DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/26 has been entered.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a supply heat quantity estimating method. Independent claim 4 is drawn to a supply heat quantity estimating device, which is a machine. Claims 6-8 are drawn to blast furnace operating method. Independent claim 11 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a manufacture/product. All are statutory categories.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One"); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019 (June 2020))) ("Step 2A, Prong Two").
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, we determine if the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. All independent claims recite “estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in a blast furnace based on estimated changes in a carried-out sensible heat…, changes in a carried-in sensible heat…, and a quantity of heat held in the deadman coke that has been estimated.” In essence, all of the recited steps are estimating steps that perform some calculation(s), and are evaluation/determination-type mental processes, in addition to calculation-type mental processes, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or on paper. Further, the estimating steps are performed at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized equipment & associated component(s) for performing the determination processes. Evaluation/determination-type mental processes, as well as calculation-type mental processes, are abstract ideas. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and reporting the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the realm of abstract ideas). Thus, under the first prong, claims recites the patent-ineligible judicial exception of an abstract mental process.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, we determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 4 further recites a processor configured to perform the estimating steps, and independent claim 11 further recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having an executable program that causes a processor of a computer to execute the estimating steps. These limitations correspond to linking the abstract idea to generic computer/processor implementation and do not appear to integrate into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, although each of the independent claims recite “estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace based on the estimated changes…”, this merely amounts to an equivalent of reciting the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, particularly as the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. "A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit." In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635,638 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, we determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, independent claim 4 further recites a processor programmed to perform the estimating steps, and independent claim 11 further recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having an executable program that causes a processor of a computer to execute the estimating steps. These elements are well-known and conventional within the art. Further, the application of these mental processes into a blast furnace environment appears to be nothing more than generally linking the mental process(s) judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Further, although each of the independent claims recite “estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace based on the estimated changes…”, this appears to insignificant activity, particularly as the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to a recitation of the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner notes that device claim 4 recites a generic processor without any structural detail and software program in claim 11 is essentially instructions for carrying out the mathematical calculations. In short, each estimating step does no more than require a generic computer/processor to perform generic estimation functions. Thus, the claims amount to nothing significant more than instructions to apply the estimation mental process(s) using some unspecified, generic processor. This is not enough to transform an abstract mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
Further, with regard to the generically recited processor, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having an executable program being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are known in the blast furnace art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Wakimoto et al. (US 4857106) teaches a method for controlling heat conditions in a blast furnace based on data from sensor means along with knowledge base from previous operations (abstract), using a computer comprising CPU 42, storing program memories 43-45 executed by the CPU, interface 46 (figs. 1-2, see col. 3, lines 1-30).
Oya et al. (WO 99/23262 A1) teaches operating a blast furnace for manufacturing molten iron, controlling the heat by a furnace heat estimation model utilizing an artificial intelligence system comprising a furnace heat correction model 45 and a computer 46 (see abstract and fig. 15).
Shimamoto et al. (JP 2018-145520, translation already of record) teaches a method for thermal prediction for blast furnace (abstract) using a prediction device/computer 5 comprising a processor executing a computer program that carries out heat quantity calculations (fig. 1 and description).
Proposed Amendment
In order to expedite prosecution, the following claim(s) drafted by the examiner are presented to Applicant for consideration (support for amendment below is found in claim 6 and ¶ [0011-0012] of original specification) as they appear to overcome 101 rejection(s) and to distinguish over prior art. The amendment essentially incorporates feature of claim 6 to tie the functional feedback and using the estimation results to control physical process in practical application.
Claim 1. (Proposed) A supply heat quantity estimating method of 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 in the blast furnace, the supply heat quantity estimating method comprising:
estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by in-furnace passing gas based on a quantity of heat released to an outside of the blast furnace by a slip;
estimating a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas based on a change in a surface height of the raw material by the slip;
estimating a quantity of heat held in a deadman coke present in the blast furnace;
estimating the quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron in the blast furnace based on the changes in the carried-out sensible heat and the carried-in sensible heat that have been estimated, and the quantity of heat held in the deadman coke that has been estimated; and
controlling the quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace based on the estimated quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron.
Claim 4. (Proposed) A supply heat quantity estimating device 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 in the blast furnace, the supply heat quantity estimating device comprising:
a processor configured to:
estimate a change in carried-out sensible heat by in-furnace passing gas based on a quantity of heat released to an outside of the blast furnace by a slip;
estimate a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas based on a change in a surface height of the raw material by the slip;
estimate a quantity of heat held in a deadman coke present in the blast furnace;
estimate the quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron in the blast furnace based on the changes in the carried-out sensible heat and the carried-in sensible heat that have been estimated, and the quantity of heat held in the deadman coke that has been estimated; and
control the quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace based on the estimated quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron.
Cancel claim 6.
Claim 11. (Proposed) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which an executable program 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 in the blast furnace, the program causing a processor of a computer to execute:
estimating a change in carried-out sensible heat by in-furnace passing gas based on a quantity of heat released to an outside of the blast furnace by a slip;
estimating a change in carried-in sensible heat supplied by a raw material preheated by the in-furnace passing gas based on a change in a surface height of the raw material by the slip;
estimating a quantity of heat held in a deadman coke present in the blast furnace;
estimating the quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron in the blast furnace based on the changes in the carried-out sensible heat and the carried-in sensible heat that have been estimated, and the quantity of heat held in the deadman coke that has been estimated; and
controlling the quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace based on the estimated quantity of heat supplied to the pig iron.
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
Prosecution Insights