves to delay reaction of the core portion by providing insulation (ie. inert sacrificial material) [p.3].
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, the disclosure of Dam-Johansen pertains to coal materials.
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Creglow or Von Stroh teach obviousness of including a binder in the core portion. Dam-Johansen further teaches that the core portion includes at least 50 percent of coal material [p.4]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the remainder (ie. less than 50 percent) can include said binders of Creglow or Von Stroh. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of the prior art and those as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the agglomerate of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Creglow or Von Stroh teach obviousness of including a binder in the core portion. Dam-Johansen further teaches that the shell portion includes at least 60 percent of mineral material [p.5]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the remainder (ie. less than 40 percent) can include said binders of Creglow or Von Stroh. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of the prior art and those as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights