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 1-10 are canceled, Claims 11 and 12 are currently amended, and Claims 13-20 are as previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al in International Journal of Energy Research.
Wang et al is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 12/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Muchová et al in JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
Wang et al in view of Muchová et al is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 12/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To address applicant’s arguments regarding step a, the steps are addressed as active tense (e.g. “defining” and “predefining”) as opposed to “is defined” and “is predefined.” The first step in “a” is defining an overall expected level Eglob of CO2 emissions from all steelmaking units Si to manufacture [a given tonnage] Tglob of steel products. Wang et al teaches on page 1098 minimum CO2 emissions and optimum CO2 emissions for a blast furnace (BF) and a combined BF and basic oxygen furnace (BOF) in Table III. The office action states that BF and BOF read on two Si. The CO2 emissions teach Eglob, either minimum or optimum. The given tonnage Tglob is taught by the total steel production. “Optimum CO2 emissions” reads on “a maximum level of CO2 emissions Emaxi predefined for each steelmaking unit Si.
Regarding step b, the active tense is “calculating for each steelmaking unit Si … considering all CO2 contributions linked to raw materials, energy sources and processes initially selected for manufacturing the steel products following an initial manufacturing route MRi.” In Table III, the amounts per ton of hot metal includes raw materials (scrap, pellets, coke + PCI, fluxes) and energy sources (oxygen, energy). The process is optimized by material and energy systems (page 1093, column 2). From page 1094 [emphasis added]:
Each process node has its own energy demand in the form of electricity and/or heat demand. These demands depend on the amount of material processed in the unit and may be described by linear or piecewise linear relations. The variations are described in the system with boundary conditions, for instance, production capacity, limited availability for various resources such as fuels, electricity or raw materials. Each system is adjusted to the situation in each individual case. The adjustment is made to answer the questions in the individual case and to make the model as efficient as possible.
Therefore, Wang et al teaches an initial manufacturing route MRi is a system yet to be adjusted.
Regarding step c, the two steps being compared are (1) modifying if any or all Eexpi is above its respect Emaxi and, in active tense, (2) producing in either the original manufacturing route MRi or the optimizing manufacturing route OMRi when defined wherein such tonnage Tglob is manufactured in steelmaking units Si. Wang et al teaches analyzing CO2 emission via optimization (page 1093, column 2) for an integrated steelmaking system including BF and BOF (page 1094, column 2). The objective function is modeled on page 1095 where CO2 emission is one of the objectives (page 1095, column 2). The scope of the CO2 emission can be defined from a specific plant or for both upstream and downstream emissions or for a fixed time or during a time span (page 1096, column 1). The decision maker choses an acceptable trade-off between two goals by considering solutions along the Pareto front as described in column 1. Therefore, Wang et al teaches the comparison step c.
Regarding step d, the active tense is “manufacturing such tonnage Tglob of steel products in said steelmaking units Si by the original manufacturing route MRi or the optimized manufacturing route OMRi.” Wang et al teaches no optimization (reads on MRi) and optimizing a baseline (reads on OMRi) on page 1098 to produce hot metal. The examiner notes that no additional prior art is applied in this response.
Regarding applicant’s argument specifically recited on page 7 of the response:
Claim 11
Wang et al
Eglob
“overall level of CO2 emissions from all steelmaking units Si to manufacture such tonnage Tglob of steel products”
“No opt.” in Table III, section “BF + BOF” per ton of hot metal
Emaxi
“maximum level of CO2 emissions … predefined for each steelmaking unit Si”
“Min. CO2-” in Table III, section “BF + BOF” per ton of hot metal and the model described on page 1096, column 2.
Therefore, Wang et al teaches the claimed invention as recited in the rejection of the claims.
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 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