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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because both Figures 1 and 2 are illegible due to the text being a white font within a filled object, changing the text to black and removing the filled space within the objects .
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the four sub-systems from , “refractory materials”, “main product of a melting furnace”, “a processor” from claim 1,
“a device that performs a mineralogical analysis” from claim 5,
“a programmable logic controller (PLC) equipped with a wireless transmitter-receiver device”, “a circuit of solid-state relays and electromechanical relays”, “electrodes”, “the metallurgical bath within the furnace”, “a control interface” in claim 6,
“a bar of refractory steel with holes”, “the mantle and/or head of the melting furnace” and “refractory materials of the furnace” in claim 7, and
“at least four aligned electrodes”, “the refractory wall of the melting furnace”, “a signal amplifier”, “a signal generator”, “a power generator”, “a replicated signal”, “the current-boosted signal”, “the power signal”, and “the signal” in claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figures 1 and 2 both show an “Archive Server” but nowhere in the specification is an archive server or any kind of server mentioned, additionally Figures 1 and 2 both show an object labeled “MPC”, only para. [0006] discusses an MPC, presumably a “model predictive control” based on the first sentence of para. [0006] when discussing prior art. Nowhere else in the specification is an “MPC” or “model predictive control” disclosed as being part of the invention, para. [0011] discloses “a predictive control system” but it is not clear if this is supposed to be the “MPC” shown in the figures or not.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-9 are drawn to “Integrated system” and should be drawn to “The integrated system”.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are objected to because they are multiple sentences long. According to MPEP 608.01(m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.”
Claim 1 recites “one sub-system for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species” in lines 7-8 of the claim, “one sub-system to determine the height of phases” in lines 9-10 of the claim, “one sub-system to measure the temperature and thickness of refractory materials” in lines 10-11 of the claim, and “one sub-system to measure … the percentage of copper” in lines 12-13 of the claim. While each of the four sub-systems are differentiated enough to not be unclear it would be better written as “a first sub-system for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species”, “a second sub-system to determine the height of phases”, “a third sub-system to measure the temperature and thickness of refractory”, “a fourth sub-system to measure … the percentage of copper”.
Claim 1 recites “composed of four specific sub-systems … Each sub-system has measurement sensors … said sub-systems are integrated into a processor … to control the four sub-systems”. All references to the first recitation of “four specific sub-systems” should be consistent, the recitations “Each sub-system has measurement sensors … and said sub-systems are integrated” should be written as: “the four sub-systems have measurement sensors … and the four sub-systems are integrated”.
Claim 1 recites “refractory materials for melting furnaces” and should be written as “for the melting furnace”.
Claim 6 recites “a melting furnace” and should be written as “the melting furnace”.
Claim 7 recites “melting furnaces” in line 4 and should be written as “the melting furnace”.
Claim 7 recites “the furnace” in line 6 and should be written as “the melting furnace”.
Claim 7 recites “the array” in line 5 and “the sensor array” in lines 8-9, and should be written as “the array of sensors”.
Claim 8 recites “a melting furnace” in line 4 and should be written as “the melting furnace”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one sub-system for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species”, interpreted as an X-ray diffraction device configured to perform mineralogical analysis, para. [0017] of the specification lacks structure necessary to perform the claimed function.
“one sub-system to determine the height of phases or levels of liquid or molten metals within a melting furnace”, from the specification para. [0018] to be interpreted as having multiple sensors or probes with a controlling device or equivalent.
“one sub-system to measure the temperature and thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces”, from the specification para. [0019] – to be interpreted as having a bar made of a high temperature resistant thermally conductive material with spaces to accommodate multiple probes or equivalent.
“one sub-system to measure, in line and in real time, the percentage of copper in the main product of a melting furnace”, from the specification para. [0020] – to be interpreted as having probes connected to an electrical source or equivalent.
“a device that performs a mineralogical analysis via X-ray diffraction”, from the specification para. [0017] lacks the necessary structure to perform the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 recite “a sub-system for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species via X-ray diffraction (XRD)”, interpreted under 112(f) and directed para. [0017] of the specification which discloses “a device that performs mineralogical analysis”, claim 5 recites “a device that performs a mineralogical analysis” which also invokes 112(f), the disclosure does not provide any structure for the “device” to perform the function as claimed. See 112(b) rejection below for recommended correction.
Claims 1 and 7 recite a “sub-system to measure the temperature and the thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces”, para. [0019] of the specification discusses how the temperature inside the furnace is determined “[t]he steel bar is placed in the mantle and/or head of the melting furnace. The system allows the temperature inside the furnace to be determined, in line and real time, via an algorithm that includes relevant variables from the information provided by the sensor array”, however none of the specification, in para. [0019] or elsewhere is measuring “the thickness of refractory materials” discussed or mentioned.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the variables” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and needs corrected to “a plurality of variables”. Claim 1 has additional recitations that have insufficient antecedent basis: “the process” in line 1 needs to be corrected to “a process”
“the temperature” in line 4 needs to be corrected to “a temperature”
“the melting furnace” in line 4 needs to be corrected to “a melting furnace”
“the required quality” in line 5 needs to be corrected to “a required quality”
“the concentrate” in line 8 needs to be corrected to “a concentrate”
“the height” in line 10 needs to be corrected to “a height”
“the temperature and thickness” in line 11 needs to be corrected to “a temperature and thickness”
“the percentage of copper” in lines 12-13 needs to be corrected to “a percentage of copper”
“a melting furnace” in line 10 is unclear if this is a different melting furnace recited in line 4 or the same melting furnace, for examining purposes this will be interpreted as the same melting furnace.
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “the ideal mixture” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and needs corrected to “an ideal mixture”, furthermore it is not clear what is considered an ideal mixture or given a baseline to compare with. Claim 5 has additional recitations that have insufficient antecedent basis:
“the bath smelting furnace” in lines 6-7 has insufficient antecedent basis needs to be corrected to “the melting furnace” or “a bath smelting furnace”
“the optimal process” in line 8 needs to be corrected to “an optimal process”, furthermore it is not clear what is an optimal process.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the metallurgical bath” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and needs corrected to “a metallurgical bath”, claim 6 further recites “the resistance” in line 12 and needs corrected to “a resistance”,
Claim 6 recites “a transmitter-receiver device” in line 10 of the claim, is this different from “a wireless transmitter-receiver device” in line 5 of the claim or the same one? For examining purposes they are both interpreted to be the same transmitter-receiver device connected to the programmable logic controller. Claim 6 recites the limitation “electrodes (that ultimately are the sensors for this sub-system)” is not clear and should be more positively recited if the electrodes are intended to be the sensors.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mantle and/or head” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and needs corrected to “a mantle and/or head”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “The system” in line 6 and it is not clear if this is referring to the “integrated smart system” or “the sub-system to measure the temperature”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the refractory wall” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and needs corrected to “a refractory wall”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the line” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this referring to “a line of the at least four aligned electrodes”?
Claim 8 recites the limitations: “Said electrodes are connected to a signal amplifier, which in turn is connected to a signal generator. A power generator sends a replicated signal from the signal generator, sending the current-boosted signal for loads with a resistance of less than 0.1 ohm and a bandwidth of 3 MHz. The power amplifier sends the power signal to the electrodes placed at the ends of the line, so that the electrodes in the center receive the resistivity reading once the signal has been sent”, is unclear and difficult to ascertain what is being claimed or even what is occurring.
Are the “signal amplifier”, “power generator”, and “power amplifier” separate devices or different names for the same device? If they are separate then it is unclear what function each individual device is performing. Additionally, it is unclear whether “a replicated signal”, “the current-boosted signal”, “the power signal”, and “the signal” are all intended to be the same signal or not. None of the previously recited limitations are shown in the drawings and the Specification does not provide any additional details.
Additionally, it is unclear what “loads with a resistance of less than 0.1 ohm and a bandwidth of 3 MHz” is referring to. A “load” with any electrical resistance having a bandwidth does not make sense, is the signal being generated meant be within a frequency from 0 to 3MHz? For examining purposes the signal is being interpreted as having a bandwidth of 3MHz.
Claim 5 limitation “a device that performs mineralogical analysis” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. [0017] of the disclosure provides the same information as claim 5 without providing structure “a device that performs mineralogical analysis”, is not considered a term of art and lacks the structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant can amend claim 5 to read “an X-ray diffraction device that performs mineralogical analysis” as a possible example to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0081339 by Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of US 2010/0303206 by O’Dwyer et al. (“O’Dwyer”), US 2007/0062334 by Barriga et al. (“Barriga”), and US Patent 5158366 by Nagai et al. (“Nagai”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches an integrated smart system to control the variables involved in the process for melting mineral concentrates (Figs. 1-4, Abstract: “a system and predictive modeling method specially designed to improve process control and energy efficiency for a smelting process used to produce pure metal from an ore containing said metal”, also please see para. [0090]: “[t]he present invention is disclosed and illustrated in terms of production of aluminum, but it must be recognized that the method employed in the present invention can be utilized with any of the metals disclosed above”, with paras. [0006]-[0007] disclosing copper smelting practices.),
CHARACTERIZED in that it is composed of four specific sub-systems (Para. [0077]: “[d]uring the present invention smelting process, hundreds of process variables that reflect the process state, controls signals and control responses”, para. [0063]: “[t]he “master level control” is a 9-box control that embodies four types of domain control based upon the combination of temperature and aluminum fluoride regulated by power and resistance control, noise control, alumina feed control and chemical combination control”):
one sub-system to measure, in line and in real time, the percentage of copper in the main product of a melting furnace (Fig. 4, paras. [0058]: “the concentration of alumina fluoride”, [0071]: “carefully control both the temperature and the alumina concentration. The present invention controls these variables”, [0184]: “central database may also receive actual temperature and AlF.sub.3 concentration quality measurements sent from the actual metrology tool”).
Each sub-system has measurement sensors specifically for their respective functions (Paras. [0121]-[0122], Fig. 4) and said sub-systems are integrated into a processor that incorporates advanced control software to control the four sub-systems (Para. [0190]). Said processor is connected to an interface for the data transmitted from the melting furnace (Paras. [0191]-[0192]).
Examiner’s Note: The limitation from lines 2-6 of the claim recites: “which allows operation optimizations to be performed in real time, based on predictive models, in order to control and subsequently stabilize the temperature of the melting furnace (bath smelting) revolving around a [certain] point of operation and to obtain products of the required quality, integrating critical variables from field instruments” is not positively recited and does not appear to be required due to the clarifier “which allows”, nothing in the reference is preventing the optimization from being performed.
Zhu does not expressly disclose one sub-system for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species via X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the concentrate of dry copper before being injected into a converter or melting furnace.
However, O’Dwyer teaches an X-ray diffraction analyzer (para. [0002]: “an on-line energy dispersive X-ray diffraction analyser for mineralogical analysis of material in a process stream”) for the detection and quantification of mineralogical species via X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the concentrate of dry copper (Para. [0107]: “analyser 10 is suitable for monitoring a large number of mineralogical processes … example applications include … copper ore”) before being injected into a converter or melting furnace (Para. [0003]: “the elemental composition of the feedstock fed into the processing plant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the integrated system for smelting of Zhu with the online monitoring X-ray diffraction analyzer as taught by O’Dwyer. One of ordinary skill would have included an on-line monitoring X-ray diffraction analyzer in order to reduce errors, lag time awaiting lab results and cost associated with offline sampling (Paras. [0004]-[0007]).
Zhu and O’Dwyer do not expressly disclose one sub-system to determine the height of phases or levels of liquid or molten metals within a melting furnace.
However, Barriga teaches a monitoring and signaling system for pyrometallurgical furnaces (Abstract) to determine the height of phases or levels of liquid or molten metals within a melting furnace (Fig. 1, Para. [0001]: “a method and system to determine the level height of liquid or molted metals inside metal, mat or slag converters or furnaces”, para. [0026]: “based on the measurement of electrical resistance through the phases present within a pyrometallurgical converter or furnace”, para. [0027]: “performing sequenced measurements of potential falling between electrodes (1) immersed at certain heights of the bath represented by phases (3) (4) and (5)”, see also paras. [0031]-[0037] and Fig. 3a, ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Zhu and O’Dwyer with the method of continuous monitoring and measuring as taught by Barriga. One of ordinary skill would have included such a method in order to improve efficiencies of a metallurgical furnace process and provide precision control regarding “fundamental parameters regarding decision making of operations and metallurgical accounting” (Paras. [0002]-[0003]).
Zhu, O’Dwyer, and Barriga do not expressly disclose one sub-system to measure the temperature and thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
485
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Nagai teaches a melting furnace refractory monitoring system (Col. 1, lines 10-24) which can measure the temperature and thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces (Col. 1, lines 10-24: “a refractory monitoring temperature sensor and a refractory erosion location measuring device”, Figs. 46-48, Col. 22, lines 7-34: “protecting tube 18 in which the conductors 71-1 to 71-6 are accommodated is made of, for example, SUS, inconel, kanthal or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the integrated system of Zhu, O’Dwyer, and Barriga with a sub-system to monitor refractory temperature and thickness as taught by Nagai. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include such a system in order to “provide a compact and inexpensive refractory erosion location measuring device which can effect continuous detection of erosion over a wide range and specification of a location of an erosion and further can be re-used and used continuously” (Col. 3, lines 12-17) which improves safe operation of a melting furnace (Col. 1, lines 26-31).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zhu further teaches that said transmission is performed via a wired connection to the sensors for each of said four sub-systems (Para. [0200]-[0204]: “communication interface may be an integrated services digital network (ISDN) card or a modem to provide a data communication connection to a corresponding type of telephone line. As another example, communication interface may be a local area network (LAN) card to provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN”), and
said transmission is performed via a wireless connection to the sensors for each of said four sub-systems (Para. [0202]: “[w]ireless links may also be implemented. In any such implementation, communication interface sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals that carry digital data streams representing various types of information”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu further teaches that said data interface is connected to a dynamic process simulator (Paras. [0142]-[0143]: “data warehouse 114 is a functional block that stores variable process data, measures the 9-box control variables and predicts the 9-box control variables … predictive modeler 115 is a functional box that uses a trained model, takes the various feature types/data sources, and predicts control variables, temperature and alumina fluoride. The model is trained based upon historical process data and measurements of temperature and alumina fluoride”).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Zhu as modified by O’Dwyer were discussed above, the limitations are substantially the same and the rejection is the same as above.
Examiner’s Note, the limitation from lines 7-11 of the claim recites: “which allows for control over the ideal mixture for the optimal process for copper sulfide (Cu2S)-white metal, iron sulfide (FeS)-Slag and pyritic sulfur (S2)-temperature, given the availability of material and given that the sub-system provides, as a measurement, the mineralogy of the copper concentrate, in line” is not positively recited and does not appear to be required due to the clarifier “which allows”, nothing in the reference is preventing the optimization from being performed.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu does not expressly disclose a sub-system to measure the temperature and the thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces.
However, Nagai teaches a melting furnace refractory monitoring system to measure the temperature and the thickness of refractory materials for melting furnaces (Col. 1, lines 10-24: “a refractory monitoring temperature sensor and a refractory erosion location measuring device”) is comprised of a bar of refractory steel (Figs. 46-48, Col. 22, lines 7-34: “protecting tube 18 … is made of, for example, SUS, inconel, kanthal or the like”) with holes to house an array of sensors (Fig. 48, “conductors 71-1 to 71-6”), which serves as a thermal conductor and support or chassis for the array (Col. 22, lines 7-34, protecting tube 18 is made of high temperature thermally conductive material and houses all sensors within). The steel bar is placed in the mantle and/or head of the melting furnace (Col. 1, lines 10-23, the refractory is the lining for the mantle of a furnace and since the sensors are inserted into the refractory they first must be inserted through the mantle). The system allows the temperature inside the furnace to be determined, in line and in real time, via an algorithm that includes relevant variables from the information provided by the sensor array (Col. 18, lines 13-63 show the formulas for calculating temperatures of the furnace and wear of refractory).
The teachings of Zhu as modified by Nagai were discussed above, the limitations are substantially the same and the rejection is the same as above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0081339 by Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of US 2010/0303206 by O’Dwyer et al. (“O’Dwyer”), US 2007/0062334 by Barriga et al. (“Barriga”), and US Patent 5158366 by Nagai et al. (“Nagai”) in further view of NPL I. Banerjee, M. Shrujan, S. K. Das and S. Singh, "Application of Wireless Technology to Enhance Safety and Productivity in Steel Plant," 2018 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy Systems (ICPEICES), Delhi, India, 2018, pp. 1041-1045, doi: 10.1109/ICPEICES.2018.8897470 (“Banerjee”) and US 2022/0060048 by Narla et al. (“Narla”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu does not disclose a sub-system to determine the height of phases or levels of liquid.
However, Barriga teaches a system to determine the height of phases or levels of liquid or molten metals within a melting furnace (Abstract: “[s]ystem to determine the height in liquid or molten metal levels or phases within a mat or slag converter or pyrometallurgical furnace”), a circuit is connected to electrodes arranged within the melting furnace (Fig. 1, electrodes 1). The electrodes are submerged in a specific phase of the metallurgical bath within the furnace (Fig. 1, para. [0027]: “electrodes (1) immersed at certain heights of the bath represented by phases (3) (4) and (5)”). The system allows the level of the molten phases to be determined, in line and in real time (Para. [0038]: “a continuo[u]s and on line determination system of phase levels “), via an algorithm that includes variables relevant to the resistance in the bath produced by voltage injection and current circulation (Para. [0032]: “resistance of phase (R.sub.f in FIG. 3b) can always be expressed in terms of the specific electric resistivity of the phase and geometrical parameters of the electrodes and their availability”, also see paras. [0033]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the integrated systems of Zhu with the method of continuous monitoring and measuring of phase levels as taught by Barriga. One of ordinary skill would have included such a method in order to improve efficiencies of a metallurgical furnace process and provide precision control regarding “fundamental parameters regarding decision making of operations and metallurgical accounting” (Paras. [0002]-[0003]).
Zhu and Barriga do not expressly disclose a programmable logic controller (PLC) equipped with a wireless transmitter-receiver device that has analog inputs and discrete outputs connected to a circuit of solid-state relays and electromechanical relays, and the programmable logic controller is connected via a transmitter-receiver device to a control interface.
However, Banerjee teaches a melting furnace wireless control system (Abstract) with a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Pg. 1043, Fig. 4) equipped with a wireless transmitter-receiver device (Fig. 4, pg. 1043, Section III.) that has analog inputs and discrete outputs connected to a circuit of relays (Fig. 4, pg. 1043, Section III.), and the programmable logic controller is connected via a transmitter-receiver device to a control interface (Pg. 1043, Section III. “[j]oysticks, toggle switches, selector switches were mounted on the specially designed transmitter” describing a control interface wirelessly connected to the PLC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the integrated system of Zhu, Barriga, and Nagai, with the wireless PLC system as taught by Banerjee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a system in order to improve safety to operators and equipment and reduce costs in spares and breakdown time (Pg. 1044, Section V. and Fig. 5).
Banerjee does not expressly disclose the type of relays or whether they are solid-state relays and electromechanical relays.
However, Narla teaches an energy control system utilizing a wireless controller (Para. [0157]: “controller 2330”) connected to a relay panel which includes both solid-state relays and electromechanical relays (Fig. 23, para. [0155]: “remotely-controllable switch 2342 may be or may include … electrical relay, electromechanical relay, reed relay, solid-state relay, solid-state contactor, and/or solid-state power switch that is capable of being operated remotely”).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case Banerjee teaches a remotely controlled wireless PLC connected to a relay panel, Narla teaches a remotely controllable relay panel which utilizes both electromechanical relays and solid state relays, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the most appropriate components for the system and would recognize that applying the different types of relays would yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Zhu, O’Dwyer, Berriga, Nagai, and Banerjee with the solid state and electromechanical relays of Narla because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0081339 by Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of US 2010/0303206 by O’Dwyer et al. (“O’Dwyer”), US 2007/0062334 by Barriga et al. (“Barriga”), and US Patent 5158366 by Nagai et al. (“Nagai”) in further view of US 2010/0307712 by Yoshida et al. (“Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu teaches a sub-system to measure, in line and in real time, the percentage of copper in the main product of a melting furnace (See rejection above) but does not expressly disclose that the sub-system is comprised of at least four aligned electrodes inserted through the refractory wall of the melting furnace, so that one end of each electrode is outside the furnace and the other end is inside where the melting reaction is occurring, that is to say, it is inserted in the smelting bath. Said electrodes are connected to a signal amplifier, which in turn is connected to a signal generator. A power generator sends a replicated signal from the signal generator, sending the current-boosted signal for loads with a resistance of less than 0.1 ohm and a bandwidth of 3 MHz. The power amplifier sends the power signal to the electrodes placed at the ends of the line, so that the electrodes in the center receive the resistivity reading once the signal has been sent.
However, Yoshida teaches a method for measuring and controlling a concentration of molten copper (Abstract: “controlling composition of a molten copper or a molten copper alloy during continuous cast”), comprised of at least four aligned electrodes inserted through the refractory wall of the melting furnace (Para. [0064]: “to measure specific resistance of molten metal by means of the 4-terminal method with the use of direct current or pulse current as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6”), so that one end of each electrode is outside the furnace and the other end is inside where the melting reaction is occurring, that is to say, it is inserted in the smelting bath (Para. [0071]: “measuring is performed with the use of the detector immersed in the pot during continuously casting”). Said electrodes are connected to a signal amplifier, which in turn is connected to a signal generator. A power generator sends a replicated signal from the signal generator, sending the current-boosted signal for loads with a resistance of less than 0.1 ohm (See Table 1 on pg. 2 and para. [0009]) and “a bandwidth of 3 MHz” (this appears to be a material property). The power amplifier sends the power signal to the electrodes placed at the ends of the line, so that the electrodes in the center receive the resistivity reading once the signal has been sent (Para. [0098]: Fig. 7 shows 4 electrodes in the molten bath with the two outermost electrodes providing a pulsed current being applied and a resistance reading being measured).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Zhu, O’Dwyer, Berriga, and Nagai with the copper concentration measuring system of Yoshida. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include such a system in order to “continuously determining specific resistance of molten copper and molten copper alloy; calculating the chemical composition of the molten metal based on relationship between specific resistances and amount of constituents which is preliminarily prepared; and correcting the chemical composition of the molten copper alloy based on a calculated result” (Paras. [0017]-[0019]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0081339 by Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of US 2010/0303206 by O’Dwyer et al. (“O’Dwyer”), US 2007/0062334 by Barriga et al. (“Barriga”), and US Patent 5158366 by Nagai et al. (“Nagai”) in further view of US 2018/0299849 by Martin et al. (“Martin”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches automatic mode (Para. [0118]: “Control mechanism 101 is a functional block of various control mechanisms, that issues variable control signals comprising a power control for voltage, current, etc.; noise control for a change of resistance, heat, etc.; feed control”, para. [0144]: “the 9-box control as described above is a designated as a functional block that issues a series of control signals based upon the range of temperature and alumina fluoride as described above and illustrated in FIG. 2”). Zhu does not expressly disclose that it can operate in consultant mode.
However, Martin teaches a similar integrated smart asset control system (Abstract) that can operate in consultant mode or in automatic mode (Paras. [0089]-[0090]: “an overall control system using a baseline of equipment elements from a typical industrial topology integrated with a hierarchy of smart assets and smart asset sets, each of which include an autonomous or semi-autonomous system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the integrated system of Zhu, O’Dwyer, Barriga, and Nagai with the autonomous or semi-autonomous system as taught by Martin. One of ordinary skill would include such a system in order to “significantly reduce the complexity of the overall control system” (Para. [0090]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 4510793 discloses a method of monitoring wear of a refractory lining of melting furnaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (EST).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761