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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 5 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 7, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2 and 5 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 blast furnace operation method. Independent claim 2 is drawn to blast furnace control method device, which is a machine. Independent claim 5 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a manufacture. All are statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. All independent claims recite “estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace in consideration of the estimated changes of the carried out sensible heat and the carried in sensible heat… estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace using the calculated iron making speed, and…estimating the quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace in consideration of the estimated quantity of heat held in deadman coke.” All of these steps are estimating steps that require calculation, and are evaluation/determination-type mental processes, in addition to calculation-type mental processes, which can practically be performed in the human mind. Further, the steps are performed at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the mental processes. Evaluation/determination-type mental processes, as well as calculation-type mental processes, are abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 2 further recites a processor programmed to perform the estimating steps, and independent claim 5 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 the field of endeavor and would not be considered 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, although each of the independent claims recite “controlling the quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace based on the estimate quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace”, 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).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, independent claim 2 further recites a processor programmed to perform the estimating steps, and independent claim 5 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 is nothing more than generally linking the mental process 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 “controlling the quantity of heat supplied into the blast furnace based on the estimate quantity of heat supplied to pig iron in the blast furnace”, this is merely insignificant extra-solution 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).
Further, with regards 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 well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Shimamoto et al. (Translation of JP Pub. No. 2018-145520; hereinafter Shimamoto; already of record) teaches a processor (Shimamoto Pg. 2 5th Para.).
Koffron et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0004602; hereinafter Koffron; already of record) teaches a processor (Koffron [0032]), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having an executable program ([0058], a persistent computer storage is non-transitory).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 6-7 of their Remarks that the prior art of record, specifically Hashimoto, does not teach estimating a supplied heat quantity based on an amount of carbon gasified in the blast furnace, as Hashimoto teaches solution loss carbon as an output variable, rather than an input variable, is persuasive. The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 6 of their Remarks that by adding the subject matter of claim 4 into the independent claims, the claims are now patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, are not persuasive. As stated in the previous Office Action, amending the independent claims to recite controlling the blast furnace according to the estimated quantity of heat amounts to “apply it”, and is insignificant extra-solution activity. For more details, please see the Claim Rejections-35 USC 101 section of this instant Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights