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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 19 in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-11 and 19 are presented for this examination. Claims 12-18 and 20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/09/2026, 01/12/2024 and 12/04/2023 and 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 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A detailed 101 analysis is presented as following according to MPEP 2106.
First, according to MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1, independent claim 1 is directed to a method. The claimed method is implemented by a computer comprising software instructions according to claim 19.
Recited steps in the claimed method including obtaining, mixing, spraying and three determining steps (i.e., mental processes).
It should be noted a plain meaning of “obtaining” is to get, acquire. Plain meaning of “determining” is causing something to occur or be done in a particular way; serving to decide something. Hence, they are both abstract ideas which can be done by human mind. Hence, steps of obtaining and three determining steps are identified as abstract ideas as a judicial exception. Mixing and spraying are routine, well known and conventional as evidenced by Zaim (NPL document “Moisture effect on the combustion of a single copper concentrate particle in a flash smelting furnace” Page 1 Col 1 Introduction).
Second, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One, once the a target production parameter is determined from the last determining step, nothing is done.
Third, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere computer instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic copper smelting process cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.5(j)(h). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Fourth, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2B whether a claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on its use. In the instant case, once the a target production parameter is determined from the last determining step, nothing is done. In other words, there are no additional limitations or steps that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, instant claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on its use.
Similarly, all dependent claims recited steps are mental steps for the same analysis of claim 1.
Hence, all dependent claims are also rejected along with independent claim 1 under the same statue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zaim (NPL document “Moisture effect on the combustion of a single copper concentrate particle in a flash smelting furnace” published in 2014).
As for claims 1-11 and 19, Zaim teaches the moisture effect on the combustion of a single copper concentrate particle in a flash smelting furnace. Zaim explicitly teaches content of moisture (i.e. water content) in copper concentrate has adverse effect on the flash smelting process quality. Hence, moisture content should be reduced to less than 0.3% (Page 252 Col 1 paragraph 3) which meets instant claim 1 require a first preset condition. Zaim suggests instant claim 1 mixing, spraying steps are well known steps in copper containing flash smelting process developed by the Outokumpu Company (Page 251 Col 1 Introduction paragraph 1).
Figures 2-4 discloses particle diameter (i.e. physical parameter of copper containing concentrate), Tg which reads on claimed gas temperature and 21 vol% oxygen which reads on claimed oxygen content of oxygen rich gas.
Since instant claimed three determining steps are abstract ideas as indicated in rejection of 101 above, Zaim anticipated claims 1-11.
Regarding claim 19, it is directed to a computer. However, merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea is generally not patentable unless the claim integrates that idea into a practical application that provides a meaningful technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.5(j)(h)
Second, instant claimed computer storage medium is not an improvement to the computer based on the below MPEP recitation.
MPEP 2106.05(a) "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology."
Third, there is also no improvement in technology as the supposed improvements would need to be actively applied in order for the improvements within the field of endeavor. In the instant case, once the target production parameter is determined from the last determining step, nothing is done.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wen (CN108588422A publish in 2018).
As for claims 1-11 and 19, Wen discloses flash smelting method of copper-containing material, the copper-containing materials are mixed at a mass ratio of 0.5% to 2% and copper concentrate after dehydrating and crushing process, then drying to the water content of the mixed material to less than or equal to 0.3%; (2) putting the mixed material into a flash smelting furnace in the flash tank smelting to obtain copper matte.
Hence, Wen discloses instant claim 1 required obtaining a water content and physical parameter of copper containing concentrate powder and in response to the water content meeting a first preset condition, as well mixing and spraying step.
Since instant claimed three determining steps are abstract ideas as indicated in rejection of 101 above, Wen anticipated claims 1-11.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 19 above over Zaim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN111554353A) in view of Zaim .
As for claims 1-11 and 19, Zhang discloses (paragraphs [0035]-[0075]): in a smelting process, iron and sulfur in raw materials such as copper concentrates are oxidized and removed, actual parameters such as the feeding amount and oxygen-rich gas flow of on-site raw fuels are measured, and x represents a certain input variable, such as an oxygen enrichment rate, oxygen-to-material ratio, and copper input into a furnace. Each feature parameter refers to a historical record of actual production to obtain a reference initial value of a membership function parameter of each input variable; and an intelligent coordinator is used to integrate the outputs of a bottom-blown smelting furnace mechanism model and of a bottom-blown smelting furnace data driving model so as to obtain a bottom-blown smelting furnace hybrid model, and the hybrid model is used to output final predicted values of copper matte grade, of silica-to-iron ratio, and of slag temperature during copper bottom-blown smelting. Neural network model is used, which reads on claimed prediction model is a machine learning model. Mixing and spraying steps are expected.
A human computer interaction interface reads on claim 19 required non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Zhang does not disclose instant claim 1 required obtaining a water content as a first preset condition.
Zaim teaches the moisture effect on the combustion of a single copper concentrate particle in a flash smelting furnace. Zaim explicitly teaches content of moisture (i.e. water content) in copper concentrate has adverse effect on the flash smelting process quality. Hence, moisture content should be reduced to less than 0.3% (Page 252 Col 1 paragraph 3) which meets instant claim 1 require a first preset condition.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to set moisture content of <=0.3% as first preset condition, as suggested by Zaim, in the smelting optimization process of Zhang for the purpose of reducing particle agglomeration as Zaim discloses high moisture content causes concentrate particle clings to each other such that particle agglomeration occurs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights