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) 1-11 and 13-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the non-contact methods of Zhang have been fully considered and are considered persuasive. However, as Applicant acknowledges on Page 8 of the Remarks received 18 December 2025, secondary reference Heraeus does teach direct contact methods. Therefore, an amended rejection may be found below. The combination of references argument is addressed below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 'tapping time' of Zhang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhang's calculations are not applied to a future temperature measurement, but to a tapping time. While Zhang does teach non-contact temperature measurement methods, the tapping time is related to the predicted tapping temperature, i.e., a future temperature measurement. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. A modified rejection may be found below for the related claims, addressing the amendments filed 18 December 2025.
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) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016026530 A1 (Zhang) in view of EP 2799824 B1 (Heraeus).
Regarding claims 1 and 15: 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 with a device comprising an optical cored wire and a detector, the method comprising: (a) supplying a model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time (Page 8, lines 7-9); (b) defining a critical temperature value Tcri (tapping temperature represented in Fig. 3); (c) measuring a measured temperature value Tmes(n) of the molten metal bath at a point in time t(n) (see for example the last but one round shaped measurement point on Fig. 3); (d) determining a fitted heating rate Rheat(n) based on the model F(t), the critical temperature value Tcri and the measured temperature value Tmes(n), wherein Rheat(n) is defined as: Rheat(n) =ΔTheat(n) / Δt (the heating rate at time t(n) is known from the power supplied to the electrode and/or from the model, since it appears to be the slope of the tangent to the curve F(t) at time t(n)); (e) calculating a point in time tcal(n+1) based on the temperature difference AT(n) between the critical temperature value Tcri and the measured temperature value Tmes(n) and the fitted heating rate Rheat(n), wherein: ΔT(n) = Tcri – Tmes(n); and, tcal(n+1) = t(n) + (ΔT(n) / Rheat(n)) (Page 8, lines 7-18 and 26-28; a tapping time (the time to reach a pre-defined tapping temperature) is predicted based on the latest temperature measurement, and necessarily on the applied heating rate and the desired tapping temperature too. The equation defining tcal(n+1) appears to correspond to nothing more than the trivial definition of a heating rate: when a certain quantity of heat is applied to s ample in order to obtain a certain amount of temperature change, it takes a certain amount of time); and (f) measuring a measured temperature value Tmes(n+1) of the molten metal bath at the point in time tcal(n+1) (see the last round shaped measurement point in Fig. 3).
Zhang does not directly teach that a leading tip of the optical cored wire is immersed under the surface of the molten metal bath at a point in time a temperature of the molten metal bath is obtained.
However, Heraeus teaches the steps of providing an optical cored wire above a molten metal bath, feeding the leading tip down and into the molten metal bath, measuring a temperature, and retracting wire back to a position above the molten metal bath. See Paragraph [0058] and Figure 4.
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.
Claim 15 claims a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis. Claim 15 additionally claims a storage unit, a processing unit, and a controlling unit. Zhang teaches a processing unit 44 and temperature control unit 50 to fulfill the same functions.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the method comprises:(g) determining a fitted heating rate Rheat(n+ 1) based on the model F(t), the critical temperature value Tcri and the measured temperature value Tmes(n+1), wherein Rheat(n+ 1) is defined as: Rheat(n+ 1)= ΔTheat(n) (n+1) / Δt; (h) calculating a point in time tcal(n+2) based on the temperature difference ΔT(n) between the critical temperature value Tcri, and the measured temperature value Tmes(n) and the fitted heating rate Rheat(n), wherein: ΔT(n+1) = Tcri - Tmes(n+1); and tcal(n+2) = t(n+1) + (ΔT(n+1) / Rheat(n+1)); and,(i) measuring a measured temperature value Tmes(n+2) of the molten metal bath at the point in time tcal(n+2).
The teaching of performing iterative temperature measurements and adjusting the tapping time prediction is known from Zhang (Page 8, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 2 (see above), but does not directly teach that the fitted heating rate Rheat(n+ 1) is higher than the fitted heating rate Rheat(n).
However, as these values are calculated based on measurement values, this is an intended outcome of the claimed method, and is therefore not given patentable weight.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find that the relation between two calculated variables is an inherent element resulting from the claimed equations.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the model F(t) describes the maximum temperatures for the development of the temperature of the molten metal bath with time.
If F(t) is “describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time” (see claim 1), then it necessarily “describes the maximum temperatures for the development of the temperature of the molten metal bath with time”.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the first derivative of the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time is a linear function (Zhang: Page 1, lines 26-28; this is well known in the field, since the current and power input in a EAF system is usually maintained approximately constant).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Zhang teaches the method according claim 1 (see above), wherein the model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time is based on previous measurements.
Page 8 lines 26-28 of Zhang teach that the temperature profile is continuously adjusted based on measured temperatures, which requires that this model is based on previous measurements.
Regarding claim 7: 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 melt temperature prediction model, which is known for taking operational parameters as inputs as well as measurements.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the fitted heating rate Rheat(n) is determined based on a linear fit of the model F(t).
However, it does teach that the heating rate at time t(n) is known from the power supplied to the electrode and/or from the model, since it appears to be the slope of the tangent to the curve F(t) at time t(n).
Applicant has not disclosed that a linear model fit provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of fitting a mathematical model.
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 slope of a tangent curve of Zhang with a linear fit.
Regarding claim 9: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the fitted heating rate Rheat(n) is determined based on the first derivatives of the model F(t) for the point in time tcri and the point in time t(n).
However, it does teach that the heating rate at time t(n) is known from the power supplied to the electrode and/or from the model, since it appears to be the slope of the tangent to the curve F(t) at time t(n).
Applicant has not disclosed that a first derivative fit provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of fitting a mathematical model.
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 slope of a tangent curve of Zhang with a first derivative fit.
Regarding claim 10: 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 of:(i) providing a set of data relating characteristics of a molten metal bath with recorded data for the development of the temperature of a molten metal bath with time; (ii) providing characteristics of the molten metal bath; and, (iii) receiving a model F(t) describing the temperature development of the molten metal bath with time from the provided set of data relating characteristics of the molten metal bath corresponding to the provided characteristics of the molten metal bath.
However, Zhang does teach the existence and use of a model F(t) (see claim 1) and that it is based on both previous measurements and operational parameters (see claims 6 and 7: while this claim does not depend on either claim 6 or 7, the arguments (excluded for brevity) are useful in establishing the understanding of the model taught by Zhang).
A model used and updated in this way would necessarily be derived from data relating characteristics of a molten metal bath with recorded temperature data, as it is an inherent nature of the function as claimed previously and as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein a measured temperature value Tmes is determined by the application of a measurement profile MP, the measurement profile MP comprising at least one of the following steps to obtain the temperature of the molten metal bath:(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 tl to t2; and (iv) retracting the optical cored wire with a velocity vret to a position above the molten metal bath.
Zhang teaches calculations to obtain a temperature prediction based on measured temperatures. See Page 8, Lines 7-10. Heraeus teaches the steps of providing an optical cored wire above a molten metal bath, feeding the leading tip down and into the molten metal bath, measuring a temperature, and retracting wire back to a position above the molten metal bath. See Paragraph [0058] and Figure 4.
Regarding claim 13: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 (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 (Heraeus: Fig. 4: see phase 3, where the position over time plateaus).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 10 (see above), but does not directly teach that the feeding of step (ii) is defined by at least two feeding velocities vfed1 and vfed2.
However, Heraeus teaches at least two feeding velocities. See phases 2 and 4 in Figure 4. These are two portions of the position vs time graph with differing slopes, indicating two different feeding velocities.
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 feeding step of Zhang with the feeding velocities of Heraeus. This is because they are both measuring the temperature of a molten metal bath. This is important in order to obtain an accurate measurement from within the molten metal bath.
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