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 .
This Second Non-Final Rejection replaces the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/07/2025. Any inconvenience to Applicant is sincerely regretted.
Applicant amended Claims 11, 16, and 21. Claims 1-10, 13-14, 17-19, and 22 are canceled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 20 it appears the word “the” should appear before the word “pulverized” in Line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2020, 07/07/2020, 08/29/2022, and 01/30/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 02/09/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Matoba et al. US 4227921 A are maintained.
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 11-12, 15-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are drawn to a method for controlling a hot metal temperature comprising executing a first and second control loop. However, the execution of first and second control loops is the implementation of a calculation and fails to provide a practical application. Independent Claim 11 recites executing a first and second control loop each making calculations for a target value of pulverized coal ratio and a pulverized flow rate manipulation quantity. Because the method is drawn to the execution of making calculations, including an arbitrary target value, the dependent claims are ultimately dependent on the generation of a mathematical formula. Additional steps drawn to displaying a quantity and controlling a blast furnace in accordance with a calculation fail to bring the claims out of the realm of the judicial exception. The mere integration of a device or processor does not bring the claimed subject matter outside the scope of an abstract idea. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A mathematical concept is not to be accorded the protection of US patent laws. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Similarly, Independent Claim 20 is drawn to a method for producing hot metal comprising controlling the blast furnace in accordance with the formulae implemented in Claim 11. These claims fail to overcome the judicial exception.
Independent Claim 21 recites a device comprising a processer configured to execute the control loops of Claim 11 as well as the display of quantity step and control of the blast furnace in accordance with a calculated quantity. Similarly, Independent Claim 22 recites an operation guidance device comprising a processer comprising hardware. The devices of Claim 21 and Claim 22 are ultimately drawn to computers that implement a calculation which amounts to a mental process which could be calculated by hand.
Though not relied upon in the instant 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, prior art NPL Xiang et al. is herein cited as teaching operation of a blast furnace including two closed loops evaluating predictive and deviated sintering data. Even if the instantly claimed parameters are distinct, the processing of target data fails to bring the invention beyond a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
In sum, the claimed production control method is an abstract idea and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Tying the production control method to a device or processor does not bring the claims outside the scope of an abstract idea. Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 20-21 remain drawn to an abstract idea, a mathematical calculation, and mental process. The claims are therefore not patent eligible as currently written.
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.
Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 20-21 are further 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 11 recites “controlling the blast furnace” in Line 11. It is unclear what tangible actionable and repeatable method steps are encompassed by “controlling.” It is unclear what claimed element of the blast furnace is being ‘controlled’ and what “controlling” entails. Appropriate correction is required to establish clear method steps with positive active claim language.
Separately, Claim 11 recites “controlling the blast furnace in accordance with the calculated pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity” in Lines 11-12. It is unclear how the manipulation quantity parameter factors into the step of “controlling.” Not only is it unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “in accordance with,” it is further unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is made regarding the pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity. A clearer nexus must be established between the step of “controlling the blast furnace” and the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity.”
Additionally regarding the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity,” it is unclear how this data is being used, what this quantity means, and how a calculation of this quantity impacts the claimed method.
Claim 11 recites “executing a first control loop for calculating a target value of pulverized coal ratio” in Line 3 and “executing a second control loop for calculating a pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity” in Lines 6-7. It is unclear whether the limitations following the executing steps are intended uses of the first and second control loops or are positive actionable and repeatable method steps. It is unclear whether the calculations are actually performed.
Claim 11 recites “calculating a target value of pulverized coal ratio such that a hot metal temperature, predicted by a physical model configured to calculate conditions inside a blast furnace, falls within a preset target range.” In Lines 3-5. It is unclear the nexus between calculation of a target value of pulverized coal ratio and a predicted hot metal temperature. It is further unclear how the act of calculating one parameter can ensure a separate parameter falls within a certain range. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 11 recites “executing a second control loop for calculating a pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity to compensate for a deviation between the pulverized coal ratio target value and a current pulverized coal ratio actual value” in Lines 6-8. Not only is it unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “to compensate for,” it is further unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is made regarding the execution of a second control loop “to compensate for.” It is additionally unclear whether a deficit is always present and what is accomplished by the act of compensation. A clearer nexus must be established between the step of ‘compensating’ and the difference between an actual and target value of a pulverized coal ratio.
Claim 11 recites “calculating a pulverized coal ratio deviation from the pulverized coal ratio target value calculated in the first control loop, a pulverized coal flow rate actual value, and a hot metal making rate actual value calculated in advance” in Lines 14-16.
It is unclear how a deviation is calculated from a target value of pulverized coal ratio and a hot metal making rate actual value that was calculated in advance. The nexus between the hot metal making rate and the pulverized coal ratio is unclear. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus, as well as clarify how a deviation of one parameter is calculated form a distinct value that was calculated in advance.
Claim 12 recites “a response of hot metal temperature” in Lines 3 and 6. As used, the word “response” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a hot metal temperature “responds.” No indication of a temperature change, decrease or increase has been indicated. The meaning of “respond” is unclear from the claim language as presently drafted. Appropriate correction is required to establish tangible actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 15 recites “at the calculating” and it is unclear whether this is meant to indicate a physical location, an action occurring during the calculating step, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriated correction is required.
Further regarding Claim 15, it is unclear how a “preset hot metal temperature” can have “upper and lower limits.” Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus between the calculation of the pulverized coal ratio manipulation quantity and any claimed temperature value or values.
It is further unclear how a quantity can be calculated “such that” when variables remain constant, a predicted value is included in upper and lower limits. It is unclear how a value that was calculated in advance, a predicted value, can be calculated. Appropriate correction is required to establish clear actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 16 recites “a raw material fed into a blast furnace from a predetermined time before a point in time to calculate a manipulation quantity to the point in time to calculate the manipulation quantity” in Lines 4-6. It is unclear how “the point in time” differs from “a predetermined time before a point in time.” A clear nexus must be established between any time period, the raw material fed into a blast furnace, and the manipulation quantity. It is unclear which manipulation quantity is being referenced, whether “a blast furnace” in Line 4 is the same or different from that of Claim 11, and how the hot metal making rate actual value is calculated “based on a raw material.” Appropriate correction is required to establish clear actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language. Further, the term “based on” does not clearly indicate what tangible active method step is required, or how one is to carry out the claimed invention. There is insufficient information for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to make the step of calculating hot metal making rate actual value “based on” a raw material.
Claim 16 recites “hot air blown into through a tuyere of the blast furnace and a gas emitted form a blast furnace top of the blast furnace, from the predetermined time before the point in time to calculate the manipulation quantity to the point in time to calculate the manipulation quantity.” in Lines 7-9. It is unclear how “the point in time” differs from “the predetermined time before the point in time.” A clear nexus must be established between any time period, hot air, and the manipulation quantity. It is unclear which manipulation quantity is being referenced, whether “the blast furnace” in Line y is the same or different from that of Claim 11, and how the hot metal making rate actual value is calculated “based on hot air.” Appropriate correction is required to establish clear actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language. Further, the term “based on” does not clearly indicate what tangible active method step is required, or how one is to carry out the claimed invention. There is insufficient information for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to make the step of calculating hot metal making rate actual value “based on” hot air. Additionally, the phrase “hot air blown into through a tuyere of the blast furnace” is grammatically incorrect. It is grammatically unclear what the hot air is being blown into. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “controlling a blast furnace” in Line 3. It is unclear what tangible actionable and repeatable method steps are encompassed by the act of “controlling.” It is unclear what claimed element of the blast furnace is being ‘controlled’ and what “controlling” entails. Appropriate correction is required to establish clear method steps with positive active claim language.
Separately, Claim 20 recites “controlling a blast furnace in accordance with the calculated pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity” in Lines 3-4. I is unclear how the manipulation quantity parameter factors into the step of “controlling.” Not only is it unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “in accordance with,” it is further unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is made regarding the pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity. A clearer nexus must be established between the step of “controlling a blast furnace” and the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity.”
Additionally, regarding the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity,” it is unclear how this data is being used, what this quantity means, and how a calculation of this quantity impacts the claimed method. Further regarding Claim 20, it is unclear whether the controlling step is a different step from the controlling step of Claim 11 on which Claim 20 depends.
Claim 21 recites “control the blast furnace” in Line 13 (included deletions). It is unclear what tangible actionable and repeatable method steps are encompassed by the act of “control.” It is unclear what claimed element of the blast furnace is being ‘controlled’ and what “control” entails. Appropriate correction is required to establish clear method steps with positive active claim language.
Separately, Claim 21 recites “control the blast furnace in accordance with the calculated pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity” in Lines 13-14 (including deletions). It is unclear how the manipulation quantity parameter factors into the step of programming a processor to “control.” Not only is it unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “in accordance with,” it is further unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is made regarding the pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity. A clearer nexus must be established between the step of “control the blast furnace” and the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity.”
Additionally regarding the “pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity,” it is unclear how this data is being used, what this quantity means, and how a calculation of this quantity impacts the claimed method.
Claim 21 recites “execute a second control loop for calculating a pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity to compensate for a deviation between the pulverized coal ratio target value and a current pulverized coal ratio actual value” in Lines 8-10 (including deletions). Not only is it unclear what is encompassed by the phrase “to compensate for,” it is further unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is made regarding the execution of a second control loop “to compensate for.” It is additionally unclear whether a deficit is always present and what is accomplished by the act of compensation. A clearer nexus must be established between the step of ‘compensating’ and the difference between an actual and target value of a pulverized coal ratio.
Claim 21 recites “calculating a pulverized coal ratio deviation from the pulverized coal ratio target value calculated in the first control loop, a pulverized coal flow rate actual value, and a hot metal making rate actual value calculated in advance” in Lines 16-18 (including deletions).
It is unclear how a deviation is calculated from a target value of pulverized coal ratio and a hot metal making rate actual value that was calculated in advance. The nexus between the hot metal making rate and the pulverized coal ratio is unclear. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus, as well as clarify how a deviation of one parameter is calculated form a distinct value that was calculated in advance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba et al. US 4227921 A in view of Oya et al. US 6302941 B1 and NPL Xiang et al.
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 15-16, the claims are drawn an abstract idea, and thus, comparison to the prior art, in general, is rendered difficult. Notwithstanding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections above, Matoba et al. ‘921 teaches a method for controlling a hot metal temperature comprising executing a first closed control loop for calculating a target value of burden decent velocity such that a hot metal temperature, predicted by a physical model that is able to calculate conditions inside a blast furnace, falls within a preset target range (Column 1/Lines 36-40). Matoba et al. ‘921 further teaches calculating a manipulation quantity for time and hot air blown through a tuyere of the blast furnace and top furnace gas (Column 1/Lines 26-40).
Matoba et al. ‘921 does not expressly teach its burden decent velocity, the speed of material charged into the furnace, is the speed of pulverized coal, and therefore does not expressly teach the evaluation of pulverized coal ratio as a variable.
However, Oya et al. ‘941 teaches a method for controlling blast furnace operation including specifically utilizing a pulverized coal ratio as a variable (Column 12/Lines 21-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to calculate the target value of pulverized coal ratio within the control method of Matoba in order to maintain stable conditions within the blast furnace and improve resulting iron quality based on the teachings of Oya et al. ‘941 at (Column 1/Lines 33-56).
Matoba et al. ‘921 further teaches altering manipulating variables according to differences between a target value and a predicted value of processing variables (Column 1/Lines 5-11). But neither Matoba et al. ‘921 nor Oya et al. ‘941 expressly teach the integration of a second control loop.
However, NPL Xiang et al. teaches the use of a first control loop which calculates predictive, or target variables and second control loop to calculate disturbance variables or deviances in sintering parameters within a blast furnace operation (Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Matoba et al. ‘921 with a first control loop for calculating a target value of pulverized coal ratio based on the teachings of Oya et al. ‘941 at (Column 1/Lines 5-11) and implement a second control loop for calculating the pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity to compensate for a deviation between the pulverized coal ratio target value and a current pulverized coal ratio actual value based on the teachings of NPL Xiang et al. (Introduction) in order to achieve a model that implements both a predictive scheme and a deviance evaluation. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Regarding Claim 20, the operation method for producing hot metal taught by modified Matoba et al. ‘921 meets the limitations of the instant claims for a method for producing a hot metal. See Matoba et al. ‘921 (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Matoba et al. ‘921 teaches the limitations set forth above. Matoba et al. ‘921 teaches a computer (Column 1/Lines 26-40)(Fig. 1), meeting the limitations of the instant claim for a device for controlling a hot metal temperature and an operation guidance device comprising a processor comprising hardware.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the newly amended limitations “supporting operation of the blast furnace by displaying, on a display device…the calculated…quantity” and “controlling the blast furnace in accordance with…the calculated…quantity” are enough to bring the claims out of the realm of the judicial exception. However, notwithstanding issues of clarity set forth above, the mere integration of a device or processor does not bring the claimed subject matter outside the scope of an abstract idea. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A mathematical concept is not to be accorded the protection of US patent laws. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claims remain ultimately drawn to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. Integration of a mathematical concept with “control” of a blast furnace is insufficient to bring the claims outside the realm of the judicial exception. Operation of a known blast furnace based on a new equation does not negate the claims are drawn ultimately to a mathematical concept.
Regarding the application of prior art, Applicant argues there is no suggestion to modify Matoba et al. ‘921 with the dual loop teachings of However, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Matoba et al. ‘921 with a first control loop for calculating a target value of pulverized coal ratio based on the teachings of Oya et al. ‘941 at (Column 1/Lines 5-11) and implement a second control loop for calculating the pulverized coal flow rate manipulation quantity to compensate for a deviation between the pulverized coal ratio target value and a current pulverized coal ratio actual value based on the teachings of NPL Xiang et al. (Introduction) in order to achieve a model that implements both a predictive scheme and a deviance evaluation. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to the art for methods of increasing blast furnace operation efficiency to integrate to the method of Matoba et al. ‘921 to the teachings of Oya et al. ‘941 and NPL Xiang et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR 20130023886 A teaches a method for predicating variations in furnace heat within a blast furnace.
CN 204625669 U teaches a control circuit for a blast furnace with three separate control loops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights