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 .
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamoto (JP-6624212-B2, of record) in view of Mandal et al. (Steady-state thermal and material balance model for Blast furnace, Transactions of Indian Institute of Metals, 2013, vol. 67, pg. 209-221, see attached NPL document).
Regarding claim 6, Shimamoto discloses a supply heat estimation or prediction method for estimating/predicting an amount of heat supplied to pig iron in a blast furnace from an amount of heat supplied into the blast furnace and a rate of production of molten pig iron in the blast furnace (fig. 2 flowchart), the supply heat estimation/prediction method comprising: estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by an in-furnace passing gas and a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas (step S1- operating conditions heat data, [0020])- see excerpt below:
In the process of step S1, the calorie calculating unit 51 uses the actual values of the operating conditions of the blast furnace system A input to the operational results database 4 to determine the hot metal temperature. Of combustion heat, solution reaction heat, furnace gas sensible heat, blast moisture decomposition heat, furnace body dissipated heat, pulverized coal combustion heat, pulverized coal decomposition heat, slag sensible heat, charged raw material sensible heat, and hot metal sensible heat Is calculated. These amounts of heat correspond to the operating conditions according to the present invention. Thereby, the process of step S1 is completed, and the blast furnace heat prediction process proceeds to the process of step S2
Then, in the process step S7, the furnace heat prediction unit 57 uses input variables and model to predict the change in molten/pig iron heat/temperature [0038]- see excerpt below:
In the process at step S7, the furnace heat prediction unit 57, by substituting the input variable requirements point to regression model created by the processing in step S6, the time variation of molten iron temperature in the request point Predict. Note that the feature of the blast furnace heat prediction processing in this embodiment is to use a time change data set, and thus the prediction method is not limited to the method using the regression equation model, and the time change of each past heat quantity is not limited. Any method may be used as long as the method predicts the amount of change in the hot metal temperature over time based on the similarity between the amount and the amount of change in the amount of heat at the prediction timing. Thereby, the process of step S7 is completed, and a series of the blast furnace heat prediction process ends.
Shimamoto is silent with respect to calculating the carried-out sensible heat by multiplying a temperature difference with the specific heat of the passing gas. However, such feature is known in the art. Analogous to Shimamoto, Mandal is also directed to thermal and material balance model for a blast furnace (abstract). Mandal teaches estimation model based on heat balance including various heat quantities such as sensible heat of hot blast gas, sensible heat of the coke present in the furnace, as well as sensible heat of carried-out product gas (pg. 214- Heat balance, table 2). Specifically, Mandal discloses that equation for calculating the sensible heat of carried-out product gas includes multiplying a temperature difference between theoretical combustion temperature Tt (known as RAFT temp.- pg. 210) and a reference temperature by the specific heat of the passing gas (hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide)- see equation no. 31 and temperature integral in Table 2. Mandal further discloses that material and thermal balance equations are used to develop computer program and the algorithm used to solve the equations to predict output parameters including amount of slag, fuel rate, top gas amount & composition, blast rate with one ton pig iron as the basis (fig. 2; table 5; pg. 215- Results and discussion). The results are also presented in the form of a Sankey diagram to represent entire input & output heat flows in the furnace, which can assist to identify possible areas of improvement for heat demand and increasing overall thermal efficiency of the process (figs. 12-14; pg. 220- left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to estimate the carried-out sensible heat by calculating recited temperature multiplication/integration in the prediction method of Shimamoto since this calculation is part of heat balance equations with a motivation to improve heat demand accuracy, thereby increasing overall thermal efficiency of the process, as suggested by Mandal.
Regarding claim 8, Shimamoto discloses a supply heat estimation or prediction device 5 (fig. 1- computer, [0017]) for estimating an amount of heat supplied to pig iron in a blast furnace from an amount of heat supplied into the blast furnace and a rate of production of molten pig iron in the blast furnace (fig. 2), the supply heat estimating device 5 (computer) comprising: a processor and calculating units 51-57 (fig. 1) for estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by an in-furnace passing gas and a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas (process steps S1 thru S7- see excerpts cited above).
Shimamoto is silent with respect to calculating the carried-out sensible heat by multiplying a temperature difference with the specific heat of the passing gas. However, such feature is known in the art. Analogous to Shimamoto, Mandal is also directed to thermal and material balance model for a blast furnace (abstract). Mandal teaches estimation model based on heat balance including various heat quantities such as sensible heat of hot blast gas, sensible heat of the coke present in the furnace, as well as sensible heat of carried-out product gas (pg. 214- Heat balance, table 2). Specifically, Mandal discloses that equation for calculating the sensible heat of carried-out product gas includes multiplying a temperature difference between theoretical combustion temperature Tt (known as RAFT temp.- pg. 210) and a reference temperature by the specific heat of the passing gas (hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide)- see equation no. 31 and temperature integral in Table 2. Mandal further discloses that material and thermal balance equations are used to develop computer program and the algorithm used to solve the equations to predict output parameters including amount of slag, fuel rate, top gas amount & composition, blast rate with one ton pig iron as the basis (fig. 2; table 5; pg. 215- Results and discussion). The results are also presented in the form of a Sankey diagram to represent entire input & output heat flows in the furnace, which can assist to identify possible areas of improvement for heat demand and increasing overall thermal efficiency of the process (figs. 12-14; pg. 220- left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to estimate the carried-out sensible heat by calculating recited temperature multiplication/integration in the prediction method of Shimamoto since this calculation is part of heat balance equations with a motivation to improve heat demand accuracy, thereby increasing overall thermal efficiency of the process, as suggested by Mandal. Accordingly, the supply heat amount heat estimating device in the combination of Shimamoto & Mandal comprises a computer program (CFD model) and a processor well configured to carry out the recited sensible heat changes calculations.
As to claim 10, Shimamoto as modified by Mandal discloses blast furnace operating method (fig. 2- process flowchart control cycle) comprising controlling an amount of heat supplied into a blast furnace on a basis of an amount of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace estimated by the prediction method according to claim 6 (rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein).
Claims 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamoto in view of Mandal as applied to claim 6 & 8 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (“Deadman Behavior in the Blast Furnace Hearth”, NPL filed 11/12/25, MDPI Journal, Oct. 2020) & Huang et al. (“Numerical Investigation on Hot Metal Flow in Blast Furnace through CFD”, ISIJ International, 2008, see attached NPL).
As to claims 7 and 9, Shimamoto does not mention calculating amount of heat held in deadman coke present in the blast furnace in the prediction method. However, such consideration is known in the art. Shao is directed to studying the effect of deadman in the blast furnace hearth (See Title and abstract). Shao discloses investigating the dynamic behavior of the deadman by mathematical models (pg. 4); in exemplary modeling of the deadman state, a deadman profile is calculated based on quantities of hearth liquid and average deadman porosity (pgs. 5-6, fig. 6). Shao teaches that dynamics of deadman coke and its influence of hot metal flow have known to be evaluated (pg. 14- Shibata citation no. 11); CFD model considers heat transfer and the influences of deadman properties on distribution of temperature in the hearth (pg. 8, fig. 8) - this encompasses calculating heat held in deadman coke. Similarly, Huang (also drawn to Blast furnace investigation through CFD modeling) teaches that hot metal flow and heat transfer to liquid iron in the hearth are strongly influenced by the structure of the deadman; using model experiments and numerical calculations (CFD), it has been proven that the size of the deadman coke and volume of the coke strongly influenced the gas and liquid flow in the furnace (pg. 1182- Introduction- right column); CFD model includes calculating heat held in deadman coke. The governing equations and numeral method consider the heat held in deadman coke (pg. 1183- section 3- governing equations). Huang further describes details concerning the effect of deadman types on the hot metal flow and heat transfer (section 5.3- pg. 1185 thru 1186, figs. 6-8).
Given teachings of Shao & Huang, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate utilizing comprehensive CFD modeling, which accounts for the heat held in the deadman coke, in order to improve the heat transfer mechanism in the blast furnace. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to estimate amount of heat held in deadman coke in the prediction method of Shimamoto & Mandal with the motivation to improve heat prediction accuracy through CFD modeling of heat transfer, as suggested by Shao & Huang.
As to claim 11, Shimamoto as modified by Mandal, Shao & Huang above discloses blast furnace operating method (Shimamoto- fig. 2- process flowchart control cycle) comprising controlling an amount of heat supplied into a blast furnace on a basis of an amount of heat supplied to pig iron estimated by the prediction method according to claim 7 (rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated herein).
Regarding claims 10-11, examiner also notes that both Shimamoto and Mandal teaches a blast furnace operation method comprising controlling heat supplied into the furnace (Shimamoto- fig. 1; Mandal- figs. 2, 12). Accordingly, the claims are at least rendered obvious.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 6-11 have been fully considered but are moot in light of new prior art rejection(s) set forth above. Examiner notes that previous 112 rejection has been overcome by recent amendment and remarks.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735