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 Final Office action is based on the 19/179487 application originally filed April 15, 2025.
Amended claims 22-39, filed May 26, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-21 have been canceled.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 26, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Application Number 18/026958 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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) 22-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe (WO 2018/033712 A1) in view of Stumpf et al. (WO 2018/141318 A1) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Stumpf” and Morioka et al. (JP 2002-212646 A) hereinafter cited under English Translation “Morioka”.
Regarding Claims 22-39
MetCalfe discloses in the abstract, a briquette comprising: (i) a particulate material; and (ii) a binder, the binder comprising (a) at least partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and (b) an alkali metal alkyl siliconate or polyalkylsilicic acid; wherein the particulate material is selected from a carbonaceous material, metal, metal ore, mineral waste or a mixture thereof.
MetCalfe discloses on pages 2 and 3, the carbonaceous material may, for example, be coke, graphite, carbon black, peat or coal. Coal may be any grade of coal, including lignites, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, steam coal or anthracite. Mineral wastes include mill scale, mill sludges, fines from ores or metal containing wastes. The metal may be, or the metal ore mineral waste, may contain iron, zinc, nickel, copper, chromium, manganese, gold, platinum, silver, titanium, tin, lead, vanadium, cadmium, beryllium, molybdenum, uranium or mixtures thereof or elemental metal or in the form of, for example, oxides or silicates.
MetCalfe discloses on page 3, polyvinyl alcohol is typically commercially formed from polyvinyl acetate by replacing the acetic acid radical of acetate with a hydroxyl radical by reacting the polyvinyl acetate with sodium hydroxide in a process called saponification. Partially saponified means that some of the acetate groups have been replaced by hydroxyl groups and thereby forming at least a partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol containing vinyl alcohol residues. Typically, the PVA has a degree of saponification of at least 80% saponification.
MetCalfe discloses on page 3, typically the briquette contains 0.01-0.8% by weight of PVA binder.
MetCalfe further discloses on page 4, phenol formaldehyde resins are generally known in the art. Typically the resin is a resole resin made with formaldehyde to phenol ratios of greater than 1, typically around 1.5. The resin may be mixed into the finings as powder or as an aqueous solution.
MetCalfe disclose on page 6 and 7, typically the briquette comprises < 15%, < 10% or < 5% by weight of water (moisture content). Water content may be reduced by drying as, for example, adding burnt lime (calcium oxide) at up to typically 3%.
MetCalfe discloses on page 6, the particulate material is typically of a diameter of 4 mm or less. Typically at least 10% by weight of particulate material is capable of passing through a 100 µm sieve prior to forming into a briquette. The presence of the smaller particles of the particulate material improves the packing of the material.
MetCalfe discloses on page 8, mixing the particulate material with binders as defined above; compressing the mixture to form a briquette; and curing the briquette. Compressing may, for example, be the use of a mold or alternative, for example, by roller- pressing or extruding the material.
It is to be noted, MetCalfe discloses the production of a briquette comprising a particulate material and binders but fails to further teach the addition of fibers in particular properties (i.e. length, diameter and bulk density), as presently claimed in the present invention.
However, it is known in the art to add fibers to a briquette in particular lengths, diameters and bulk density, as taught by Stumpf and Morioka.
Stumpf discloses in the abstract, a briquette comprising the main constituents lime component in the form of burnt lime, burnt dolomite, limestone and/or dolostone and blackstock in the form of coke, anthracite and/or coal and comprising at least one auxiliary effective as a briquetting assistant may be produced in stable and simple fashion when the lime component is mixed with the blackstock having a standard particle size between 0 and 5 mm, with between 0.5% and 5% by weight of cellulose fiber material and with a binder in a proportion between 0.1% 5% by weight and subsequently pressed to afford the briquette.
Stumpf disclose in Example 4, the cellulose fiber material includes shredded paper. The cellulose fiber material as crude cellulose has gray fibers and has an initial bulk density of 75 to 110 g / l .
Additionally, Morioka discloses in paragraph 0014, a method for producing iron ore pellets, characterized in that an organic fiber, a clay material, and an organic adhesive are added to a mixed raw material for a pellet, mixed and fired by a conventional method.
Morioka further discloses in paragraph 0014, the iron ore pellet according to any one of the first to third aspects, wherein 80% by mass or more of the organic fiber is a fiber having a length and diameter of 1 to 2000 µm (0.001mm-2mm), overlapping the claimed length and diameter of the presently claimed invention. The organic fiber is a cellulosic wood fiber, a woven fiber, or a mixture thereof.
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 fibers to a briquette in particular lengths, diameters and bulk density, as taught by Stumpf and Morioka to the briquette of MetCalfe. The motivation to do so is to add fibers to a particulate and binder briquette in order to aid in the stable framework and stability of the process of molding the briquette.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “One would not combine Metcalfe with Sumpf and Morioka. The combination of Metcalfe, Sumpf, and Morioka fails to disclose the claimed briquette comprising the claimed amount of fibers. Stumpf discloses the use of fibres at a range of 0.5 - 5 wt%, which falls outside of the scope of instant claim 22 (e.g., 0.1-0.4 wt.% fibre). Morioka discloses fibre contents of 0.5 - 25 wt%, with 0.5 wt% as the minimum. This is above the claimed maximum of 0.4 wt%, and Morioka associates these higher levels with achieving its intended technical effect. As such, Morioka directs the skilled person towards fibre contents outside the claimed range and provides no suggestion that lower levels would be effective.”.
Applicant arguments are not deemed persuasive. Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. First, the claimed invention is NOT directed to a method but rather a product. Second, it is the examiners position that obviousness still exist because the ranges are close enough (0.1 difference) that one would not expect a difference in a briquette comprising particulate material and fibres. In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed Cir 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. V. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) and In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Applicants argued: “The instant application shows unexpected results. As discussed above, the claimed invention can obviate the need for a drying step, thereby saving costs, time and energy, whilst removing the risk of chemically altering the particulate during the drying process. The specific range as claimed, 0.1 - 0.4 wt%, provides these advantages without producing unduly high levels of porosity which could negatively impact strength relative to where fibres are not present. The improvements in strength across this range are clearly evidenced in the examples which provide data across the claimed range, most notably in direct comparison with one another in Example 5 of the instant application.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. Applicants argued examples and comparative examples defined in the specification. The examiner acknowledges these results, however, the examples are insufficient to overcome the above rejection because (1) applicants have not compared the claimed invention to the teachings of the applied reference(s) and (2) the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the examples are directed to specifics not literally defined by the claims, for example, the examples use specific amounts, specific particulate material, specific binder and specific type of fibre which are all not commensurate in scope with claim 22 at least. The examples no way allow the examiner to determine a trend for the results for any and all amounts of the claimed briquette. Evidence of unexpected results must be clear and convincing. In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed. In re Linder 173 USPQ 356.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Michalek et al. (US 2007/0251143) discloses in the abstract, a synthetic fuel pellet, the pellet comprising a compressed agglomeration of: (a) coal fines; (b) a fibrous cellulosic material wherein the fibers of the fibrous cellulosic material have been substantially disintegrated; and (c) at least one binder, the binder adapted to form a pellet of the coal fines and the fibrous cellulosic material.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 at 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