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 and/or arguments submitted on 06/29/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 3 are pending:
Claims 3 are new
Claims 2 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of record has been withdrawn.
The office notes applicant’s agreement, page 6-7, that each of “imaging device” and “gas supply device” invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112f.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Kubo (JP 2004-250724), Kanefuji (JP 09-318457), Gao (US 7,719,564) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 7-9, that the rejection of record of Kubo, Kanefuji, and Gao fail to disclose an inner tube outer diameter of 100 mm or less in combination with a gas flow rate of 50-250 liters per minute, due to Applicant assertion that the “technical synergy” between the two parameters is what “provides advantageous effects”. Applicant’s assertion hinges on the assertion that the combination must directly identify that the “synergy” between the parameters in order to teach the claimed feature. Applicant further asserts, page 9, that the combination is therefore a hindsight reconstruction.
The office respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertions would have been persuasive if the basis of rejection relied upon a simple design choice basis, however the inner tube outer diameter modification relies upon a routine optimization due within a taught range (see below for details), while the gas flow rate modification relies upon a taught result-effective variable optimization using the same variable and motivation as disclosed by applicant (see below for details). Applicant’s assertion that the rejection of record must directly identify the synergy between the two parameters has no basis, as the claim language does not explicitly require such an intertwined design method step. Further, the rejection of record does detail/provide the motivations for one of ordinary skill in the art for the applied modifications. Applicant has failed to provide any argument/evidence as to why/how the motivations of the rejection of record are improper, and therefore the rejection of record is maintained.
Regarding the inner tube outer diameter:
As indicated in the rejection of record; Kubo discloses the general furnace arrangement with a generic camera, Kanefuji teaches a more detailed camera for a furnace without dimensions that would be required to select in order to be practiced, and Gao teaches known in the art furnace camera pipe dimensions that are in a range that overlaps the claimed inner tube outer diameter range. As detailed in the rejection of record, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a known in the art diameter value in order to actually practice the disclosure of Kubo and Kanefuji.
Regarding the gas flow rate
As indicated in the rejection of record; The combination of Kubo, Kanefuji, and Gao are silent to a particular flow rate for the disclosed gas, and that Kanefuji teaches that the flowrate is a result-effective variable to protect the components that the gas flows over. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform a result-effective variable optimization on the flow rate, as this is the same variable and motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art as that disclosed by applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
“NL/min” is read as “liter per min” as defined in Para32
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“imaging device” first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Camera, as informed by Para27
Or equivalents
“gas supply device” first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Gas pipes or compressor, as informed by Para34-35
Or equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
L15, replace comma before “and” with semicolon to improve clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (JP 2004-250724) in view of Kanefuji (JP 09-318457), Gao (US 7,719,564).
Claim 1
Kubo discloses:
“A video-device-equipped electric furnace (best seen Fig1, furnace 1; Para136, camera) comprising:
a melting chamber (Fig1, melting chamber 2) configured to melt a cold iron source (Fig1, metal 14; Para91/94, cold iron source 14) by arc heat (Fig1, arc electrode 7) to obtain molten iron (Fig1, molten metal 15);
a preheating chamber (Fig1, preheating chamber 3) configured to preheat the cold iron source (metal 14) to be supplied to the melting chamber (melting chamber 2); and
a video device (Para136, “a camera that looks into the inside of the melting chamber obliquely from above”) configured to observe an inside of the melting chamber (Para136, “a camera that looks into the inside of the melting chamber obliquely from above”),
…
the video device (Para136, camera) is provided through a hole (Para136, camera “looks into the inside of the melting chamber” implicitly discloses a hole/aperture through which to look) in a furnace wall or a furnace lid defining the melting chamber (Para136, “a camera that looks into the inside of the melting chamber obliquely from above”; Fig1, furnace wall 4 and lid 5 are the possible arrangement locations for the camera so that it “looks into the inside of melting chamber … from above”) …”
Kubo is silent to the particular internal features of the disclosed video device, is silent to the particular dimensional location arrangement of the relay lens and imaging device as claimed, and is silent to the particularly claimed gas flow rate in the particularly claimed location.
Kanefuji teaches:
“…
wherein the video device (Para13/14; Fig1, camera 2) includes: a relay lens (lenses 21) made up of a plurality of lenses (Fig1 shows three lenses 21); an inner tube (annotated Fig1, inner wall of tube 22) containing the relay lens (lenses 21 contained within inner tube) and …; an outer tube (annotated Fig1, outer wall of tube 22) containing the inner tube (inner tube is radially within outer tube); and an imaging device (camera 2, light receiving portion 24) located at an axial end of the relay lens (camera 2, light receiving portion 24 are axially located relative to lenses 21) on a furnace outside (Para14, left side of cover 1 is outside furnace, right side of cover 1 is inside the melting furnace); and
… , and
wherein the video-device-equipped electric furnace comprises a gas supply device (Para14, an inner purge gas flow to cool and protect the arrangement from fumes adhering to the internal to the furnace tip of camera 2) configured to supply a gas (Para14, an inner purge gas flow to cool and protect the arrangement from fumes adhering to the internal to the furnace tip of camera 2) between the inner tube (annotated Fig1 below, inner wall of tube 22) and the outer tube (annotated Fig1 below, outer wall of tube 22) at a flow rate of …”
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kanefuji further teaches (Para14) that lens tube 22 has an outer water-cooling flow to thermally protect the arrangement, and an inner purge gas flow to cool and protect the arrangement from fumes adhering to the internal to the furnace tip of camera 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select camera to use in the arrangement of Kubo, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Kubo, and Kanefuji teaches the general arrangement of a known in the art camera for detecting within a melting furnace, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the melting furnace arrangement of Kubo with a working the general arrangement of a known in the art camera for detecting within a melting furnace.
The modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji is silent to the particular flow rate of the purge gas to be “at a flow rate of 50 NL/min or more and 250 NL/min or less.”
Kanefuji teaches (Para14) that the flow of the purge gas protects the arrangement from fumes adhering to the internal to the furnace tip of camera 2. Therefore, the flowrate of the purge gas is a result-effective variable where the flowrate of the purge gas determination is a result of the effects of needing a flowrate to produce the result of protecting the furnace tip end of the arrangement from fumes adhering on said tip.
According to MPEP 2144.05.II.B, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a result-effective variable optimization on the flowrate of the purge gas of the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji, as Kanefuji teaches that the flowrate of the purge gas is a result-effective variable where the flowrate of the purge gas determination is a result of the effects of needing a flowrate to produce the result of protecting the furnace tip end of the arrangement from fumes adhering on said tip, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing the flow rate of the purge gas to be within the range of 50-250 NL/min as both Applicant and Kubo have the same variable and motivation for the flowrate of the purge gas.
The modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji is silent to the particular dimensions of the taught the general arrangement of a known in the art camera for detecting within a melting furnace, and is silent to the particular dimensional location arrangement of the relay lens and imaging device as claimed.
Gao teaches (Fig1, video camera 19, within pipe 9; C2L6-22) that it is known to insert a camera arrangement through a wall of a furnace in order to view the inner workings of the furnace. Gao suggests (C5L40-3) an overall pipe diameter in the range of 60-200mm, a length of 200-3000mm, and a sight hole 21 with a diameter in the range of 3-15 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform routine optimization on the dimensions of camera as taught by Kanefuji for the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a dimensional determination in order to practice the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji, and Gao teaches an overall pipe diameter in the range of 60-200mm, a length of 200-3000mm, and a sight hole 21 with a diameter in the range of 3-15 mm, as known possible dimensions for a furnace camera insert tube arrangement, and the resulting arrangement after routine optimization has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji with an inner tube having an outer diameter of 100 mm or less as the routine optimization is within the bounds of an outer tube diameter of 60-200mm and the inner tube is implicitly smaller in diameter than the outer tube, and locating the imaging device 300 mm or more away from the hot surface of the furnace as the routine optimization is within the bounds the overall length of the camera insert being in the range of 200-3000mm.
The modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao is silent to “the relay lens is located 300 mm or more and 3500 mm or less away from a highest molten iron interface in a vertically upward direction”.
Kubo teaches (Para136) that the camera is arranged such that the location from which the camera looks within the melting chamber is vertically positioned above the molten metal 15 in such a location as to be able to withstand the temperature load within the melting chamber while properly imaging the melting chamber. Therefore, the location of the camera hole is a result-effective variable where the location determination is a result of the effects of melting chamber temperature while maintaining proper imaging.
Para136 Quote: “The second embodiment of the metal level detection device is a metal level detection device including a camera that looks into the inside of the melting chamber obliquely from above and an image processing device that performs image processing on the camera image. Since the filled metal is preheated, the temperature is high, and the preheat chamber is cooled, so the temperature is low. Therefore, boundaries having different temperatures can be determined by image processing. The level of the filled metal can be detected from the obtained boundary position.”
According to MPEP 2144.05.II.B, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a result-effective variable optimization on the positioning of the camera hole location of the camera disclosed by Kubo of the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao, as Kubo teaches that the location of the camera hole is a result-effective variable where the location determination is a result of the effects of melting chamber temperature while maintaining proper imaging, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing the camera hole location of the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao to be within the claimed range of 300-3500mm vertically away from the molten metal, as both Applicant and Kubo have the same variable and motivation for the location of the camera hole.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (JP 2004-250724) in view of Kanefuji (JP 09-318457), Gao (US 7,719,564), and in further view of Guillard (US 5,538,534)
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao, discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao is silent to any particular humidity treatment of the camera cooling air flow.
Guillard teaches (Fig1, compressor 19, drying group 20; C2L57-C3L13) that it is known in the art to use “ ‘instrument air’ for the protection or shielding of control and monitoring equipment associated with these devices, for example temperature probes or television cameras.”, which is performed by drying 20 the air provided 19. The use of dried “instrument air” provides the advantage of protecting the temperature cameras used in the context of a furnace.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao to add a cooling air dryer in order to use “instrument air” as taught by Guillard for the camera of modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao, and Guillard teaches that the application of dry “instrument air” provides the advantage of improved protection of a furnace temperature camera, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kubo by the teachings of Kanefuji and Gao with a known and working improved protection for the camera due to using dry instrument air as taught by Guillard.
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights