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 .
Upon amendment, applicant is cautioned against the introduction of new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Applicant is encouraged to point to the passage in the instant Specification which identifies support for each claim amendment.
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 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.
Claim 7 recites “A method for operating a converter that supplies an oxygen source to molten pig iron inside a converter-type refining furnace and performs desiliconization refining” in Lines 1-3. It is unclear whether the method includes the step of supplying and performing desiliconization refining, whether the converter supplying oxygen is part of an intended use, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required to convey tangible active method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 7 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 2. Claim 11 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 5. Claim 12 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Lines 5 and 6. Claim 13 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. Claim 15 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Lines 5 and 6. Claim 17 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Lines 5 and 6. Claim 19 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. Claim 21 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. Claim 22 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. Claim 24 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. Claim 26 recites “converter-type refining furnace” in Line 4. The term “converter-type refining furnace” renders unclear what furnace is being reference. Description as a “type” does not concretely establish the presence of a converter. The term “converter-type” does not appear to have a universally accepted meaning within the art. Appropriate correction or explanation is required to establish the meaning of “converter-type furnace” which is not defined or re-defined in the instant Specification.
Claim 7 recites “to estimate one or both of an amount and physical properties of removed slag” in Line8. It is grammatically unclear whether “amount” refers to an amount of removed slag, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required to establish a more clear nexus between any claimed method steps and any amounts.
Claims 7, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17, recite “a throat” and or “the throat.” There is insufficient nexus between recitation of a “throat” throughout the claims and the furnace of Claim 7. It is unclear to what furnace or device the “throat” belongs. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of a throat as the recited throat could refer to that of any other furnace and not the furnace within the instantly claimed methods.
Claim 7 recites “the method measures” in Line 6. This recitation does not clearly recite a method step with positive active claim language. It is unclear whether the method is conducting the measuring step, the operator is conducting the measuring step, or some other meaning entirely. Similarly, Claim 8 recites “the method estimates” in Line 2, Claim 11 recites “the method measures” in Line 3, Claim 12 recites “the method removes” in Line 2, Claim 13 recites “the method supplies” in Lines 3-4, Claim 15 recites “the method removes” in Line 2, Claim 17 recites “the method removes” in Line 2, Claim 19 recites “the method supplies” in Lines 3-4, Claim 21 recites “ the method supplies” in Lines 3-4, Claim 22 recites “the method supplies” in Lines 3-4, Claim 24 recites “the method supplies” in Lines 3-4, and Claim 26 recites “the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. appropriate correction is required to establish the method steps with active claim language.
Claim 7 recites “physical properties of removed slag” in Line 8, rendering the claim indefinite. Physical properties could literally refer to color, viscosity, temperature, etc. It is unclear the metes and bounds of what constitutes physical properties. The term “physical properties” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete claim elements.
Claim 9 recites “a certain distance down from the throat,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of what constitutes the distance from the throat. Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes a location “down from” the throat. A specific distance or location has not been defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, Claim 9 recites “a throat position” in Line 4 and “the throat position” throughout the claim. It is unclear what position being referenced and persons of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of any position, distance, or location of the claimed elements. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete claim elements.
Claim 11 recites “to measure…the method measures.” In addition to the 112(b) rejection above, Claim 11 is rendered indefinite by this recitation. It is unclear if the limitations of the claim are an intended use or are intended to recites method steps. Appropriate correction is required to recite method steps with positive active claim language.
Claims 13, 19,21-22,24 and 26 recite “slag removal processing or an intermediate slag removal processing.” As used, the term “processing” is a relative term rendering the claims indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of what tangible and repeatable method steps constitute “processing.” Appropriate correction is required to establish tangible and repeatable methods steps with positive active claim language.
Claims 12, 15, and 17 present the following issues of clarity:
“the method removes slag after approximating” - It is unclear whether the method is conducting the removal step or the act of approximating, whether the operator is to remove or approximate, or some other meaning entirely.
”an influence of kinetic viscosity of the slag” – It is unclear the metes and bounds of “influence,” rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“relationship between” - It is unclear the metes and bounds of “relationship,” rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“a horizontal distance reached by a slag removal flow at a certain distance down from the throat” - It is unclear the metes and bounds of what constitutes the distance from the throat. Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes a location “down from” the throat. A specific distance or location has not been defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“a throat-based slag furnace height inside the converter-type refining furnace” – It is unclear the meaning of “throat-based slag furnace height,” whether this is intended to convey the height of the throat, the height of the furnace, the height of the slag in relation to either the throat or the furnace, or some other meaning entirely.
“Or on a relationship between the throat-based slag surface height inside the converter-type refining furnace and a slag thickness” - It is unclear the metes and bounds of “relationship,” rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“a throat position” - It is unclear what position being referenced and persons of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of any position, distance, or location of the claimed elements.
“by a polynomial formula” - It is unclear how removal is conducted after a step of approximating an “influence” of any factor “on a relationship” between other factors “by a polynomial formula.” It is firstly unclear the metes and bounds of “a polynomial formula,” as no reference to any specific formula has been recited, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, it is unclear the nexus between the polynomial formula and any removal or approximation step. Appropriate correction is required to clarify this claim and any integration of a formula.
“in advance” – It is unclear the metes and bounds of “in advance.” In context, “advance” is a relative term and does not concretely establish any temporal meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish the method steps as they relate to time or order or steps.
“and estimates the kinetic viscosity of the slag”- It is unclear whether the method is conducting the estimation step or the act of estimating, whether the operator is to estimate, or some other meaning entirely.
“from a result of measuring the slag removal flow shape and the slag surface shape when removing the slag.” – It is unclear how the result of making a measurement affects any estimation step. Appropriate correction is required to establish a clear nexus between a measuring step and the rest of the claimed method.
Claim 13 recites “using the method…according to claim 7, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 13 “uses” the method of claim 7. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use”, and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “using the method…according to claim 9, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 19 “uses” the method of claim 9. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use”, and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “using the method…according to claim 11, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 21 “uses” the method of claim 11. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use”, and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “using the method…according to claim 12, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 22 “uses” the method of claim 12. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use”, and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites “using the method…according to claim 15, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 24 “uses” the method of claim 15. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use,” and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites “using the method…according to claim 17, the method supplies” in Lines 3-4. it is unclear how the method of claim 26 “uses” the method of claim 17. It is unclear what step or steps would be encompassed by “use,” and to what end, effect or impact. No actual method steps are set forth within the claim in this regard. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19, 21-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite measuring, estimating, and data gathering steps, which fall into the “Mental Processes” category of abstract ideas without sufficiently conveying a practical application. While the recitation “supplies an oxygen source to molten pig iron inside a converter-type refining furnace and performs desiliconization refining” attempts to integrate the abstract calculation steps into a practical application, there is insufficient nexus between the mental data gathering steps and the “desiliconization refining” process. Accordingly, the Claims constitute an abstract idea and lack a practical application.
Independent Claim 7 recites “the method measures” and “to estimate.” Similarly, Claims 9, 11, and 12 recite “estimate[ing],” “measur[ing,]” and “remov[ing] slag after approximating” respectively. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, these steps represent abstract mathematical mental thought, which neither separately nor collectively serve to distinguish the claimed invention over process steps known and disclosed in the art. The process of taking measurements and estimating amounts or physical properties can also be conducted by hand. The requirement of using a converter-type refining furnace does not negate the independent claim being drawn to a mental process.
Further, the instant Specification at [0028] sets forth that an aspect of the slag removal flow shape, the surface width of slag removal flow at the throat position, can be calculated from a profile obtained in advance. This statement supports the concept that the subject matter instantly claimed is an abstract idea ineligible for patentability.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, dependent claims 13 19,21-22,24 and 26 recite “slag removal processing “ which, apart from amounting to a conventional slag removal step within the process of producing molten steel, merely set forth additional parameters to the data gathering steps.
In sum, Claims 7,9,11-13,15,17,19,21-22,24 and 26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to calculate mathematical equations, acquire data, and use that data to inform slag removal. Mere instructions to obtain information and complete a mathematical calculation cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwaki et al. US 20150000470 A1.
The claims do not recite tangible and repeatable positive active method steps, and thus, comparison to the prior art, in general, is rendered difficult. Notwithstanding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections above, Iwaki et al. ‘470 discloses a method for operating a converter type container (meeting the limitation for converter-type refining furnace) that supplies an oxygen source to raw molten iron (meeting the limitation for pig iron) inside a converter type container and performs desiliconization refining of the molten iron, and dephosphorization refining and decarburization refining of the molten iron. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the method measures slag removal flow to estimate an amount and physical properties of removed slag [0052-0069], reading on the limitations of the instant Claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 9,11-13,15,17,19,21-22,24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki et al. US 20150000470 A1 in view of Ogasawara et al. TR 201508512 A.
The claims do not recite tangible and repeatable positive active method steps, and thus, comparison to the prior art, in general, is rendered difficult. Notwithstanding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections above, Iwaki et al. ‘470 in view of Ogasawara et al. ‘512 renders obvious the measuring of slag removal flow shape, slag removal flow velocity, and slag surface shape when removing flag through a throat to estimate one or both of an amount and physical properties of removed slag.
Iwaki et al. ‘470 does not expressly teach estimating the horizontal distance reached by a slag removal flow at a certain distance down from the throat and a slag thickness at a throat position.
However, Ogasawara et al. ‘512 teaches accounting for the distance of slag from the throat in order to effect desiliconization refining, dephosphorization refining, and decarburization refining of molten pig iron within a converter-type refining furnace.
Given the teachings of Iwaki et al. ‘470, Ogasawara et al. ‘512, as well as the general state of the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to estimate slag removal amounts from a converter-type blast furnace by evaluating a horizontal distance reached by a slag removal flow at a certain distance down from the throat of a converter-type refining furnace and a slag thickness at a throat position. Though the instantly claimed formula may differ from mathematical equations within the prior art, such distinction would not render the method of estimating a slag amount and physical properties of slag patentably distinct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2017193784 A teaches a method of measuring and estimating data in relation to the flow speed of auxiliary material and slag within converter refining furnace in order to effectuate desiliconization, dephosphorization, and decarburization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights