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
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to JP2022-155599, with a filing date of 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025, 08/28/2025 and 11/10/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "14" and "38" have both been used to designate alumina balls; “34” and “40” have both been used to designate gas inlet; “20” and 40” have both been used to designate heater; “10” and “36” have both been used to designate furnace core tube.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, 5- “mass %” is understood by the Examiner to be mass % by weight.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”. Below is/are a list of claims/limitations that are structural limitations or mere outcomes of the method, (not a method):
Regarding an aspect of Claim 1 – “to obtain iron ore pellets“ is a mere outcome of the method, not a method.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4-5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 2 – the solid carbon includes carbon / the solid carbon includes the carbon.
Regarding Claim 4 – the carbon includes carbon produced using iron as a catalyst / the carbon includes a carbon produced using iron as a catalyst.
Regarding Claim 5 – the fraction of the carbon in the solid carbon / a fraction of the carbon in the solid carbon.
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 1 is/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.
Regarding Claim 1 – it is unclear the meaning of “outside” (exterior) regarding “to heat the green pellets from outside”, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands this to mean the outer 50% of a cross-sectional area of a green pellet.
Regarding Claim 1 – it is unclear the meaning of “inside” (interior) regarding “to heat the green pellets from inside”, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands this to mean the inner 50% of a cross-sectional area of a green pellet.
All remaining dependent claims not specifically cited are also considered to be indefinite at least because of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian Patent
3,194,777A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 08/28/2025) by Mennell et. al. (herein “Mennell”) in
further view of U.S. Patent 8,679,444 by Noyes (herein “Noyes”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Mennell teaches,
method of producing iron ore pellets; Claim 1, Claim 10, “A process for producing carbon-metal ore pellets…”, “…the process of any of the above claims, wherein the metal ore is iron ore.”
the method comprising,
a mixing process of mixing iron ore having a total Fe content of 63 mass% or less, solid carbon, binder, and auxiliary material to obtain a mixture; [0177], “…biogenic reagent…comprising carbon…and the metal ore are fed into carbon-metal ore mixing unit. Additive can be added to the carbon-metal ore mixing unit; [0238],[0235],[0236] “…an additive can be added before, during, or after any one or more steps of the process…”, “…the carbon metal pellets can comprise an additive, such as a binder…the additive can comprise a fluxing agent…” (auxiliary material).
a granulation process of granulating the mixture to obtain green pellets; [0540] – an embodiment cites “The…iron ore and biogenic reagent are combined…as a mixture of lumps and fines…then pelletized…to generate carbon-iron ore pellets”. Here, creating “lumps” of material from mixing is synonymous with granulating.
and a firing process of firing the green pellets to obtain iron ore pellets by burning CH4 gas to heat the green pellets from outside while burning the solid carbon to heat the green pellets from inside; [0244], [0542], [0272], [0273], “the chemically reducing co-utilizes a reducing gas from gasification...of light hydrocarbons. The light hydrocarbons can be derived from the pyrolysis off-gas…light hydrocarbons can include methane” (PHOSITA knows the chemical formula of methane is CH4), “…the carbon iron ore pellets are fed into a…reduction reactor”,” In the reduction reactor the Fe3O4 is reduced by reaction with… CO as well as with the solid carbon”, “By combining…iron oxide and the reductant (the biogenic reagent) within the briquette…the reaction kinetics are increased dramatically”. “The heat required to drive the reaction within the self-reducing briquettes…”, “…Inside the pellets, the following reactions take place at a very fast rate: FexOy + y CO → xFe +y CO2
y CO2 + y C = 2y CO
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While Mennell discloses pyrolysis off-gas that contains light hydrocarbons (methane/CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) ([0244], [0245]) and an iron oxide reduction reaction that produces carbon dioxide (CO2) ([0260[-[0262]), Mennell does not disclose,
wherein the solid carbon includes carbon produced from one or more gases selected from the group consisting of CO2 gas, CO gas, and CH4 gas.
In an analogous endeavor of producing carbon from combustion gases, process off-gases, and industrial sources of carbon oxides (Col 1 lines 31-35), Noyes discloses a method to produce solid carbon from CO, CO2 and a reducing agent where the reducing agent is preferred to be a hydrocarbon gas (natural gas, methane – both known to be or contain CH4) as the hydrocarbon gas is dual function – additional carbon source and a reducing agent for carbon oxides (Col 1 lines 50-56). Further, Noyes discloses a process that can be integrated with industrial processes and fossil fuel combustion processes to obtain solid carbon (Col 2 lines 17-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Noyes that produces solid carbon from combustion off-gases into the pyrolysis off-gas processes of Mennell in order to produce solid carbon feedstock that can be used as all or part of the solid carbon in the iron ore pellet making process of Mennell. One would have been motivated to do so for the purposes of providing a “green” process by eliminating the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and providing an inexpensive material for use , as noted by Noyes (Col 2 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 2 - Mennell and Noyes in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1. Mennell teaches wherein,
the solid carbon includes carbon produced from one or both of CO2 gas and CO gas; The instant claim is taught previously in Claim 1 by Noyes (Col 1 lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 3 - Mennell and Noyes in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Mennell teaches wherein,
the CH4 gas used in the production of the carbon includes CH4 gas produced from one or both of CO2 gas and CO gas; ; [0244],[0245], “the chemically reducing co-utilizes a reducing gas from gasification...of light hydrocarbons. The light hydrocarbons can be derived from the
pyrolysis off-gas…light hydrocarbons can include methane (PHOSITA knows the chemical
formula of methane is CH4), “…the pyrolysis off-gas can comprise…carbon monoxide (CO)…”,
While Mennell discloses CH4 gas produced from does not disclose,
the CH4 gas used in the production of the carbon includes CH4 gas produced from one or both of CO2 gas and CO gas;
Noyes discloses a method to produce solid carbon from CO, CO2 and a reducing agent where the reducing agent is preferred to be a hydrocarbon gas (natural gas, methane – both known to be or contain CH4) as the hydrocarbon gas is dual function – additional carbon source and a reducing agent for carbon oxides (Col 1 lines 50-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of CH4 used in the production of carbon of Noyes, for the methane (CH4) derived from pyrolysis off-gas CO in the method of Mennell. One would be motivated to do so as methane itself is an economical choice of reducing gas for the process, as noted by Noyes (Col 10 lines 63-66).
Regarding Claim 4 - Mennell and Noyes in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Mennell discloses possible additives that can be added to the carbon-metal pellet [0024], where the
potential additives can be metals [0025] but does not disclose,
the carbon includes carbon produced using iron as a catalyst;
Noyes further discloses a carbon producing reaction using methane (CH4) as the reducing agent (Col 10 lines 60-67) and the notes the reaction kinetics may be established through the use of a catalyst, such as iron (Col 11 lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an iron catalyst for producing carbon per the method of Noyes for the carbon used in the method of Mennell. One would be motivated to do so for the purposes of capturing the benefit of lower temperatures and reduced time needed to obtain the carbon, as noted by Noyes (Col 11 lines 5-6).
Regarding Claim 5 - Mennell and Noyes in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Mennell teaches wherein,
the fraction of the carbon in the solid carbon is 10 mass% or more; [0021], “…the carbon (within
the biogenic reagent) can be at least 50%...”
Regarding Claim 6 - Mennell and Noyes in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Mennell teaches wherein,
the CH4 gas used in the firing process includes CH4 gas produced from one or both of CO2 and
CO gas; [0244],[0245], [0247] “the chemically reducing co-utilizes a reducing gas
from gasification...of light hydrocarbons. The light hydrocarbons can be derived from the
pyrolysis off-gas…light hydrocarbons can include methane (PHOSITA knows the chemical
formula of methane is CH4), “…the pyrolysis off-gas can comprise…carbon monoxide (CO)…”, “
…the chemically reducing can be conducted in a metal ore furnace…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Takenaka et. al. (U.S. Patent 6,605,103) – teaches (Abstract) iron ore and carbonaceous material incorporated into pellets that are then reduced to produce iron.
Yanaka et. al. (U.S. Patent 5,066,327) teaches (Abstract) a method for cold bonded pellets which includes mixing a binder with iron ore and pelletizing.
Noyes (U.S. Patent 10,500,852) (herein “Noyes852”) teaches (Abstract) a method of producing solid carbon product by reducing carbon oxides (carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) with a reducing agent (hydrocarbon gas or hydrogen) in the presence of a catalyst.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights