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, 3-6, 8, 10, 12 are pending:
Claims 2, 7, 9, 11 are canceled
Response to Arguments
The office confirms applicant’s discussion, page 6-7, regarding the IDS dated 12/25/2025. The updated annotated version has been included in this office action.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112f interpretation have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 7, that “imaging device” does not invoke 112f as “the claims recite sufficient structure”.
The office respectfully disagrees. While claim 1 does recite structure, none of the recited structure is tied to the perform the function of the limitation “imaging device”. In particular, the office notes that the recitation of “a lens” is not tied to the “imaging device” due to the claim construction.
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 The claim objections of record has been withdrawn.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 Mueller (WO 2011/012506), Kanefuji (JP 09-318457), and Hagihara (US 2020/0165692) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 8, the combination of Mueller and Kanefuji breaks the operation of Mueller, as the relocation of a sensitive imaging device would be inoperable, since Kanefuji fails to explicitly disclose integration into a central core of an active burner.
The office respectfully disagrees. Kanefuji teaches (abstract) that it is known to use their infrared camera “to measure the temperature of a high-temperature object continuously”. Mueller discloses the use of an infrared sensing device 10 that is located outside of the central core, as best seen by Fig2 where infrared sensing device 10 is offset by optical waveguide 9 away from the inside of the furnace 1 wall. Mueller also does not require a particular infrared sensor, see Mueller SpecQuote below, and is explicitly open to modification such as was detailed in the rejection of record.
Mueller SpecQuote: “Other suitable infrared radiation detectors 10 with corresponding measurement accuracy can also be used.”
Applicant asserts, page 8-10, that the combination of Mueller, Kanefuji, and Hagihara fails to disclose limitations of claim 1 cited as (i) and (ii), as the pipe ordering of Hagihara “is the exact opposite of the claimed arrangement”, and that the office “has not provided any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would completely invert the structural pipe arrangement of Hagihara”.
The office respectfully disagrees, and notes that applicant’s assertion is not commensurate in scope to the basis of the rejection of record. The rejection of record does not rely upon Hagihara to teach the order of the flows for the pipe – the rejection of record relies upon the schematically disclosed order as disclosed by Mueller and as mapped in the rejection of record. The rejection of record merely relies upon Hagihara to teach that coaxial pipe arrangements, as opposed to parallel pipe arrangement or another pipe arrangement, is known in the art and would be a reasonable selection for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the schematic disclosure of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji. Therefore, the rejection of record did not “invert the structural pipe arrangement of Hagihara”, but rather just used the teaching of Hagihara that increasing diameter coaxial pipes around a central pipe is a known piping arrangement in general.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2026 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 informed by Para25
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 Para23
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 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, 3-6, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (WO 2011/012506) in view of Kanefuji (JP 09-318457) and Hagihara (US 2020/0165692)
Claim 1
Mueller discloses:
“A burner (best seen Fig1-4, burner 3) with an … device (best seen Fig1/2, infrared radiation detector 10, optical waveguide 9), the burner burning gaseous fuel (Para3 of Description: gaseous natural gas fuel; Fig1 Spec discussion “By means of a fuel supply device 5, the burner 3 organic fuel, here preferably natural gas supplied.”) to form a flame (best seen Fig2, flame 3a), the burner comprising:
a lens (Fig1, lens in channel K; Spec Quote “From the channel K, the infrared radiation reaches a bundling device 8, for example a lens system which concentrates the infrared radiation and - As in the present embodiment - coupled into an optical waveguide 9.”);
the … device (best seen Fig1/2, infrared radiation detector 10 at end of optical waveguide 9) disposed behind the lens (Fig1, lens in channel K which is in front of optical waveguide 9), where a side of the lens toward an object to be imaged is defined as forward (merely a naming convention, same naming convention may be applied to Mueller arrangement) and an opposite side of the lens from the object to be imaged along an optical axis of the lens is defined as backward (merely a naming convention, same naming convention may be applied to Mueller arrangement); and
a multiple pipe structure comprising:
an inner pipe that surrounds the lens (best seen Fig1, central channel K has lens and is located radially central to the burner 3 surrounded by inflows 4/5/6/7 as schematically shown; Fig3/4 also shows detector 10 to be arranged radially central to burner 3);
…;
a gaseous fuel pipe (Fig1/3/4, fuel supply 5, gaseous natural gas fuel) disposed radially outward of the … pipe (Fig1/3/4, fuel supply 5 shown schematically to be radially outward of central channel K and radially inwards of gas supply 6) and operable to inject the gaseous fuel in a direction forward of the lens (Fig1/3/4, supply 5/6 schematically shown to inject gas in the forward direction due to the location of the resulting flame 3a);
a combustion-supporting gas pipe (Fig1/3/4, gas supply 6 provides oxygen; Spec Quote “The fuel is combusted together with fuel gas, here in the form of oxygen, which is supplied by means of the fuel gas supply means 6.”) disposed radially outward of the … pipe (Fig1/3/4, gas supply 6 shown schematically to be radially outward of central channel K of fuel supply 5) and operable to inject combustion-supporting gas in the direction forward of the lens (Fig1/3/4, supply 5/6 schematically shown to inject gas in the forward direction due to the location of the resulting flame 3a); and
a cooling pipe (Fig1, cooling water pipe 7 shown schematically; Spec Quote: “Furthermore, the burner 3 has a cooling device 7 for supplying coolant, in particular water. By means of the coolant, the burner 3 is protected from overheating.”) disposed outermost in the multiple pipe structure that surrounds the gaseous fuel pipe and the combustion-supporting gas pipe (Fig3/4, schematically show the radial location of supply pipes 4/5/6 in respectively increasing radial position; Fig1, schematically shows water coolant supply 7 inline with pipes 4/5/6; Further, per spec quote above, the cooling device 7 is applied to burner 3 itself as a unit thus Fig1 schematically shows cooling device 7 to be surrounding the pipe arrangement shown in Fig3/4),
…”
Mueller is silent to the sensing device being an “imaging” device, and is silent to the application of a lens coolant passage just radially outward of the inner lens pipe, as claimed.
Mueller is further silent to the particular structural arrangement of the inner pipe, the outer pipe, the gaseous fuel pipe, the combustion-supporting gas pipe, and the cooling pipe, including the corresponding diameter sizes, due to the schematic nature of the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Mueller.
Kanefuji teaches (Para13/14; Fig1) that a camera 2 has lenses 21 that are within an inner tube, an outer tube 22 surrounds the inner tube, and that within outer tube 22 there is a water-cooling flow to thermally protect the inner tube and lens arrangement. Kanefuji further teaches (Abstract) that the camera arrangement of Kanefuji is designed to be used in/with the temperature environment of a furnace to image molten slag.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the inner sensor channel K of the burner of Mueller with the camera lens arrangement of Kanefuji, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art furnace sensor for another known in the art furnace sensor, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the burner arrangement of Mueller with a working and known in the art camera sensor as taught by Kanefuji.
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji discloses:
“…wherein the gaseous fuel pipe (Mueller: fuel supply 5) is …, surrounds the outer pipe (limitation is within the bounds of the combination discussed above. Fuel supply 5 is radially outwards of lens coolant tube 22), and is separated from the outer pipe by a gaseous fuel passage (outer wall of fuel supply 5 is separated from lens coolant tube 22 by the flow passage within fuel supply 5 itself),
the combustion-supporting gas pipe …, surrounds the gaseous fuel pipe (limitation is within the bounds of the combination discussed above. Gas supply 6 is radially outwards of fuel supply 5), and is separated from the gaseous fuel pipe by a combustion-supporting gas passage (outer wall of gas supply 6 is separated from fuel supply 5 by the flow passage within gas supply 6 itself),
the cooling pipe …, surrounds the combustion-supporting gas pipe (limitation is within the bounds of the combination discussed above. Cooling water pipe 7 is radially outwards of gas supply 6), and is separated from the combustion-supporting gas pipe by a burner body coolant passage (outer wall of cooling water pipe 7 is separated from gas supply 6 by the flow passage within cooling water pipe 7 itself), and
the inner pipe (inner lens tube), the outer pipe (outer lens coolant tube 22), … are arranged coaxially.
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji is silent to the “the inner pipe, the outer pipe, the gaseous fuel pipe, the combustion-supporting gas pipe, and the cooling pipe are arranged coaxially” and the corresponding diameter sizes, due to the schematic nature of the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji. However, the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji do disclose that the inner pipe and the outer pipe are coaxial, as best seen in Fig1 of Kanefuji.
Hagihara teaches (Fig5, cross-section view of burner 5) that it is known to arrange fuel supply pipe 19, oxidant gas supply pipe 20, and water cooling jacket 21 in an increasing diameter coaxial arrangement, all surrounding a central pipe 18.
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 a particular form for the schematically shown pipes of Mueller of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the disclosure of modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, and Hagihara teaches that it is known to arrange a fuel supply pipe 19, a oxidant gas supply pipe 20, and a water cooling jacket 21 in an increasing diameter coaxial arrangement, all surrounding a central pipe 18, as a possible known in the art piping arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji with a working known in the art coaxial piping arrangement as taught by Hagihara to replace the relative schematic arrangement of Mueller of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji.
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara discloses: “The burner with the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein openings of pipes (Hagihara: openings at left side of view of Fig5 facing flame as best seen in Fig6) in a pipe axial direction (Hagihara Fig5, ‘forward’/axial-left direction) are disposed in order of the inner pipe (inner lens tube, corresponding to within pipe 18 location of Hagihara), the outer pipe (outer lens coolant tube 22, corresponding to within pipe 18 location of Hagihara), and the gaseous fuel pipe (fuel supply 5, corresponding to pipe 19 location of Hagihara) along the direction forward of the lens (Hagihara: best seen Fig5, each of pipes 18/19 have the same axial location along the ‘forward’/axial-left direction, and therefore may be considered to have any combinations of axial order due to their mutual axial location. The instant limitation is not constructed in such a way as to require different axial locations, just that the openings of the referenced pipes be disposed in an axial order.).”
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara discloses: “An electric furnace (Mueller: Fig1/2, arc furnace 1) provided with the burner with the imaging device according to claim 3 (see claim 3), the electric furnace being operable to melt a …source to produce molten … (Mueller: Fig1/2, burner 3 melts material 2; Spec Quote: “FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show schematic side views of the burner 3 from FIG. 1 in burner operation, the flame 3a forming on the burner 3 being directed in the direction of the charging material 2 to be melted.”).”
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara is silent to the particular material 2 (of Mueller) to be melted beyond a generic “scrap metal”.
Hagihara teaches (Fig1, burner 5 cold iron source, molten metal; Abstract) that it is known to use cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron.
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 a particular metal to melt in the furnace of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the disclosure of modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara, and Hagihara teaches that it is known to select cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara with a working known in the art material selection of cold iron as taught by Hagihara to use as the input scrap metal for the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara discloses: “A method of producing molten … by melting a … source (Mueller: Fig1/2, burner 3 melts material 2; Spec Quote: “FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show schematic side views of the burner 3 from FIG. 1 in burner operation, the flame 3a forming on the burner 3 being directed in the direction of the charging material 2 to be melted.”) using an electric furnace (Mueller: Fig1/2, arc furnace 1) provided with the burner with the imaging device as recited in claim 3 (see claim 3), wherein operating conditions of the burner are controlled based on visual information obtained from the burner (Mueller: Abstract/Fig1/2/SpecQuoteBelow, control of the furnace burners 3/14/15/16 is based on a control signal 12a sent from control device 13 to based on the outputs of the burners via the sensor 10).”
Mueller Spec Quote: “FIG 2 shows a schematic plan view of an electric arc furnace 1, through the furnace wall Ib a plurality of burners 3, 14, 15, 16 are guided. An infrared radiation detector 10 is associated with the burners 3, 14, 15, 16, each burner 3, 14, 15, 16 being connected to the infrared radiation detector 10 via an optical waveguide 9. In this case, the infrared radiation detector 10 is set up here to distinguish between the signals coming from the different burners 3, 14, 15, 16. At the burners 3, 14, 15, 16 bundling devices, not shown in FIG 2 (see FIG 1) are arranged, which bundles the coming of the oven chamber Ia, in the respective burner 3, 14, 15, 16 incoming temperature radiation and in the optical waveguide. 9 couples. The control device 13 is here set up to dynamically control the unit comprising at least the burners 3, 14, 15, 16 via a control intervention (see arrow 12a) and furthermore to supply and / or position the electrodes 18 of the arc furnace 1 by means of a control intervention regulate or change (see arrows 12b).”
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara is silent to the particular material 2 (of Mueller) to be melted beyond a generic “scrap metal”.
Hagihara teaches (Fig1, burner 5 cold iron source, molten metal; Abstract) that it is known to use cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron.
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 a particular metal to melt in the furnace of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the disclosure of modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara, and Hagihara teaches that it is known to select cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara with a working known in the art material selection of cold iron as taught by Hagihara to use as the input scrap metal for the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara.
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara discloses: “The method of producing molten iron according to claim 10, wherein when the visual information (Kanefuji: camera 2) obtained from the burner (Mueller: burner 3/14/15/16 as modified above) confirms presence of an adhering material on a front surface of the lens (camera image implicitly shows if the camera view is or is not blocked), the combustion-supporting gas is injected from the combustion-supporting gas pipe or the combustion-supporting gas is injected from the combustion-supporting gas pipe and the gaseous fuel is injected from the gaseous fuel pipe, in order to remove the adhering material from the lens (Mueller: Claim 2/SpecQuote, burner applies a protective flame to clean the front burner face in response to sensor output. Application of the camera output is within the scope of the combination as discussed in Claim 1).”
Mueller Spec Quote: “Preferably, a profile of the at least one first temperature is evaluated. When a lower or upper limit value for the flame length d is reached, the at least one burner is switched off or, alternatively, a reduction of at least one fuel supply to the at least one burner takes place to form a protective flame.”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji discloses: “An electric furnace (Mueller: Fig1/2, arc furnace 1) provided with the burner with the imaging device as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1), the electric furnace being operable to melt a … source to produce molten … (Mueller: Fig1/2, burner 3 melts material 2; Spec Quote: “FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show schematic side views of the burner 3 from FIG. 1 in burner operation, the flame 3a forming on the burner 3 being directed in the direction of the charging material 2 to be melted.”).”
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji is silent to the particular material 2 (of Mueller) to be melted beyond a generic “scrap metal”.
Hagihara teaches (Fig1, burner 5 cold iron source, molten metal; Abstract) that it is known to use cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron.
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 a particular metal to melt in the furnace of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the disclosure of modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, and Hagihara teaches that it is known to select cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji with a working known in the art material selection of cold iron as taught by Hagihara to use as the input scrap metal for the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji.
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji discloses: “A method of producing molten … by melting a … source (Mueller: Fig1/2, burner 3 melts material 2; Spec Quote: “FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show schematic side views of the burner 3 from FIG. 1 in burner operation, the flame 3a forming on the burner 3 being directed in the direction of the charging material 2 to be melted.”) using an electric furnace (Mueller: Fig1/2, arc furnace 1) provided with the burner with the imaging device as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein operating conditions of the burner are controlled based on visual information obtained from the burner (Mueller: Abstract/Fig1/2/SpecQuoteBelow, control of the furnace burners 3/14/15/16 is based on a control signal 12a sent from control device 13 to based on the outputs of the burners via the sensor 10).”
Mueller Spec Quote: “FIG 2 shows a schematic plan view of an electric arc furnace 1, through the furnace wall Ib a plurality of burners 3, 14, 15, 16 are guided. An infrared radiation detector 10 is associated with the burners 3, 14, 15, 16, each burner 3, 14, 15, 16 being connected to the infrared radiation detector 10 via an optical waveguide 9. In this case, the infrared radiation detector 10 is set up here to distinguish between the signals coming from the different burners 3, 14, 15, 16. At the burners 3, 14, 15, 16 bundling devices, not shown in FIG 2 (see FIG 1) are arranged, which bundles the coming of the oven chamber Ia, in the respective burner 3, 14, 15, 16 incoming temperature radiation and in the optical waveguide. 9 couples. The control device 13 is here set up to dynamically control the unit comprising at least the burners 3, 14, 15, 16 via a control intervention (see arrow 12a) and furthermore to supply and / or position the electrodes 18 of the arc furnace 1 by means of a control intervention regulate or change (see arrows 12b).”
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji is silent to the particular material 2 (of Mueller) to be melted beyond a generic “scrap metal”.
Hagihara teaches (Fig1, burner 5 cold iron source, molten metal; Abstract) that it is known to use cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron.
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 a particular metal to melt in the furnace of the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the disclosure of modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji, and Hagihara teaches that it is known to select cold iron as the source metal in a furnace to result in melted cold iron, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji with a working known in the art material selection of cold iron as taught by Hagihara to use as the input scrap metal for the modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji.
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Mueller by the teachings of Kanefuji and Hagihara and Hagihara as applied in Claim 5 discloses: “The method of producing molten iron according to claim 5, wherein when the visual information (Kanefuji: camera 2) obtained from the burner (Mueller: burner 3/14/15/16 as modified above) confirms presence of an adhering material on a front surface of the lens (camera image implicitly shows if the camera view is or is not blocked), the combustion-supporting gas is injected from the combustion-supporting gas pipe or the combustion-supporting gas is injected from the combustion-supporting gas pipe and the gaseous fuel is injected from the gaseous fuel pipe, in order to remove the adhering material from the lens (Mueller: Claim 2/SpecQuote, burner applies a protective flame to clean the front burner face in response to sensor output. Application of the camera output is within the scope of the combination as discussed in Claim 1).”
Mueller Spec Quote: “Preferably, a profile of the at least one first temperature is evaluated. When a lower or upper limit value for the flame length d is reached, the at least one burner is switched off or, alternatively, a reduction of at least one fuel supply to the at least one burner takes place to form a protective flame.”
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