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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for estimating sensible heat using specific heat capacity (Cp) & temperature difference (ΔT), does not reasonably provide enablement for recited estimating changes involving a slip and a change in surface height of the raw material by the slip. The specification does not enable a person of ordinary skilled in the art to which it pertains to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
With respect to claims 1, 4 and 11, limitations “estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat…a quantity of heat released to an outside of the blast furnace by a slip; estimating a quantity of heat held in deadman coke” (lines 5-10 of claim 1) do not appear to be enabled for following reasons.
As set forth in MPEP 2164, the enablement inquiry is based on undue experimentation by weighing the Wands factors. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all features within the scope of claims 1, 4 and 11 can be used as claimed and whether claims meet the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). These factors include the following:
The quantity of experimentation necessary
The amount of direction or guidance presented
The presence or absence of working examples
The nature of the invention
The state of the prior art
The relative skill of those in the art
The predictability or unpredictability of the art
In recent remarks, Applicant states the features of carried-out sensible heat (Q7) and carried-in sensible heat (Q8) are discussed in paragraphs [0019]-[0024] of original specification. Examiner notes that formulas listed for Q7 and Q8 in the specification recite several parameters which are not defined. With reference to carried-out sensible heat, [0021] states: Ttop represents the furnace top gas temperature, αbosh (alpha bosh) and αtop (alpha top) represent influence coefficients changed according to the blast furnace. With reference to carried-in sensible heat, [0024] states: β (beta) represents an influence coefficient changed by the blast furnace. Similarly, concerning the quantity of heat held in deadman Q9 formula, [0028] states: γ (gamma) and δ (delta) represent influence coefficients changed according to the blast furnace.
First of all, examiner notes that these alpha, beta, gamma and delta coefficients do not include any units at all.. For instance, units of volume flow rate (m3(s.t.p)/min) and iron production speed ‘Pig’ (t-p/min) are clearly defined, thereby enabling one to identify meaning of values. It appears that unit for each particular coefficient may be different depending on the formula. Without corresponding units, coefficients are meaningless and renders the formulas indeterminate. Secondly, typically there are several sections in the blast furnace with differing temperature ranges and term “Ttop” fails to identify which part of the furnace is implied by “top gas temperature”? Applicant has neither provided any drawing of the relevant top gas section of the furnace, fusion zone, nor any range of the claimed top gas temperature. Furthermore, there are not any exemplary values disclosed at all for the multiple coefficients and thus, they are arbitrary in nature. The specification admits to ‘changing the coefficients’, validating their arbitrary nature. In the event Applicant contends that selecting these coefficients or top gas temperature (Ttop) is within common knowledge of ordinary artisan or experimentally derived, then suitable ranges or experimentation details should be provided. There is no direction or guidance presented regarding the nature of the coefficients and top gas temperature. Consequently, it is unpredictable what the coefficients actually represent, what is meant by top gas temperature and how they relate to the claimed sensible heat flow. Generally in the iron blast furnace, term “bosh” refers to tapered, hot intermediate zone located above the tuyeres (where hot air is blasted in) and below the belly. In this context, αbosh (alpha bosh) could refer to empirical coefficient determined by design of the furnace profile. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any drawing of the furnace or relevant bosh section. Alternatively, the hot gas (mostly CO2 and N2) produced at the tuyeres is commonly referred to as ‘bosh gas’. Although [0021] mentions the in-furnace passing gas as ‘bosh gas’, location of passing gas or bosh gas is not identified. The location and composition of relevant gas(es) within the furnace are necessary in determining the raw material reduction reaction and resulting sensible heat. Moreover, if the coefficients happen to be critical parameters in the formula(s), then they would require specialized operational analysis and experimentation in order to estimate the claimed sensible heat. . There is an absence of working example concerning the claimed estimating change(s) in carried-out sensible heat and carried-in sensible heat due to the slip. Moreover, the quantity of experimentation is great and appears to require specialized skill.
For the reasons described above, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary due to complete lack of guidance regarding the various coefficients as well as Ttop top gas temperature, which are undefined, arbitrary and unpredictable in nature. In summary, the claimed estimation of sensible heat change(s) requires undue experimentation to make and use the invention of claims 1, 4 and 11 considering at least several Wands factors listed above (absence of working example, lack of guidance in specification, lack of state of prior art, unpredictable nature, specialized analysis or skill in the art). Therefore, the claim fails to meet the enablement requirement.
As one example, examiner cites following blast furnace illustration identifying various sections of the furnace and differing temperature ranges. Applicant’s specification fails to provide any drawing and identification of claimed features based on specific regions or flows such as in-furnace passing gas or top gas temperature. For understanding of the heat balance, relevant parameters listed in the formulas such as Tbase base reference temperature, Ttop top gas temperature, volume flow Vbosh, and furnace passing gas should be specifically identified with respect to the furnace as a whole since there are several gas flows and significant temperature gradients within the furnace.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2-3, the formulas of carried-out sensible heat Q7 and carried-in sensible heat Q8 do not meet the scope of enablement requirement for reasons explained in claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 11, limitations “estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat…a quantity of heat released to an outside of the blast furnace by blow-by; estimating a quantity of heat held in deadman coke” (lines 5-10 of claim 1) remain ambiguous. In recent remarks, Applicant states the features are discussed in paragraphs [0019]-[0022] of original specification. However, these paragraphs do not provide adequate information to evaluate the claimed quantity of carried-out sensible heat, carried-in sensible heat, and sensible heat in the deadman coke. In particular, the specification lacks any guidance concerning the parameters of alpha, beta, gamma and delta coefficients as well as Ttop top gas temperature (note enablement rejection above). Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by the in-furnace passing gas (possibly bosh gas) and raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas since neither location of the passing gas nor preheating is identified. The location and composition of relevant gas(es) within the furnace are necessary in determining the raw material reduction reaction and resulting sensible heat. Due to insufficient guidance, one would not be able to determine the scope of the recited sensible heat in consideration of a quantity of heat released to outside of the blast furnace by a slip, rendering the claims indefinite.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation, ALL claims are interpreted without consideration of indeterminate coefficients in the formulas of specification. Claim 1 is taken to mean:
A supply heat quantity estimation method for estimating a quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in a blast furnace from a quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace and a production speed of molten iron, the supplied heat quantity estimation method comprising:
estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by a product gas and a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material; estimating a quantity of heat held in deadman coke present in the blast furnace; and estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron using the estimated changes of carried-out sensible heat, the carried-in sensible heat, and the quantity of heat held in the deadman coke.
With respect to claim 2, limitations “calculating a multiplied value by multiplying specific heat of furnace top gas by a difference between a furnace top gas temperature and a reference temperature of the furnace top gas temperature and adding a value by dividing the multiplied by the production speed to the carried-out sensible heat” are indefinite in scope because it is inconsistent with specification. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by “adding a value obtained by dividing the multiplied value…”. Furthermore, “multiplied by the production speed to the carried-out sensible heat” implies: Pig (production speed) x Q7, which calculation is conflicting with the specification. According to [0019], there are 2 distinct multiplied values which are added together: 1) a first multiplied value and 2) a second multiplied value. Present claim is missing a second multiplied value, leaving the formula inadequate. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim 2 is taken to mean: estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by a product gas.
Claims 3 and 7-10 are also indefinite in scope for substantially same reasons explained above concerning the features of sensible heat. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim 3 is taken to mean: estimating a change in carried-in sensible heat.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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 1-4 and 6-11 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, NPL of record), and further in view of Shao et al. (“Deadman Behavior in the Blast Furnace Hearth”, MDPI Journal, Oct. 2020, see NPL of record) & Huang et al. (“Numerical Investigation on Hot Metal Flow in Blast Furnace through CFD”, ISIJ International, 2008, see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 1, 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 furnace passing gas sensible heat and a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material (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 a product 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 in the prediction method of Shimamoto since this estimation 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.
Shimamoto does not mention estimating 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, 1990); 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 accounting for the heat held in the deadman coke and utilizing CFD modeling 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 claims 2-3, the combination of Shimamoto, Mandal, Shao & Huang in claim 1 above includes estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat as well as a change in carried-in sensible heat in the CFD model. It is also noted that claims 2-3 are indefinite in scope.
Regarding claim 4, 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 furnace passing gas sensible heat and a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material (process steps S1 thru S7- see excerpts cited above).
Shimamoto is silent with respect to calculating the carried-out sensible heat by a product 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 integration in the prediction method of Shimamoto since this estimation 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.
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.
Regarding claims 6-10, both Shimamoto and Mandal discloses a blast furnace operation method comprising controlling heat supplied into the furnace (Shimamoto- fig. 1; Mandal- figs. 2, 12). Rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein. Accordingly, the combination of Shimamoto, Mandal, Shao & Huang renders the claims obvious.
Claim 11 merely differs from claim 1 in reciting a computer-readable storage medium with an executable program for estimating/predicting the heat quantity. Shimamoto teaches the heat prediction device 5 configured by an information processing device such as a personal computer and executing a computer program (fig. 1, [0007, 0017]). Similarly, Mandal also teaches a computer program (see pg. 215- left column). Rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein. Accordingly, the combination of Shimamoto, Mandal, Shao & Huang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program for estimating the heat quantity in the blast furnace.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been fully considered but are moot in light of new prior art rejection(s) set forth above. Examiner further notes that pending claims are subject to 112 rejection(s) explained above.
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