DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-6 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 8 argues:
Applicant has amended claim 1 according to paragraph [0063] and respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 is patent eligible. Specifically, claim 1 recites the technical features of "adjusting process parameters according to the BTP prediction result," which can be as additional elements to incorporate the alleged abstract idea into the practical application to solve the technical problem in the prior art.
This argument is unpersuasive. Mere instruction to apply an exception fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Applicant remarks page 9 further argues:
… effectively improving the output and quality of sintered ore, and bringing significant economic benefits to the enterprise.
This argument is unpersuasive. The utility of the invention is not in dispute. Subject matter eligibility under §101 is a separate requirement prohibiting patenting of certain judicially excepted subject matter. Here, Examiner has identified that the alleged improvements are directed towards mathematical subject matter and the claim is rejected under §101 accordingly. See Examiner’s detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 5 have been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6 under § 112 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
In particular, the Court has found a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit is an ineligible mathematical concept. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for predicting burning through point (BTP) based on an encoder-decoder network, comprising:
…, and calculating BTP and burning rising point (BRP) with a polynomial fitting method; wherein:
BRP refers to a position where the exhaust-gas temperature rise in a length direction of a sintering machine; and
…
a second step segmenting data of the input features with a sliding window method based on the input features to construct training samples, verification samples, and test samples;
a third step establishing a BTP prediction model based on the encoder-decoder network, and training the model by means of the training samples; and
…, calculating BTP and BRP with a least square method; segmenting the data of the input features with the sliding window method to obtain data segments and establish a many-to-many sequence data set from the time
k
-
t
h
to time
k
; inputting the many-to-many sequence data set into the trained BTP prediction model to obtain a BTP prediction result within a next prediction time length
t
f
from the time
k
; ….
Calculating a predicted BTP corresponds with respective mathematical calculations.
Calculating a BTP and BRP using a polynomial fitting is mathematical calculation.
Segmenting the data into time windows and constructing training, verification, and test designated samples are mathematical operations.
Establishing the BTP prediction model by performing respective mathematical calculations of the training using the data is performing those respective mathematical calculations. See further Specification ¶63 regarding calculating “weight coefficient” correlation using a temporal attention mechanism.
Calculating a BTP and BRP using least squares is further mathematical calculation.
Segmenting the data with sliding window is mathematical operation.
Inputting the sequence data into the prediction model to obtain a prediction corresponds with performing the respective mathematical calculations of the model.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
a first step determining auxiliary variables related to BTP as input features, reading and preprocessing data of a sintering process from a database; reading data of exhaust-gas temperatures in bellows from the database, …
the auxiliary variables are selected as: a solid fuel ratio, a quicklime ratio, a limestone ratio, a dolomite-water ratio, a water content after a second mixing, a material thickness, an ignition temperature, air permeability, a negative pressure of a main fan, a pallet velocity, an exhaust-gas temperature of a large flue, and BRP, wherein all the auxiliary variables except BRP are obtained from the data of the sintering process stored in the database; the auxiliary variables are taken as the input features, and calculated BTP is taken as an output label;
…
a fourth step reading, at current time
k
, on-line historical data from time
k
-
t
h
to time
k
in real time from a sensor and the database, collecting and preprocessing the auxiliary variables; reading the data of the exhaust-gas temperatures in the bellows from the time
k
-
t
h
to time
k
, …
… and adjusting process parameters according to the BTP prediction result.
Determining variables and reading data from a database are generic recitations of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The respective auxiliary variables used correspond with generally linking the mathematical concept to a particular field of use. Merely indicating a field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Obtaining the auxiliary variable data from a database is a generic recitation of data gathering. Designating a calculated result as an output is merely outputting the result of the abstract idea. The data gathering and insignificant outputting are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Reading historical data from a sensor and database and reading temperatures is further recitation of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Adjusting process parameters “according to” the result of the abstract idea is mere instruction to “apply it.” See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Regarding MPEP §2106.05(g), the claim(s) recite:
a first step determining auxiliary variables related to BTP as input features, reading and preprocessing data of a sintering process from a database; reading data of exhaust-gas temperatures in bellows from the database, …
…
a fourth step reading, at current time
k
, on-line historical data from time
k
-
t
h
to time
k
in real time from a sensor and the database, collecting and preprocessing the auxiliary variables; reading the data of the exhaust-gas temperatures in the bellows from the time
k
-
t
h
to time
k
, ….
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network
…
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory
This is sufficient Berkheimer evidence for the non-specific claim recitations of data gathering.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method for predicting BTP based on the encoder-decoder network according to claim 1, wherein, in the first step, reading the data of the exhaust-gas temperatures in the bellows from the database and calculating BTP and BRP with the polynomial fitting method comprises: regarding the exhaust-gas temperature
T
i
and a position
x
i
of the bellows at a vicinity of BTP as a quadratic relation which satisfies a first formula:
T
i
=
a
x
i
2
+
b
x
i
+
c
i
=
1,2
,
…
,
m
substituting the positions and the exhaust-gas temperatures,
x
i
,
T
i
, of last three bellows into the first formula to obtain a linear equation set of the exhaust-gas temperatures and the positions of the bellows, wherein a subscript i represents an ith bellows to a last bellows; and solving the linear equation set to obtain a:
a
=
T
1
-
T
2
x
1
-
x
2
-
T
2
-
T
3
x
2
-
x
3
x
1
-
x
3
then solving the linear equation set to obtain b:
b
=
T
1
-
T
2
x
1
-
x
2
-
a
x
1
+
x
2
then:
c
=
T
i
-
a
x
i
2
-
b
x
i
obtaining BTP by means of the equations as follows:
x
m
a
x
=
-
b
2
a
wherein, the position
x
k
corresponding to the exhaust-gas temperature
T
k
of 1800ºC is solved based on a following formula:
T
k
=
a
x
k
2
+
b
x
k
+
c
.
The quadratic relation and formula for a parabola are explicit recitations of mathematical concepts. The further recitation of substituting, solving, and obtaining by respective calculations corresponds with a mathematical algorithm for performing the fitting calculations of the polynomial fitting for this quadratic relation.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method for predicting BTP based on the encoder-decoder network according to claim 1, wherein, in the second step, sampling is performed with a sliding time window segment method, and each input segment sample is expressed as a matrix:
X
∈
R
T
h
×
f
wherein,
T
h
represents a number of frames of an observation segment,
f
represents a number of features of the segment; and an output sample Y is set to correspond to each input sample X:
Y
∈
R
T
f
×
f
.
Discretizing the measurements using a sliding time window is a mathematical operation. The resulting sample expressed as the matrix X and Y are explicit recitation of the mathematical structure.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method for predicting BTP based on the encoder-decoder network according to claim 1, wherein, in the third step, establishing the BTP prediction model based on the encoder-decoder network comprises:
establishing the model by means of a encoder-decoder framework, wherein an encoder is established by means of a gated recurrent unit (GRU), and the input features are input in time series to obtain an output of the encoder; then calculating a correlation between a hidden state vector of a decoder and the output feature by means of a temporal attention mechanism to obtain a weight coefficient between them; and calculating a correlation between the output label and the output feature by means of a spatial attention mechanism to establish a potential correlation between an object variable and the output feature.
Calculating a correlation between hidden state vectors and feature vectors according to a temporal attention mechanism is a recitation of mathematical operations to obtain respective numerical weight coefficient(s). The calculation of the correlation and established potential correlation is mathematical calculation.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method for predicting BTP based on the encoder-decoder network according to claim 1, wherein parameters of the BTP prediction model are adjusted in real time according to real-time data of the sintering process for continuous iteration and optimization, so that the model has high robustness.
Adjusting the parameters of the BTP prediction model with continuous iteration and optimization calculations is additional mathematical calculations of the mathematical modeling.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner has previously presented a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in the office action dated 5 January 2026. For convenience, those reasons are restated herein:
Zhang, X., et al. “Multivariate Time-Series Modeling for Forecasting Sintering Temperature in Rotary Kilns Using DCGNet” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 7 (July 2021) [herein “Zhang”] page 4640 table I teaches various thermal variables for a rotary kiln. Zhang page 4636 right column section II teach “High silica bauxite, soda ash, lime, etc., are mixed and grounded into a raw material slurry in a certain proportion.” A proportion is a ratio. But Zhang fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
Li, M.H. & Wang, J. “The Research for Soft Measuring Technique of Sintering Burning Through Point” IEEE 1st Conf. on Industrial Electronics & Applications (2006) [herein “Li”] abstract teaches measuring BTP using a quadratic curve fitting on exhaust gas. But Li fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
Wang, J., et al. “BTP Prediction of Sintering Process by Using Multiple Models” IEEE 26th Chinese Control & Decision Conf., pp. 4008-4012 (2014) [herein “Wang”] abstract teaches a fuzzy neural network for predicting burning through point BTP. Wang page 4010 section 3.2 teaches using sintering trolley velocity along with exhaust gas temperatures as variables to predict BTP. But Wang fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
CN 113111571 A Chang, et al. [herein “Chang”] [Citations to Chang herein refer to the attached English machine translation thereof] page 5 [n0012] teaches “Based on the quadratic relationship between the sintering endpoint and the exhaust gas temperature of the front and rear air boxes, and since the sintering endpoint is the highest point of the curve, the temperature of each air box is fitted to the curve and the temperature curve is plotted.” But Chang fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
Wu, X., et al. “Prediction of Sinter Burn-Through Point Based on Support Vector Machines” Intelligent Control & Automation, Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Computing, ICIC (2006) [herein “Wu”] teaches predicting sinter burn-through point using SVM. Wu section 1 first paragraph teaches “The raw mix in the form of small pellets composed essentially of ore, coke and water.” But Wu fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
Wu, Z. & Zhou, P. “Feature selection of Wrapper based on GA and prediction of Burning Through Point of integrated multi-kernel support vector machine” IEEE 33rd Chinese Control & Decision Conf., pp.618-623 (May 2021) [herein “Wu 2021”] section I Introduction first paragraph teaches “In the sintering process, iron ore powder, coke powder, flux (limestone, dolomite) and returned ore are mixed in a certain proportion, and then granulated by mixing and adding water for the first time and then mixing and adding water for the second time.” While Wu teaches limestone and dolomite in the alternative, Wu fails to teach using quicklime, limestone, and dolomite together. Furthermore, while Wu does teach mixing with water, Wu fails to teach a dolomite-water ratio used as an auxiliary variable.
Cao, W., et al. “A dynamic subspace model for predicting burn-through point in iron sintering process” Information Sciences, vol. 466, pp. 1-12 (2018) page 3 section 2.3 teaches “It is clear from Sections 2.2 and 2.3 that the BTP is not only based on sintering process parameters (process parameters hereafter), such as the pallet velocity, thickness of the material layer, and negative pressure of bellows; but it is also related to the EGTs at previous bellows, which are process conditions parameters.” Cao page 2 section 2.1 teaches “The raw material, which contains limestone, ore, coke.” But Cao fails to teach a quicklime ratio, limestone ratio, or a dolomite-water ratio.
US patent 7,968,044 B2 Rocha, et al. [herein “Rocha”] teaches technology background on a sintering process line. See Rocha figure 3 and Rocha column 3 lines 51-64. Rocha column 3 lines 42-45 teach “The input materials 19-22 typically comprise an oxide source such as raw ore 19 and iron waste products 20. In addition, a flux material such as limestone as well as a fuel material such as coke 22.” While Rocha teaches a limestone flux, Rocha fails to teach dolomite and fails to teach quicklime (in addition to the limestone). Furthermore, Rocha fails to teach a variable of a dolomite to water ratio.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “a quicklime ratio, a limestone ratio, a dolomite-water ratio, …, and BRP” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Note, the auxiliary variables of claim 2 are not written in the alternative (i.e., there is no “or,” instead the listing ends “and BRP”). Accordingly, claim 2 currently requires each and every auxiliary variable recited in the claim.
Conclusion
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 Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 12 May 2026
Prosecution Insights