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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are withdrawn and currently amended, Claims 2, 5, and 6 are canceled, and Claims 8-15 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8 and 12 recite formulae as restated below:
l
h
u
p
≥
t
0
(Expression 1)
V
p
Q
f
u
e
l
×
H
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
≥
C
0
(Expression 2)
Expression (1) describes the relationship between distance in meters from a leading end of a lance and a discharge speed, and Expression (2) describes the relationship amongst fuel supply, supply flow rate of fuel, and amount of heat generated by fuel combustion, respectively. Neither the required heating time t0 in Expression (1) nor the constant C0 in Expression (2) have any minimum values or upper limits. Calculating the required heating time t0 or the constant C0 as defined above requires an arithmetic operation than can be performed in the mind and thus falls within the “mathematical calculations” and “mental processes” groups of abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have enough information to meet or avoid the limitations of Expressions (1) and (2) as recited in the claim and there is no integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are directed to a mental process or abstract idea in the form of formulas (Expressions (1) and (2)) recited in the claims without any actual tangible, physical, repeatable method steps that impart significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 12 recite formulae as restated below:
l
h
u
p
≥
t
0
(Expression 1)
V
p
Q
f
u
e
l
×
H
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
≥
C
0
(Expression 2)
Both Expression 1 and Expression 2 do not provide any boundaries for any of the variables, namely for t0 and C0. However, one of ordinary skill would not be able to apply the methods recited in Claims 8 and 12 to either meet or avoid the limitations suggested by the expressions with any fuel sufficient to add a powdery auxiliary raw material or an auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form.
Claims 8 and 12 recite actions to carry out the claimed methods as follows:
using a top-blowing lance for a converter
the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form is heated … and jetted
The limitations of “using a top-blowing lance” does not include any active, positive steps establishing how the using the lance is practiced. The limitations of “is heated … and jetted” are passive terms that represent processes of using a top-blowing lance with a burner for injecting solids that are well known in the art.
Claim 8 recites “t0 represents a required heating time, in seconds obtained from a particle diameter of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form” [emphasis added]. However, Claim 9 further defines the required heating time t0 of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed in powder form is additionally determined as follows:
“[A] particle diameter dp of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form”; it is not clear if dp further limits the particle diameter in Claim 8.
“[A]n adiabatic flame temperature of the fuel”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
“[A] flow velocity of a combustion gas of the fuel”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
“[T]he discharge speed up of the powder”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
Claim 13 recites “t0 represents a required heating time, in seconds obtained from a particle diameter of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form” [emphasis added]. However, Claim 12 further defines the required heating time t0 of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed in powder form is additionally determined as follows:
“[A] particle diameter dp of the powdery auxiliary raw material or the auxiliary raw material processed into a powder form”; it is not clear if dp further limits the particle diameter in Claim 12.
“[A]n adiabatic flame temperature of the fuel”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
“[A] flow velocity of a combustion gas of the fuel”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
“[T]he discharge speed up of the powder”; it is not clear if this is an additional requirement for t0 because there is no transitional term for obtaining the particle diameter.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the drawings and specification and rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings and specification and rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al (Canadian Institute of Mining) teaches a physical simulation of converter steelmaking with powder injection for a top and bottom blown converter with top lance powder injection (page 124) as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mixing time, gas velocity (m/s) (reads on up), lance height (reads on lh), gas density (kg/m3), total oxygen rate (Nm3/h), powder density and powder injection flow rate (Nm3/h) (reads on Vp with powder density) are measured for the prototype and model (pages 125 and 126). Tang et al does not suggest a burner.
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 replying 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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights