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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts/relationships without significantly more.
STEP 2A:
PRONG 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for predicting carbon consumption and emission of a blast furnace. The claim recites numerous input parameters to perform the calculation, as well as a conditional step to recalculate and alter the input parameters if “absolute value of a difference between the predicted fuel ratio and the initial fuel ratio is less than a preset value to obtain a first determination result.” A second conditional step is performed to test whether constraints are satisfied and if so, outputting the raw material and fuel conditions and parameters. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea because it recites mathematical calculations and re-calculations with adjusted inputs if the previous calculations were not acceptable.
PRONG 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements more than the calculation and re-calculation of the parameters. The further claim limitations which recite determining whether the calculation results satisfy constraints is also merely further calculations.
STEP 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the further dependent claims 2-9 merely recite additional details of the formulae used in the calculations and claim 10 merely recites outputting a drawing showing a diagram line distribution, which is merely displaying results of the calculations. Thus the additional limitations do not recite anything more beyond the judicial exception either alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are in condition for allowance based on the newly amended claim1. Examiner disagrees that the amended claim results in a patent-eligible claim. The newly amended claim currently recites an additional method step, “based on the various indicators, evaluation energy conservation, emission reduction and carbon emission of different hydrogen enrichment processes….” Although differing from the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, the additional step is similar to the “mental processes” enumerated grouping as it recites the evaluation of results of the calculations regarding carbon emissions. This step could be performed in the human mind as it is recited broadly and encompasses the selection of the hydrogen source which yields lowest carbon emissions.
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 GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2115