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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12 and 13 have been amended, claims 19-22 have been canceled, and therefore claims 12-18 and 23-27 are currently under consideration in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, lines 2-3, it is suggested to replace “measuring a temperature of molten iron during a charging interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing” with -- measuring a temperature of molten iron during an interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing --. The reason being that the blowing step does not include any molten iron charging.
In claim 12, at the beginning of line 4, it is suggested to replace “setting the measured temperature” with -- setting the measured temperature of the molten iron --. For claim language consistency.
In claim 13, lines 2-3, it is suggested to replace “measuring a temperature of molten iron during a charging interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing” with -- measuring a temperature of molten iron during an interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing --. The reason being that the blowing step does not include any molten iron charging.
In claim 13, at the beginning of line 4, it is suggested to replace “setting the measured temperature” with -- setting the measured temperature of the molten iron --. For claim language consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-18 and 23-27 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.
Claims 12 and 13, each as amended, recites the limitation “measuring a temperature of molten iron during a charging interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing”. This limitation is confusing and raises an issue of clarity, in that it appears to suggest two possibilities: (1) a single step of measuring a temperature of molten iron during a charging interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter and before a start of blowing or (2) a first step of measuring a temperature of molten iron during a charging interval between a start of charging and an end of charging of the molten iron into a converter, and a second step of measuring a temperature of molten iron before a start of blowing. The claims are therefore rendered indefinite due to above stated ambiguities in the meaning of the limitation.
Claim 13, lines 2-4, recites the limitation “sequentially estimating a temperature and a component concentration of molten metal at progress of blowing by sequentially performing heat balance calculation and material balance calculation during the blowing based on operation conditions”. In particular, the phrase “operation conditions” is vague, in that the claim does not expressly define and/or state what the operation conditions are nor does the specification appear clearly define nor give direction as to what constitutes the operation conditions. Furthermore, because the phrase “operation conditions” is not clearly defined as stated above, it could encompass all conceivable operation conditions of a converter blowing process. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 11/24/2025 indicating that the amendment clearly defines and clarifies the claimed subject matter and that the claimed sequence of steps aligns with plant operations as disclosed in Applicant's specification have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in that said amendment did not fully resolve all the issues raised in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph presented in the previous office action mailed on 08/28/2025, therefore portions of said previous rejection are maintained in the instant office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759