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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/693396 application originally filed March 19, 2024.
Amended claims 1-10, filed January 27, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosset et al. (US 5,298,040) hereinafter “Gosset” in view of Lee et al. (KR 100803343 B1) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Lee”.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10
Gosset discloses in column 1 lines 10-25, a process for the preparation of a water resistant fuel agglomerate. It is directed also to the composition of matter employed in this process. By the expression "fuel agglomerates", is meant any physical presentation of finely divided fuel materials which are easily handled and useful for domestic or industrial purposes. By way of example may be mentioned nuts, briquets and pellets. The finally divided fuel materials concerned by the present invention may be any substances rich in carbon, like for example coal fines or dusts, wood fines, coal coke fines, fines of petroleum coke or a mixture of these products. These materials and in particular coal fines and dusts are produced in large amounts by modern methods of extraction and washing, particularly of coal.
Gosset discloses in column 3 lines 40-57, agglomerating a finely divided fuel material with an organic binder and an oxidizing agent and by subjecting the agglomerate thus obtained to stoving treatment. Accordingly, the process for preparing water-resistant fuel agglomerates according to the invention is characterized by the fact: that a finely divided fuel material, an organic binder and an oxidizing agent are employed, that the oxidizing agent is mixed with either the fuel material, or the organic binder, or with one and other of these products or their mixture, that the mixture so obtained is subjected to an agglomeration treatment, that the agglomerate obtained at the end of the agglomeration treatment is subjected to a stoving treatment.
Gosset disclose in paragraph 12-23, when the organic binder entering into the process is a starch or a starch derivative, by these terms are meant, as regards the starch, native starches of any origin, natural or hybrid starches derived, for example, from potato, manioc, corn, waxy corn, maize with a high amylose content, wheat and granulometric fractions which may be made therefrom, barley and sorghum, as regards the starch derivative, physically and/or chemically modified starches.
Gosset discloses in column 24-27, advantageously the organic binder is a native starch, possibly rendered soluble in cold water by the physical treatment of cooking-extrusion and/or of gelatinization on a drum. Example 2 further discloses the mixture of the binder, starch, and the coal are placed in cold water and undergoes agglomeration treatment by pressure-compacting.
Gosset discloses in column 42-45, the oxidizing agent may be added in aqueous solution to the fuel material and/or to the mixture of said material and the organic binder.
Gosset discloses in column 46-50, the agglomeration technique employed is selected from the group comprising pelletization, pressure-compacting, extrusion and molding.
Gosset discloses in column 4 lines 52-62, in addition, the agglomerate obtained at the end of the agglomeration treatment is subjected to a stoving treatment under temperature conditions in the range between about 150° C. and 500° C, is indeed necessary to oxidatively convert the organic binder into binding water insoluble compounds.
Gosset discloses in column 4 lines 63-67, at least one organosilicic water-proofing agent (an additional additive) is added to the finely divided fuel material, to the organic binder, to the oxidizing agent or their mixtures in order to limit possible risks of taking up water again by capillarity of the fuel agglomerates obtained following the process during their exposure to bad weather.
Gosset disclose in column 4 lines 28-36, with respect to the weights of finely divided fuel materials, there are employed in the process: a proportion of 0.2 to 25% by weight of organic binder and a proportion of 0.01 to 10% by weight of oxidizing agent.
Gosset discloses in column 3 lines 64-67 and column 4 lines 1-6, the oxidizing agent is a water-soluble oxidizing agent selected from the group comprising hypochlorides, perborates, persulfates, percarbonates, bromates, peroxides and their mixtures, persulfates being preferred, ammonium persulfate being particularly preferred. The oxidizing agent has the effect of converting, during the stoving treatment carried out at a high temperature, the organic binder into binding water insoluble compounds, thereby rendering the fuel agglomerate water-resistant.
It is to be noted, Gosset discloses the addition of an oxidizing agent, including peroxides, which has an effect in aiding in the improvement of an organic binder, i.e. starch but fails to teach the oxidizing agent added with an alkali metal, i.e. sodium hydroxide.
However, Lee discloses on page 2, binding capacity-enhanced starch powder binder composition. Lee further discloses on page 2, relates to a starch-based powdery adhesive composition for producing an adhesive used for molding a product of a desired shape using various kinds of powdery raw materials (steel dust, bituminous coal, charcoal). More specifically, the oxidation reaction in the powder state was induced to facilitate the viscosity control of the starch, and the pH of the powder adhesive was adjusted so that alkali gelatinization could occur in order to improve adhesion and maintain viscosity stability. Lee further discloses on page 2, a powdered starch adhesive composition containing 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of an oxidizing agent with respect to 100 parts by weight of starch powder and starch powder. The powdery starch adhesive composition contains an oxidizing agent in addition to the starch powder. The oxidant is added to adjust the viscosity of the starch. In addition, the powdery starch adhesive composition adjust the pH to 10 ~ 13 using an alkali solution such as Cao, Ca(OH)2, NaOH, alkali is necessary to enable alkali gelatinization of starch.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the sodium hydroxide of Lee to the mixture of organic binder and oxidizing agent of Gosset. The motivation to do so is to add sodium hydroxide in order to adjust the pH of the composition which is necessary to enable alkali gelatinization of the starch.
Regarding Claims 3 and 8
Gosset disclose in column 4 lines 28-36, with respect to the weights of finely divided fuel materials, there are employed in the process: a proportion of 0.2 to 25% by weight of organic binder and a proportion of 0.01 to 10% by weight of oxidizing agent.
It is to be noted, Gosset discloses the addition of an oxidizing agent, including peroxides, which has an effect in aiding in the improvement of an organic binder, i.e. starch but fails to teach the oxidizing agent added with an alkali metal, i.e. sodium hydroxide.
However, Lee discloses on page 2, binding capacity-enhanced starch powder binder composition. Lee further discloses on page 2, relates to a starch-based powdery adhesive composition for producing an adhesive used for molding a product of a desired shape using various kinds of powdery raw materials (steel dust, bituminous coal, charcoal). More specifically, the oxidation reaction in the powder state was induced to facilitate the viscosity control of the starch, and the pH of the powder adhesive was adjusted so that alkali gelatinization could occur in order to improve adhesion and maintain viscosity stability. Lee further discloses on page 2, a powdered starch adhesive composition containing 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of an oxidizing agent with respect to 100 parts by weight of starch powder and starch powder. The powdery starch adhesive composition contains an oxidizing agent in addition to the starch powder. The oxidant is added to adjust the viscosity of the starch. In addition, the powdery starch adhesive composition adjust the pH to 10 ~ 13 using an alkali solution such as Cao, Ca(OH)2, NaOH, alkali is necessary to enable alkali gelatinization of starch.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the sodium hydroxide of Lee to the mixture of organic binder and oxidizing agent of Gosset. The motivation to do so is to add sodium hydroxide in order to adjust the pH of the composition which is necessary to enable alkali gelatinization of the starch.
It is to be noted, Gosset modified by Lee disclose the mixture of binder (starch) and oxidizing agent with a alkali metal (NaOH) would be in to the amounts within the claimed range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of water and coal depending upon the desired moisture content and weight of the agglomerates. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Gosset discloses a production of water-resistant fuel agglomerates through the use of organic binders such as starch or molasses, thermally cured after application. The technique in Gosset requires thermal curing between 150 °C and 500 °C, the use of aggressive oxidizing agents (such as ammonium persulfate), and does not teach or suggest any cold agglomeration process or binder activation at room temperature. Thus, Gosset's process requires stoving (thermal curing) to oxidize starch binders and render agglomerates water-resistant (Col. 4, lines 52-62); and without this high-temperature step, the Gosset agglomerates do not form their final, durable structure.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, it is maintained Gosset discloses the claimed process of cold-pressed agglomerate and the process of making a cold-pressed agglomerate due to Gosset specifically teaching the step of mixing the binder and coal and the mixture is placed in cold water and undergoes agglomeration treatment by pressure-compacting, extrusion or molding. Second, the present invention is specifically taught by Gosset, particularly the steps of mixing and cold pressing the mixture. However, the present claims are directed to “comprising” which allows for the additional steps and additives such as those set forth in the prior art of Gosset.
Applicants argued: “Gosset does not teach or suggest a sodium hydroxide modified starch binder. Gosset's disclosure is incompatible with the amended claim because Gosset relies on thermal stoving to oxidatively convert starch into a water-insoluble binder. Gosset's starch is native or physically modified, not chemically modified via alkaline reaction. In fact, Gosset is silent regarding any alkaline chemical reaction of starch under controlled pH. Critically, Gosset's binder does not exist as a chemically modified species prior to agglomeration. Instead, the binder transformation occurs after forming the agglomerate, and only through high-temperature oxidation. Thus, Gosset cannot render obvious a cold-pressed agglomerate whose binder is already chemically formed via sodium hydroxide at room temperature.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a binder that is chemically activated at room temperature, avoids thermal curing altogether, and produces a solid agglomerate by cold pressing alone” and “water-resistant agglomerates”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is maintained the presently claimed invention is directed to an agglomerate and a method of producing an agglomerate, wherein the agglomerate comprises a mixture of a main compound and one binder.
Applicants argued: “Lee does not remedy the defective teaching of Gosset. Although Lee mentions sodium hydroxide, it does so in a fundamentally different technical context. Lee uses sodium hydroxide only as a pH-adjusting agent to enable alkali gelatinization, not chemical derivatization. Lee's system is a powdered adhesive composition, not a pre-formed aqueous binder, and Lee does not disclose a chemical reaction of starch with sodium hydroxide to form a binder, but rather transient pH control during viscosity adjustment.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, Lee is not relied upon to teach the claimed processing steps for cold-pressing agglomerate due to Lee is relied upon to teach the claimed property of the solid agglomerate. As stated in the above rejection, Lee discloses a chemical reaction of starch under an alkali solution of NaOH (sodium hydroxide). It is to be noted, applicants do NOT claim any specific method steps for defining “chemical reaction” besides starch is applied to an aqueous medium at room temperature, which is specifically taught by Lee. Therefore, it is maintained Gosset modified by Lee discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argued: “The presently claimed invention also preserves the molecular integrity of starch, avoiding loss of binding properties (a problem noted in the prior art). Up to 70% savings in binder usage is a technical and economic advantage not foreseen in the prior art. The presently claimed invention obtains mechanical strength and tumbling index significantly better than those obtained with thermo-modified binder of the prior art. Therefore, the claimed invention demonstrates an unexpected technical effect.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “preserves the molecular integrity of starch, avoiding loss of binding properties” and “obtains mechanical strength and tumbling index”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights