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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 33-59 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-32 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 48-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as follows:
18732044 (Claim 48) USP 11,998,930 (Claim 17)
A system for beneficiation of fine and very fine particles of iron ore, comprising
A system for beneficiation of fine and very fine particles of iron ore, comprising
a. a dryer and de-agglomeration system that receives a feed stream of particles and processes the feed stream of particles to provide a particle stream with a moisture of less than 2%; and
a. a dryer and de-agglomeration system that receives a feed stream of particles and processes the feed stream of particles to provide a particle stream with a moisture of less than 2%; and
b. a first triboelectric electrostatic belt separator (BSS) which receives and processes the particle stream with a moisture of less than 2% to generate an iron rich concentrate
b. a first triboelectric electrostatic belt separator (BSS) which receives and processes the particle stream with a median particle size (d50) less than 75 microns to generate an iron rich concentrate
wherein the system and processing is carried out without adding water and in a dry metallurgical route;
wherein the system and processing is carried out without adding water and in a dry metallurgical route
Claim 49
Claim 18
Claim 50
Claim 19
Claim 51
Claim 20
Claim 52
Claim 21
Claim 53
Claim 22
Claim 54
Claim 23
Claim 55
Claim 24
Claim 56
Claim 25
Claim 57
Claim 26
Claim 58
Claim 27
Claim 59
Claim 28
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-47 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a beneficiation of fine and very fine particles of iron ore. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious a. receiving a feed stream of particles and drying the feed stream of particles to provide a particle stream with a moisture of less than 2%; imparting an electrical charge via interparticle friction to the particle stream to provide positive and negative electrically charged components of the particle stream and the imparting, applying, and separating are electrostatic separation carried out without adding water and in a dry metallurgical route in conjunction with the other structures in claim 33.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653