CTNF 18/294,474 CTNF 97077 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-2 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 1 recites in Lines 1-6: “An estimation method of a depositional shape of a charged material inside a blast furnace for estimating, when a blast furnace in a blowing down with lowering stock level is caused to start up, a depositional shape of a charged material inside the blast furnace formed after a burner is inserted into the blast furnace through a tap hole of the blast furnace and is used to consume coke inside the blast furnace, the estimation method comprising:” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: The comma after the word estimating in Line 2 makes it unclear whether or not the act of estimation is an intended use separate from the limitations that follow. It makes it unclear grammatically what, if anything, is being estimated. The recitation “ when a blast furnace in a blowing down with lowering stock level is caused to start up” renders the claim unclear as to whether the limitations that follow occur, or do not occur at all. Because it is unclear whether the recitations in Lines 1-6 are actionable and repeatable method steps or an intended use of the actionable and repeatable estimation steps that follow the word “comprising:,” it is unclear whether the “blast furnace in a blowing down with lowering stock level” is the same blast furnace, or a different blast furnace from other mentions of ‘blast furnace’ within the claims. If the depositional shape of a charged material is formed after a burner is inserted into the blast furnace through a tap hole of the blast furnace and is used to consume coke inside the blast furnace, it is unclear how the depositional shape of the charged material is being estimated . Claim 1 recites in Lines 2-3 and in Lines 7-8 “a blast furnace in a blowing down with lowering stock level” Claim 2 recites in Lines 5-6 “in the blowing down with the lowering stock level” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: There is no clear recitation of an actionable and repeatable blowing down step of any blast furnace. Therefore, the recitation “with lowering stock level” yields redundant the blowing down process and renders the claim indefinite as to when blowing down or estimation takes place. It is unclear if estimation takes place during blowing down, prior to blowing down, after blowing down, or if blowing down is a step that even occurs. Applicant is encouraged to clearly establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language. Claim 1 recites in Lines 2-3 and in Lines 7-8 “depositional shape of a charged material inside a blast furnace” Claim 1 recites “depositional shape of a charged material inside the blast furnace” in Line 15, Claim 1 recites in Line 10 and Claim 2 recites in Lines 2-3 and 6-7 “depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace.” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: It is unclear whether the depositional shape is the shape of the charged material prior to being charged into the blast furnace, the shape the material takes on within the blast furnace, or some other meaning entirely. Claim 1 recites In Lines 9-11 “ 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 a solidified layer on a bottom part inside the blast furnace;” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: Estimating from an estimation amounts to a conjecture. It is unclear how a charged region of coke is estimated from an estimated depositional shape of charged material and from an actual shape of a solidified layer on a bottom part inside the blast furnace. The recitation “charged region” in Line 9 is a relative term rendering the claims indefinite. The term “charged region” 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 what constitutes a charged region. It is further unclear what a charged region of coke is in context of the claimed subject matter and how a region of charged material could be ‘estimated’ from an “estimated depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace.” There is no recitation of a method step charging coke into the blast furnace. In addition to complicating which blast furnace is being charged with material, it is unclear how a region of coke can be estimated when there is no coke established as being charged into any furnace. The recitation “bottom part” in Line 11 is a relative term rendering the claims indefinite. The term “bottom 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 of a bottom of a blast furnace, as this could refer to an indefinite number of parts. Claim 1 recites In Lines 12-13 “estimating an amount of coke inside the blast furnace that is consumed by using the burner; and” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: As set forth above, the presence of coke has not been clearly established so it is unclear whether any amount of coke inside the blast furnace is actually consumed by using the burner. It is unclear what “using” the burner entails and what actionable and repeatable method step is reflected by this limitation. Claim 1 recites In Lines 14-16 “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.” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: As set forth above, the presence of coke has not been clearly established so “the coke” in Line 14 lacks proper antecedent basis. If the depositional shape of a charged material is formed after consumption of the coke inside the blast furnace, it is unclear how the depositional shape of the charged material is being estimated . It is further unclear whether “the coke” in Lines 14 and 16 is the charged material itself and whether the estimated depositional shape of the coke is used to estimate the shape of the coke after its own consumption. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 recites in Lines 1-3 “A replacement method of coke inside a blast furnace using the estimation method of the depositional shape of the charged material inside the blast furnace according to Claim 1, the replacement method comprising:” This recitation presents the following issues of clarity: It is unclear how a replacement method of coke inside a blast furnace uses an estimation method. It is unclear what concrete actionable and repeatable method step is accomplished by a coke replacement method “using” an estimation or what those steps entail. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language. If coke is replaced it is unclear how a replacement method of coke can rely on the charging of coke, which itself has not been clearly established as set forth above. In other words, it is unclear how coke replacement can depend on the presence of coke. Claim 2 recites in Lines 4-7 “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 the 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 recitation presents the following issues of clarity: As set forth above, the presence of coke has not been clearly established so “the coke” in Line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “charging the coke so as to” includes. Not charging coke constitutes a reduction in change. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language. The recitation “reduce a change” renders the claim indefinite because no change is a reduction in change. Further regarding the limitation “so as to,” it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 2 occur or do not occur at all. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 are 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 claims are drawn to an estimation method of a 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 recite 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, and estimating a depositional shape from an amount of coke. Because the method is drawn to the execution of making estimations, the dependent claim is ultimately drawn to a mathematical formulation and product. Dependent Claim 2 recites a coke replacement method that somehow “uses” the estimation method of independent Claim 1. See 112(b) rejections above. Though this claim includes a charging step, the claim is ultimately drawn to the generation of mathematical formulae. These claims 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. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The step of Claim 2 is ultimately drawn to the implementation of the estimation step of Claim 1, 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 estimation method is an abstract idea and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Tying the production estimation method to a coke charging step does not bring the claims outside the scope of an abstract idea. Claims 1-2 remain drawn to an abstract idea, a mathematical calculation, and mental process. The claims are therefore not patent eligible as currently written. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are 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]. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, 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 Claim 2, modified Hirata et al. ‘252 teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth in the 112(b) rejections above, 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 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : JP S55115904 A teaches operation control of blast furnace charge in order to increase in-furnace gas reduction efficiency. JP H05295415 A teaches predicting blast furnace conditions during operation of a blast furnace. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 2 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 3 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 4 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 5 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 6 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 7 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 8 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 9 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/294,474 Page 10 Art Unit: 1733
Prosecution Insights