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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 18 December 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, and 15 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previous rejection of claim 9. An amended rejection may be found below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the allowability of independent claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 15 is allowable because it is substantially similar to claim 1. However, claim 1 additionally includes the limitations of cancelled claim 9. Therefore, independent claim 15 does not include the same limitations as its dependent claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner does not believe that claim 1 contains allowable subject matter, and therefore, even if claim 15 did have substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, it would not be allowable. Therefore, the Examiner has updated and maintained the rejection, as may be seen below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of references Zhang and Toyota have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of references Zhang and Toyota have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhang and Toyota are not combinable as references; Zhang teaches non-contact temperature measurements while Toyota teaches measurement in situ, and one seeking prior art for non-contact measurement methods would not look for in situ measurement methods. The in situ method changes the principal mode of operation of Zhang and therefore, cannot be combined references. However, the Examiner believes that while one of ordinary skill in the art searching for non-contact measurement methods may not care for in situ measurement methods, but that one of ordinary skill in the art looking for temperature measurement, as a broader concept, may find and care for both methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the concepts of both to different situations and recognize that the equipment may be adapted through routine experimentation to fit the specific circumstance at hand.
Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of references Zhang and Heraeus have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of references Zhang and Heraeus have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhang and Heraeus are not combinable as references; Zhang teaches non-contact temperature measurements while Heraeus teaches measurement by immersion, and one seeking prior art for non-contact measurement methods would not look for immersion measurement methods. The immersion method changes the principal mode of operation of Zhang and therefore, cannot be combined references. However, the Examiner believes that while one of ordinary skill in the art searching for non-contact measurement methods may not care for immersion measurement methods, but that one of ordinary skill in the art looking for temperature measurement, as a broader concept, may find and care for both methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the concepts of both to different situations and recognize that the equipment may be adapted through routine experimentation to fit the specific circumstance at hand.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016026530 A1 (Zhang) in view of EP 2799824 A1 (Heraeus).
Regarding claim 15: Zhang teaches a system for determining a series of at least two temperature values Tmes(n) and Tmes(n+1) of a molten metal bath comprising a device and a module and the module is adapted to interact with the device, wherein the device comprises an optical cored wire and a detector (Figs. 1-3; Pg 7 Lns 9-22), wherein the module comprises a storage unit, a processing unit and a controlling unit (control unit 50: “The temperature control unit 50 may comprise hardware, a memory unit, at least a processing unit into which software is loaded”), wherein the storage unit comprises: (a1) a storage element for providing a set of data relating predicted temperature values Tpred of a molten metal bath to corresponding measurement profiles MP, each measurement profile being a sequence of steps carried out to obtain the temperature of the molten metal bath (Zhang teaches that the model is calculated based on temperature measurements and used to calculate a melt temperature profile, implying a data set of the both of these variables); (a2) a storage element for supplying a model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time (Pg 8 Lns 7-9); and (a3) a storage element for defining a time step Δt (see, for example, the time step defined between two graduations on the time axis of Fig. 3); wherein the processing unit comprises: (b1) a processing element for selecting a future point in time t(n) and predicting a temperature Tpred of the molten metal bath for the future point in time t(n) (Pg 8 Lns 7-11); (b2) a processing element for choosing a measurement profile MP corresponding to a predicted temperature Tpred from a provided set of data relating predicted temperature values Tpred to corresponding measurement profiles MP (a step inherently necessary to continue the steps); and (b3) a processing element for calculating a predicted temperature Tpred of the molten metal bath based on a measured temperature value Tmes, a model F(t) and a time step Δt (Pg 8 Lns 14-16 and 26-27), and wherein the controlling unit comprises: (c1) a controlling element for applying a measurement profile MP at a point in time to obtain a measured temperature value Tmes (Pg 8 Lns 14-16).
Zhang does not directly teach that the system is configured to feed a leading tip of the optical cored wire the molten metal bath and below the surface of the molten metal bath.
However, Heraeus teaches providing the leading tip of the optical cored wire above the molten metal bath, feeding the top towards the bath with one velocity, taking a temperature measurement, and retracting the optical cored wire. See Figure 4 and its corresponding description paragraph [0058].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the measurement method of Zhang with the measurement method of Heraeus. This is because they are both meant to measure the temperature of a molten metal bath. This is important in order to obtain a temperature measurement from within the molten metal bath.
Regarding claim 1: Modified Zhang teaches a method for determining a series of at least two temperature values Tmes(n) and Tmes(n+1) of a molten metal bath using a system according to claim 15 (see above), the method comprising (a) providing the set of data relating predicted temperature values Tpred of the molten metal bath to corresponding measurement profiles MP (Zhang teaches that the model is calculated based on temperature measurements and used to calculate a melt temperature profile, implying a data set of the both of these variables), wherein each measurement profile comprises at least one of the following steps:(i)providing the optical cored wire with its leading tip above the surface of the molten metal bath;(ii)feeding the leading tip of the optical cored wire for a time period from tO to t2 with at least one feeding velocity Vfed towards the molten metal bath and below the surface of the molten metal bath, wherein the leading tip of the optical cored wire is below the surface of the molten metal bath during a time period from tl to t2;(iii) obtaining temperature information within a measuring time period within t1 to t2; and(iv) retracting the optical cored wire with a velocity Vret to a position above the molten metal bath (Heraeus: providing the leading tip of the optical cored wire above the molten metal bath, feeding the top towards the bath with one velocity, taking a temperature measurement, and retracting the optical cored wire; Fig. 4 and its corresponding description paragraph [0058]); (b) supplying the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time (Zhang: Pg 8 Lns 7-9); (c) defining the time step Δt (Zhang: see, for example, the time step defined between two graduations on the time axis of Fig. 3); (d) selecting the future point in time t(n) and predicting the temperature value Tpred(n) of the molten metal bath for the point in time t(n) (Zhang: Pg 8 Lns 7-11); (e) choosing the measurement profile MP(n) corresponding to the predicted temperature value Tpred(n) from the provided set of data relating predicted temperature values Tpred to corresponding measurement profiles MP (an inherent step necessary to continue the steps); (f) applying the measurement profile MP(n) at the point in time t(n) to obtain the measured temperature value Tmes(n) (Zhang: Pg 8 Lns 14-16); (g) calculating a predicted temperature value Tpred(n+1) of the molten metal bath based on the measured temperature value Tmes(n), the model F(t) and the time step Δt (Zhang: Pg 8 Lns 14-16 and 26-27); (h) choosing a measurement profile MP(n+1) corresponding to the predicted temperature value Tpred(n+1) from the provided set of data relating predicted temperature values Tpred to corresponding measurement profiles MP (inherent due to its necessity for the following step); (i) applying the measurement profile MP(n+1) at a point in time t(n+1) to obtain a measured temperature value Tmes(n+1), wherein t(n+1) is defined by t(n+ 1) = t(n) + Δt (Zhang: Pg 8 Lns 26-27).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time is a linear function.
However, Zhang does teach heating with a linear force. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that heating with a linear force would likely cause the temperature measurement to develop linearly with time. However, given the dependency on the experimental values, a linear descriptive function is regarded as an intended result of the experiment and not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the model F(t) describing the temperature development is based on previous measurements (Zhang: Pg 4 Lns 23-25).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time is based on operational parameters.
Zhang teaches an EAF tapping temperature prediction model, which is known for taking operational parameters as inputs as well as measurements.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time is derived by a method comprising the steps (i) providing a set of data relating characteristics of a molten metal bath with recorded data for models F(t) for the development of the temperature of a molten metal bath with time; (ii) providing characteristics of the molten metal bath; (iii) receiving a model F(t) corresponding to the characteristics of the molten metal bath from the provided set of data relating characteristics of a molten metal bath with recorded data for models F(t) for the development of the temperature of a molten metal bath with time.
However, these steps are merely the products of data collection that may be performed through routine experimentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a model F(t) based on the data collected.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the duration of the time step Δt is derived by a method comprising the steps (i) providing a set of data relating operational parameters with durations for time steps Δt; (ii) providing operational parameters; (iii) receiving a duration for the time step Δt from the provided set of data relating to the operational parameters.
However, Zhang does teach that it is critical to tap the metal melt at a target tapping temperature. It is therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that during some parts of the melting process (for example, shortly before tapping), a more frequent monitoring of the actual temperature of the melt is recommended. In the claim language, this corresponds to an adjustment of Δt depending on the operating parameters, which is the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the choice of the duration of the time step Δt is based on the measured temperature value Tmes(n) of step (f).
However, as discussed above, regarding claim 7, Zhang is concerned with tapping the metal melt at a target tapping temperature. It follows that a measurement of the temperature would impact the interval of measurements to ensure an accurate measurement of when the tapping temperature is reached.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the duration of the time step based on the measured temperature value in light of Zhang.
Regarding claim 10: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the measurement profile MP further defines a step within a stationary time period within t1 to t2, during which the feeding of the leading tip of the optical cored wire is paused with or the leading tip of the optical cored wire is fed with a low speed. See segment 3 of the position vs time graph of Heraeus Figure 4.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the feeding in step (ii) of a measurement profile MP comprises at least two feeding velocities Vred1 and Vred2. See segments 4 and 5 of Heraeus Figure 4. The two different slopes indicate at least two feeding velocities.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the feeding velocity Vfed(n+1) of measurement profile MP(n+1) is higher than the feeding velocity Vfed(n) of measurement profile MP(n) (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two feeding velocities in segments 2 and 4 of the position vs time graph. The slope of segment 4 is steeper, indicating that the feeding velocity of MP(n+1) is greater than that of MP(n)).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for measurement profile MP(n+1) than for measurement profile MP(n) (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two time periods, line segments 2 and 4, corresponding to MP(n+1) and MP(n), of the position vs time graph. It may be seen that the duration of segment 2 is longer than that of segment 4, meaning that the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for MP(n+1) than for MP(n)).
Regarding claim 16: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 10 (see above), wherein the feeding in step (ii) of a measurement profile MP comprises at least two feeding velocities Vfed1 and Vfed2 (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two feeding velocities in segments 2 and 4 of the position vs time graph).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 10 (see above), wherein the feeding velocity Vfed(n+1)of measurement profile MP(n+1) is higher than the feeding velocity Vfed(n) of measurement profile MP(n) (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two feeding velocities in segments 2 and 4 of the position vs time graph. The slope of segment 4 is steeper, indicating that the feeding velocity of MP(n+1) is greater than that of MP(n)).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 10 (see above), wherein the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for measurement profile MP(n+1) than for measurement profile MP(n) (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two time periods, line segments 2 and 4, corresponding to MP(n+1) and MP(n), of the position vs time graph. It may be seen that the duration of segment 2 is longer than that of segment 4, meaning that the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for MP(n+1) than for MP(n)).
Regarding claim 19: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 (see above), wherein the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for measurement profile MP(n+1) than for measurement profile MP(n) (Heraeus: Fig. 4 teaches at least two time periods, line segments 2 and 4, corresponding to MP(n+1) and MP(n), of the position vs time graph. It may be seen that the duration of segment 2 is longer than that of segment 4, meaning that the duration of the time period from t1 to t2 is shorter for MP(n+1) than for MP(n)).
Regarding claim 20: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein step (iii) is at least partly performed during step (ii) (this is inherent because both of these steps take place during the time period t1 to t2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016026530 A1 (Zhang) in view of EP 2799824 A1 (Heraeus) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H10185698 (Toyota).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the molten metal is molten steel.
However, Toyota does teach that the molten metal may be iron or aluminum (Paragraph [0058]).
Applicant had not disclosed that a bath of molten steel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of being a common and easily meltable metal.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molten iron or aluminum of Toyota with molten steel. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected steel to be one of several straightforward ways of creating a molten metal bath because it is commonly available.
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 JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855