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 .
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 13-20, 22-23 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 13 recites “displayed . . . in a comparable manner.” It is unclear precise what is required for the claimed information to be displayed in a comparable manner. As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. There, the claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 14-20 depend from claim 13 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 19 recites “displayed . . . in a comparable manner.” It is unclear precise what is required for the claimed information to be displayed in a comparable manner. As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. There, the claim is again rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 20 recites “displayed . . . in a comparable manner.” It is unclear precise what is required for the claimed information to be displayed in a comparable manner. As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. There, the claim is again rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 22 recites “converting each balance in terms of a value per unit weight of hot metal.” It is precisely unclear what mathematical operation is required by this limitation. For example, assuming the blast furnace is smelting iron ore, at what point is the constituent iron considered “hot metal”? Are other metals included in addition to iron? As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. There, the claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 23 recites “converting each balance in terms of a value per unit weight of hot metal.” It is precisely unclear what mathematical operation is required by this limitation. For example, assuming the blast furnace is smelting iron ore, at what point is the constituent iron considered “hot metal”? Are other metals included in addition to iron? As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. There, the claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12, 13, 21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasaki et al., JP 2018009224, in view of Kim et al., KR 100381094, Kato, WO 2011087036, and Nakano, JP 2020066753, hereinafter “Narasaki,” “Kim,” “Kato,” and “Nakano,” respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Narasaki discloses an operation guidance method comprising: (see at least p. 3 "it is an object of the present invention to provide a method of operating a blast furnace”);
predicting a state in a blast furnace when a current operation state is retained in a future, by using a physical model that is able to calculate the state in the blast furnace; and (see at least p. 3 "The operation status evaluation system according to the present invention comprises a data storage section for storing values periodically measured by a sensor attached to a blast furnace and values calculated from the measured values as time series data; A prediction unit that predicts a walkway by using the value stored in the storage unit; p. 5 "a prediction unit 13 (prediction model) that performs prediction on "blow-by" which is one of troubles in the blast furnace 1”);
displaying, on an output device, values, when the state in the blast furnace is predicted. (see at least p. 3 "a display unit that displays the value stored in the data storage unit and the prediction result predicted by the prediction unit so that the operator can confirm the expected value"; p. 5 "The prediction monitor 11 is composed of a liquid crystal monitor and a CRT monitor, and is installed in the control room. The operator M is always ready to view the prediction monitor 11”).
Narasaki fails to disclose that the values are an oxygen balance in a raceway region, a carbon balance in an entire furnace, and an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace.
Kim teaches a known value is oxygen balance in a raceway region (see at least ¶ [63] “The amount of oxygen due to oxygen load is expressed as the oxygen load rate by adding the oxygen contained in the air during the entire blowing process and the oxygen-loaded oxygen under operating conditions, so the amount of purely oxygen-loaded oxygen is calculated by the above equation (8).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display an oxygen balance in a raceway region as taught by Kim, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Kato teaches a known value is a carbon balance in an entire furnace (see at least p. 9 “As mentioned above, in the blast furnace method, the carbonaceous material blown from the tuyere is only about 40% of all the carbonaceous materials supplied into the furnace. However, since CO and CO 2 are almost equivalently discharged due to the reaction equilibrium in the blast furnace, CO 2 contained in the gas discharged from the blast furnace becomes about half of the carbon-containing gas components (CO, CO 2) . Also, a considerable amount of carbon among the carbon contained in the supplied carbonaceous material is contained in the hot metal. Therefore, carbon derived from coke charged from the furnace top becomes carbon contained in CO or hot metal, and a mass balance is established in the blast furnace that the total amount of carbonaceous material blown from the tuyeres becomes CO 2. This indicates that there is a possibility that the total amount of solid carbon recovered by electrolysis from discharged carbon dioxide can be used as a carbonaceous material blowing from the tuyere.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display a carbon balance in an entire furnace as taught by Kato, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Nakano teaches a known value is an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace (see at least ¶ [0019] “The Rist model is a process evaluation model that considers chemical equilibrium theory for FeO iron oxide reduction in addition to the overall mass balance and partial heat balance in the lower high temperature region of the furnace. In the operation diagram based on the Rist model, the horizontal axis X is the oxidation degree of the reducing gas (for example, (O + H2) / (C + H2)), and the vertical axis Y is the oxidation degree of the iron oxide (for example, O / Fe). By taking into account the oxygen mass balance at any cross section of the indirect reduction zone, a linear operating diagram can be obtained. It is possible to compare the operating line in the ideal operation and the operating line in the actual operation, and obtain the shaft efficiency from the deviation amount thereof. When the shaft efficiency is 100%, the operating line passes through a point that represents the composition of the Wustite reduction (FeO → Fe) called the W point (equilibrium point). When CO gas and H2 gas coexist, the W point is determined by averaging the equilibrium compositions of CO reduction and H2 reduction of wustite according to the abundance ratios of CO gas and H2 gas. The details of the Rist model are described in, for example, Non-Patent Document 1 and the like, so only the above description will be given.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace as taught by Nakano, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Regarding claim 13, Narasaki discloses wherein in the displaying, a current state and a state when the current operation state is retained in the future are displayed side by side in a comparable manner with respect to values (see at least p. 3 "a display unit that displays the value stored in the data storage unit and the prediction result predicted by the prediction unit so that the operator can confirm the expected value"; p. 5 "The prediction monitor 11 is composed of a liquid crystal monitor and a CRT monitor, and is installed in the control room. The operator M is always ready to view the prediction monitor 11” [i.e., a display displays both the value stored (the current state) and the prediction result for comparison]).
See claim 12 above regarding using the values of oxygen balance in the raceway region, carbon balance in the entire furnace, and oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace in the display.
Regarding claim 21, Narasaki discloses wherein the displaying includes displaying a heat balance in the furnace indicating a relationship between heat input into the furnace and heat consumed in the furnace, in addition to the oxygen balance in the raceway region, the carbon balance in the entire furnace, and the oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace. (see at least p. 3 “And a step of obtaining a scale index value representing a heat loss degree in a case where a blow-by occurs using the stave temperature in the data.”).
Regarding claim 24, Narasaki, Kim, Kato, and Nakano disclose a blast furnace operation method comprising controlling a blast furnace based on guidance according to the operation guidance method according to claim 12. (see at least Narasaki p. 12 “Based on this information, various operating conditions can be controlled so that the blast furnace 1 can be operated stably.”; see also the rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 25, Narasaki, Kim, Kato, and Nakano disclose a hot metal manufacturing method comprising manufacturing hot metal by controlling a blast furnace based on guidance according to the operation guidance method according to claim 12. (see at least Narasaki p. 12 “Based on this information, various operating conditions can be controlled so that the blast furnace 1 can be operated stably.”; see also the rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 26, Narasaki discloses an operation guidance apparatus comprising: (see at least p. 3 "operation status evaluation system”);
a prediction unit configured to predict a state in a blast furnace when a current operation state is retained in a future, by using a physical model that is able to calculate the state in the blast furnace; and (see at least p. 3 "The operation status evaluation system according to the present invention comprises a data storage section for storing values periodically measured by a sensor attached to a blast furnace and values calculated from the measured values as time series data; A prediction unit that predicts a walkway by using the value stored in the storage unit; p. 5 "a prediction unit 13 (prediction model) that performs prediction on "blow-by" which is one of troubles in the blast furnace 1”);
a display unit configured to display values, when the state in the blast furnace is predicted. (see at least p. 3 "a display unit that displays the value stored in the data storage unit and the prediction result predicted by the prediction unit so that the operator can confirm the expected value"; p. 5 "The prediction monitor 11 is composed of a liquid crystal monitor and a CRT monitor, and is installed in the control room. The operator M is always ready to view the prediction monitor 11”).
Narasaki fails to disclose that the values are an oxygen balance in a raceway region, a carbon balance in an entire furnace, and an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace.
Kim teaches a known value is oxygen balance in a raceway region (see at least ¶ [63] “The amount of oxygen due to oxygen load is expressed as the oxygen load rate by adding the oxygen contained in the air during the entire blowing process and the oxygen-loaded oxygen under operating conditions, so the amount of purely oxygen-loaded oxygen is calculated by the above equation (8).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display an oxygen balance in a raceway region as taught by Kim, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Kato teaches a known value is a carbon balance in an entire furnace (see at least p. 9 “As mentioned above, in the blast furnace method, the carbonaceous material blown from the tuyere is only about 40% of all the carbonaceous materials supplied into the furnace. However, since CO and CO 2 are almost equivalently discharged due to the reaction equilibrium in the blast furnace, CO 2 contained in the gas discharged from the blast furnace becomes about half of the carbon-containing gas components (CO, CO 2) . Also, a considerable amount of carbon among the carbon contained in the supplied carbonaceous material is contained in the hot metal. Therefore, carbon derived from coke charged from the furnace top becomes carbon contained in CO or hot metal, and a mass balance is established in the blast furnace that the total amount of carbonaceous material blown from the tuyeres becomes CO 2. This indicates that there is a possibility that the total amount of solid carbon recovered by electrolysis from discharged carbon dioxide can be used as a carbonaceous material blowing from the tuyere.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display a carbon balance in an entire furnace as taught by Kato, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Nakano teaches a known value is an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace (see at least ¶ [0019] “The Rist model is a process evaluation model that considers chemical equilibrium theory for FeO iron oxide reduction in addition to the overall mass balance and partial heat balance in the lower high temperature region of the furnace. In the operation diagram based on the Rist model, the horizontal axis X is the oxidation degree of the reducing gas (for example, (O + H2) / (C + H2)), and the vertical axis Y is the oxidation degree of the iron oxide (for example, O / Fe). By taking into account the oxygen mass balance at any cross section of the indirect reduction zone, a linear operating diagram can be obtained. It is possible to compare the operating line in the ideal operation and the operating line in the actual operation, and obtain the shaft efficiency from the deviation amount thereof. When the shaft efficiency is 100%, the operating line passes through a point that represents the composition of the Wustite reduction (FeO → Fe) called the W point (equilibrium point). When CO gas and H2 gas coexist, the W point is determined by averaging the equilibrium compositions of CO reduction and H2 reduction of wustite according to the abundance ratios of CO gas and H2 gas. The details of the Rist model are described in, for example, Non-Patent Document 1 and the like, so only the above description will be given.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Narasaki to display an oxygen balance derived from iron oxide in the entire furnace as taught by Nakano, as it would be a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [MPEP 2143(A)]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745