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.
Applicant amended Claim 1. Applicant canceled Claim 2. New matter rejections are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024, 10/29/2024, 12/17/2024, 05/29/2026, and 06/17/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 08/03/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Hirata et al. JP 6468252 B2 have been made necessitated by amendment.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first depositional shape” in amended Lines 7 and 17, “a second depositional shape” in amended Lines 14-15 and 18, “a change between the first and second depositional shapes of the charged material” in Lines 18-19. There is no support for a “first” or “second” depositional shape in the original disclosure. While the instant Specification recites at [0012] “charging coke into the blast furnace so as to reduce a change between the depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace in the blowing down with lowering stock level and the depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace formed after the consumption of the coke inside the blast furnace,” this does not support the definition of or disclosure of, an actual “first” or “second” depositional shape.
Appropriate correction is required to address this addition of new matter.
Claim 1 recites “a part inside the blast furnace” at amended Line 11. This constitutes the addition of new matter as [0018] references only “the shape of a solidified layer on a bottom part inside the furnace (solidified layer shape).” Appropriate correction is required to address this addition of new matter.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites “a part inside the blast furnace” at amended Line 11. Not only does “a part” introduce new matter as set forth above, it is unclear which part of the furnace is being referenced. The term “a part” 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. It is not ascertainable what constitutes the metes and bounds of “a part” inside the blast furnace, as this could refer to an indefinite number of parts within the blast furnace. The instant Specification details at [0018] “a solidified layer on a bottom part inside the blast furnace.” While “a bottom part” did not specify a definite location as explained in the previous office action, it is noted the inside of the furnace has a bottom. Nonetheless, “a part inside the blast furnace” does not provide sufficient detail to persons of ordinary skill in the art to perform an actionable and repeatable method step regarding estimating a charged region of coke.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is newly drawn to a coke replacement method based on the estimation of the depositional shape of a charged material inside a blast furnace. However, the estimation steps fail to provide a practical application. A mathematical concept is not to be accorded the protection of US patent laws. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent Claim 1 recites estimating a depositional shape of a charged material, estimating a charged region of coke from the estimation of a depositional shape, estimating an amount of coke consumed, and estimating a depositional shape from an estimated amount of coke. Because the method is drawn to the execution of making estimations, claim is ultimately drawn to a mathematical formulation and product.
Newly amended Claim 1 recites a coke replacement method wherein coke is charged based on estimations of first and second depositional shapes such that a change between first and second depositional shapes of charged material is reduced. See 112(b) rejections above. Though this claim includes a charging step, the claim is ultimately drawn to the generation of mathematical formulae. The claim fail to overcome the judicial exception. The mere integration of a device or processor does not bring the claimed subject matter outside the scope of an abstract idea. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer or with the aid of a device, in this case a blast furnace. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The charging step is therefore ultimately drawn to the implementation of estimation steps, a calculation, which amounts to a mental process which could be calculated and implemented by hand.
Though not relied upon in the instant 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, prior art Okada et al. JP H05295415 A and Hirata et al. JP 6468252 B2 are herein cited as teaching estimation methods of depositional shape of charged materials inside a blast furnace during operation. Even if the instantly claimed method is found distinct, the recitation of estimating and relying on a predicted mathematical outcome fails to bring the invention beyond a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
In sum, the claimed method is an abstract idea and the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 remains drawn to an abstract idea, a mathematical calculation, and mental process. While the physical step of charging coke into the blast furnace is claimed, it does not bring the claim out of the scope of a mathematical principle. See MPEP 2106 I. A coke charging method based entirely on an estimation does not bring the claim outside the scope of an abstract idea. Under U.S. practice, the claim is therefore not patent eligible as currently written.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. JP 6468252 B2 in view of Nishikawa et al. JP 2017061716 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Hirata et al. ‘252 teaches an estimation method comprising estimating a depositional shape of a charged material inside a blast furnace in a blowing down with lowering stock level; estimating a charged region of coke inside the blast furnace from the estimated depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace and from a shape of solidified layer on a bottom part inside the blast furnace; estimating an amount of coke inside the blast furnace that is consumed by using the burner; and estimating, from the estimated amount of the coke inside the blast furnace, a depositional shape of a charged material inside the blast furnace formed after consumption of the coke inside the blast furnace (Fig. 1),[0020-0032].
Hirata et al. ‘252 does not expressly teach the burner is inserted into the blast furnace through a tap hole of the blast furnace.
However, Nishikawa et al. ‘716 teaches a burner inserted into the blast furnace through a tap hole of the blast furnace [0019].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to insert a burner into the blast furnace through a tap hole of the blast furnace and use the burner at that location to consume coke inside the blast furnace based on the teachings of Nishikawa et al. ‘716 at [0008-0010] in order to restore furnace heat within the furnace. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the burner through a tap hole of the blast furnace specifically during shut down or blowing down with lowering stock level in order to promote the return to operation after cool down based on the teachings of Nishikawa et al. ‘716 at [0014-0015].
Regarding the act of charging coke into the blast furnace based on an estimation, no change constitutes a reduction in change and therefore no charge constitutes charging coke so as to reduce a change in shape, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Hirata et al. ‘252 further teaches establishing blast furnace operation stability based on the amount of charge at [0057, 0062] which reads on the limitations of the instant claim for a replacement method comprising charging the coke into the blast furnace so as to reduce a change between the depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace in the blowing down with lowering stock level and the depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace formed after the consumption of the coke inside the blast furnace.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have introduced new matter. Applicant argues the prior art “fails to disclose estimating two different depositional shapes.” However, the presence of two distinct depositional shapes have not been outlaid in the original disclosure.
It remains that the act of charging coke based on an estimation is a an abstract idea and the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth above, while the physical step of charging coke into the blast furnace is claimed, it does not bring the claim out of the scope of a mathematical principle. See MPEP 2106 I. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer or with the aid of a device, in this case a blast furnace. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The charging step is therefore ultimately drawn to the implementation of estimation steps, a calculation, which amounts to a mental process which could be calculated and implemented by hand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rangarajan, Deepak, et al. "Influence of operating parameters on raceway properties in a model blast furnace using a two-fluid model." Industrial & engineering chemistry research 53.13 (2014): 4983-4990. teaches charging a blast furnace to reduce a change in depositional shape.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
