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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetzman (US 3975182).
Regarding claim 1, Goetzman teaches coated iron ore pellets for use in direct reduction (Abstract). The pellets comprise:
A raw material comprising iron oxide (Abstract, Col. 4 Ln. 20)
A coating on the ore surface comprising CaO (Col. 4 Ln. 20-25)
Particularly, the coating comprises particles with a size of -65 mesh (equivalent to a particle size of less than 0.210 mm), which reads on the claimed particle size ranges of no smaller than 0.010 mm (Col. 4 Ln. 23-25). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 2, the coating comprises particles with a size of -65 mesh (equivalent to a particle size of less than 0.210 mm), which reads on the claimed particle size ranges of no smaller than 0.050 mm (Col. 4 Ln. 23-25). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, in one embodiment, Goetzman teaches that the CaO particles comprise 0.7 wt% of the resultant coated pellets (Col. 4 Ln. 32-33). This value is converted to a particle adhesion amount of about 0.704 mass% based on the raw material, which reads on the claimed particle adhesion amount of 0.10-3.00 mass%.
Regarding claims 4 and 10-12, as discussed above, the coating comprises CaO (Col. 4 Ln. 20-25).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Goetzman teaches a method for producing coated iron ore pellets. The coating comprises particles with a size of -65 mesh (equivalent to a particle size of less than 0.210 mm), which reads on the claimed particle size ranges of no smaller than 0.010 mm (Col. 4 Ln. 23-25). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
The method comprises coating iron oxide ore pellets with a coating comprising CaO. The coating is applied by metering coating particles and spray water in a snow-balling process (Col. 3 Ln. 32-37). Due to the use of spray water, Goetzman’s method reads on the claimed spray method limitation. Additionally, the snow-balling process would in effect create a particle slurry that coats the iron oxide pellets. Goetzman then goes on to dry the coated iron ore particles via heating (Col. 3 Ln. 40-42; Col. 4 Ln. 28).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the coating comprises particles with a size of -65 mesh (equivalent to a particle size of less than 0.210 mm), which reads on the claimed particle size ranges of no smaller than 0.050 mm (Col. 4 Ln. 23-25). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 7 and 13, as discussed above, the coating comprises CaO (Col. 4 Ln. 20-25).
Regarding claims 14-16, as discussed above, due to the use of spray water, Goetzman’s method reads on the claimed spray method limitation.
Claims 8 and 14-16 are rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetzman (US 3975182), as applied to claims 5-7 and 13 above, and in further view of Ashie (EP 0207779 A2).
Regarding claims 8 and 14-16, as discussed above, Goetzman teaches a snowballing coating method that reads on the claimed spray-coating limitation (Col. 3 Ln. 32-37). However, they do not exemplify coating the iron ore pellets with an immersion process.
Ashie teaches a method for reducing iron ore, wherein iron ore pellets are coated with cement (Abstract). Particularly, Ashie coats their iron ore pellets with an aqueous cement solution using immersion- or spray-based methods (Figs. 1 & 2). Additionally, it is noted that Ashie’s method achieves a similar particle adhesion amount (0.05-1.0% of the weight of the iron ore (Ashie Clm. 3, pg. 7 ln. 5-30)) compared to Goetzman’s method (about 0.704% of the weight of the iron ore (Goetzman Col. 4 Ln. 32-33)). In all, Ashie’s method produces the same end-product (i.e. a coated iron ore pellet) with similar coating adhesion amounts. Additionally, Ashie teaches that the spray-coating and immersion-coating processes are equivalent methods known in the art. Therefore, because the two methods were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the spray coating method of Goetzman for the immersion coating method of Ashie.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute Goetzman’s coating method with Ashie’s coating method because both methods ultimately result in coated iron ore pellets with similar particle adhesion amounts.
It is noted that Ashie’s slurry suspension and spray coating limitations read on the applicant’s teachings, as per their specification. If the snowballing treatment of Goetzman is determined to not meet the slurry suspension and spray-coating limitations, then the above teachings of Ashie are applied.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mizutani (US 2016/0153061 A1). Mizutani teaches a direct reduction material comprising an ore comprising iron oxide coated in at least one of calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, and cement hydrate (Clms. 1-3). The iron ore is coated in via an immersion process and then dried via heating (Clm. 4, [0044]). It is noted that Mizutani characterizes their coating particles in terms of a Blaine surface area rather than a particle size.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights