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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 16, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 and 6 are amended, and Claims 2-3 are cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Interpretations
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites wherein R is greater than or equal to α, wherein α is 0.017 or α is 0.017*(0.001*P+0.97) and P is the proportion of iron ore pellets in the iron ore material. Examiner interprets that the claims have been met if R satisfies either of the conditions wherein R is greater than or equal to 0.017, or wherein R is greater than or equal to 0.017*(0.001*P+0.97).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 07-305103 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kogure (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 2020152989 A English Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Inada discloses a method for producing pig iron using a blast furnace comprising a tuyere (Abstract; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
stacking a first layer comprising an iron ore material and a second layer comprising coke alternatively in the blast furnace (Fig. 1, one charging cycle; para. [0041]; para. [0034] and para.[0061], wherein charging/stacking cycle is repeated; see also para.[0027] and para. [0030]),
charging the coke to a central portion of the blast furnace (Fig. 1, mixed material M which comprises coke charged to a central portion; para. [0060]-[0061]),
reducing and melting the iron ore material in the first layer while injecting an auxiliary reductant into the blast furnace by hot air blown from the tuyere (para. [0042]),
wherein:
in the stacking, the charging of the coke is carried out once or a plurality of times during one charge of stacking a stacking unit composed of one of the first layer and one of the second layer (Fig.(b) or Fig.(d), once; Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(c), twice), and
wherein an iron ore to coke charge ratio (O/C) is about 3.72-3.79, and wherein a coke charge rate is 405-430kg/tp, such that an iron ore charge amount is about 1507-1630kg/tp.
Inada discloses and requires 0.05*(O/C)≤(OM/CM)≤(O/C)*0.3, wherein (OM/CM) is the ore to coke ratio in the central portion, but Inada does not disclose the ratio of coke in the central portion (CM) to iron ore material charged (O), and therefore fails to disclose the claimed R value (i.e., (CM/O) ratio) of greater or equal to an α of 0.017.
Kogure teaches a similar method (see Fig. 1), wherein coke is charged to a central portion in an amount defined by 36-0.104x-0.097y≤z≤108-0.313x-0.290y, wherein x is fine coal powder, y is auxiliary reducing agent, and z is the amount of coke charged to a central portion. Kogure teaches adding 150-220 kg/tp of fine coal powder in order to reduce the charged iron source successfully while preventing pressure loss from decreased coke layers, and teaches adding 10-50 kg/tp of auxiliary reducing agent in order to promote the reduction of the iron source while balancing for pressure loss and unburned char. Kogure therefore teaches adding coke to a central portion in an amount of 8.3-58.2kg/tp according to the inequality above, in order to efficiently and uniformly reduce the iron source while balancing for pressure loss (Abstract; para. [0047]; para. [0053]; [0057]-[0058]; z range calculated form x and y ranges, see also values for z in Table 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 150-220kg/tp pulverized coal, 10-50kg/tp auxiliary reducing agent, and the amount of coke charged to a central portion defined by the inequality 36-0.104x-0.097y≤z≤108-0.313x-0.290y, and therefore an amount of 8.3-58.2 kg/tp coke charged to a central portion, as taught Kogure, for the invention disclosed by Inada. One would be motivated to include these parameter amounts in order to reduce the charged iron source successfully while preventing pressure loss from decreased coke layers (see teaching above for pulverized coal), to promote the reduction of the iron source while balancing for pressure loss and unburned char (see teaching above for auxiliary reducing agent), and to efficiently and uniformly reduce the iron source while balancing for pressure loss (see teaching above for coke charged to central portion).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that central portion coke rate of 8.3-58.2 kg/tp, as taught by Kogure, and a charge iron ore rate of 1507-1630kg/tp (see Inada above), comprises a ratio CM/O, or R ratio, of 0.005-0.039, which reads on the claimed ratio R of a mass (ton/ch) of coke accumulated in the central portion to a mass (ton/ch) of iron ore material charged in the one charge greater than or equal to a predetermined value α wherein the predetermined value α is 0.017.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 5, Kogure teaches wherein the particle size or particle size distribution of the coke is not limited, and may be sized according to the porosity of voids generated therebetween the coke layers and the reactivity of the cokes (para. [0054]).
Kogure further teaches wherein the central coke and the coke of the charge layer may comprise the same particle (grain) size (para. [0059]), which reads on the claim language wherein the average grain size of the coke accumulated in the central portion is equal to an average grain size of the coke comprised in the second (charge) layer.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 07-305103 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kogure (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 2020152989 A English Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Baek (previously cited, KR 20190070766 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 4, Inada fails to disclose wherein the strength of the coke in the central portion is greater than the strength of the coke in the second layer.
Baek teaches wherein high strength coke is charged to a central portion and low strength coke is charged to the blast furnace wall portion (i.e., the claimed second layer), in order to secure liquid permeability of the blast furnace while also improving output and productivity by using low strength coke (para. [0009]; para. [0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a strength of the coke accumulated in the central portion greater than a strength of the coke comprised in the second layer, as taught by Baek, for the invention disclosed by Inada and Kogure, in order to secure liquid permeability of the blast furnace while also improving output and productivity by using low strength coke (see teaching above).
Claim 5 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 07-305103 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kogure (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 2020152989 A English Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Nishimura (previously cited, EP 1445334 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kogure teaches wherein the particle size or particle size distribution of the coke is not limited, and may be sized according to the porosity of voids generated therebetween the coke layers and the reactivity of the cokes (para. [0054]).
Kogure further teaches wherein the central coke and the coke of the charge layer may comprise the same particle (grain) size, which reads on the claim language wherein the average grain size of the coke accumulated in the central portion is equal to an average grain size of the coke comprised in the second (charge) layer, or may have different particle sizes or particle distributions (para. [0059]).
Kogure fails to specifically disclose wherein the central coke comprises a larger grain size than the coke in the second (charge) layer.
Nishimura teaches wherein a larger particle size of the center coke charge compared to a periphery charge (second layer of instant invention) improves the liquid permeability at the furnace bed and improves gas flow (para. [0007]; para. [0010]-[0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an average grain size of the coke accumulated in the central portion greater than an average grain size of the coke comprised in the second (peripheral/charge) layer, as taught by Nishimura, for the invention disclosed by Inada and Kogure, in order to improve liquid permeability of the furnace bed and to improve gas flow (see teaching above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 07-305103 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kogure (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 2020152989 A English Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wakimoto (previously cited, US 4857106 A) and Oya (previously cited, US 6302941 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Inada and Kogure teach using thermocouples to monitor the heat conditions of the furnace and further, wherein conditions monitored and measured include temperature and volume of hot air, temperature of the coke, temperature of the molten iron, the ratio of charged ore to coke (O/C) and the ratio of ore to coke in a central portion (OM/CM), central coke rate, hydrogen gas utilization rate, pressure loss, iron ore output rate, and inner wall temperature of the furnace body and fluctuation thereof (Inada, para. [0042]; para. [0066]-[0067]; Fig. 5-7; Kogure, para. [0080]; para. [0088]-[0089]; para. [0110]; iron ore output rate reads on ‘remaining pig iron amount’).
Inada and Kogure therefore disclose obtaining actual values of a data group comprising a temperature and a volume of the hot hair, a furnace wall heat removal amount, a remaining pig iron amount, a temperature of the molten iron, and the ore to coke ratios both in the charge (stacking layers) and the central portion, and therefore the claimed R ratio.
Inada and Kogure do not disclose wherein the actual values are then used as input for training data and training an artificial intelligence model, as claimed.
Wakimoto teaches a method of controlling heat conditions in a blast furnace including the claimed inputting, as training data, actual values of an input data group comprising a blast air amount, blast air pressure and tuyere nose temperature, and therefore volume and temperature of the hot air, the coke ratio, steam amount, molten metal temperature, and gas utilization ratio and solution loss carbon amount (reaction amount), for a period between a time prior to a reference time and the reference time, and of an output data group comprising temperature data of molten iron obtained in the reducing and melting at a time posterior to the reference time (Abstract; see parameters in Fig. 9),
and further estimating the temperature of the molten metal by use of artificial intelligence and computing based on the input and output reference data collected at particular time intervals (Col. 17, line 39; Fig. 9, time intervals; Col. 4, lines 19-20).
Oya teaches using heat conditions as input and output data in order to develop an artificial intelligence system for controlling a blast furnace, including:
providing an estimation model of the heat conditions, including input conditions comprising the temperature of the molten iron and therefore heat loss of the furnace wall, tuyere temperature (temperature of hot gas), coke and pulverized coal ratios, moisture content, and output conditions include temperature of the molten iron (Fig. 6-7; Col. 3, lines 33-41; Col. 12, lines 32-36; Col. 14, lines 35-54; Abstract),
inferring a level of the heat conditions in the furnace and a transition of the heat conditions in the furnace, by using the estimation model of the heat conditions in the furnace, on the basis of the obtained information of the molten iron temperature, to obtain an inferred result of the level of the heat conditions in the furnace and the transition of the heat conditions in the furnace (Claim 14);
providing a correcting model of the heat conditions in the furnace by using the previous knowledge of conditions for the operation of the blast furnace (Claim 14);
and automatically correcting an operational factor of the blast furnace by applying the artificial intelligence system to use the correcting model of the heat conditions in the furnace, on the basis of the inferred result, to control the temperature of the molten iron (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used input and output data collection methods of Wakimoto and Oya, and applied them to a predictive model by training artificial intelligence in order to estimate a future temperature of the molten iron, as taught by Wakimoto and Oya, for the invention disclosed by Inada and Kogure, in order to control heat conditions and therefore stabilize blast furnace operations (Wakimoto, Abstract; Oya, Col. 1, lines 29-35). Additionally, it would have been obvious to have collected and applied the input data and output data for the heat conditions taught by Inada, Kogure, Wakimoto and Oya, and therefore the claimed heat conditions of “a temperature and a volume of the hot air, a solution loss reaction amount, a furnace wall heat removal amount, a remaining pig iron amount, a temperature of molten iron, and the ratio R”, in order to expand the predictive capabilities of the artificial intelligence model, because these parameters are already monitored, and in order to be within the designated ranges required Inada and Kogure, thereby producing a stable furnace operation (see Abstract of Inada and Kogure for example; see teaching above by Oya).
The method of Inada, Kogure, Wakimoto and Oya therefore reads on the claimed “inputting, as training data, actual values of an input data group comprising a temperature and a volume of the hot air, a solution loss reaction amount, a furnace wall heat removal amount, a remaining pig iron amount, a temperature of molten iron, and the ratio R in a predetermined period between a time prior to a reference time and the reference time, and of an output data group comprising temperature data of molten iron obtained in the reducing and melting at a time posterior to the reference time, training an artificial intelligence model to predict temperature data of the molten iron at a time posterior to the reference time from the input data group; obtaining the input data group with a current time as the reference time; and causing the trained artificial intelligence model to estimate a future temperature of the molten iron, wherein the input data group obtained in the obtaining, and actual values of the output data group corresponding to the input data group are used for input in the training”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not found persuasive.
Regarding Inada and Kogure:
Applicant argues that Inada and Kogure do not suggest that the ratio R may be controlled and fail to contemplate the effects of hot air flow by the ratio R, and that arriving at the claimed ratio R would require undue experimentation given the teachings of Inada and Kogure.
This argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Inada and Kogure do not teach controlling the R ratio to result in hot air flow properties, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., hot air flow) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed to undue experimentation, Inada and Kogure comprise an overlapping range of R values, and Applicant has not provided criticality towards the claimed range. Therefore, the claim limitations have been met.
Applicant argues that coke (numerator in the ratio R) of the instant invention is the accumulated amount in the central portion regardless of the origin of the coke, whereas the coke recited by Inada and Kogure specifies the coke origin to be from the amount charged to the central portion. Applicant argues these two amounts are different.
This argument is not found persuasive.
While Applicant argues that the accumulated amount of coke of the instant invention is different than the charged amount of coke of Inada and Kogure, Applicant has not sufficiently pointed out how Inada and Kogure do not meet the claimed limitations wherein R is 0.017 or greater. The charged amount of Kogure and Inada would be present in the central portion as, or as part of, the accumulated amount. The charged amount alone meets the claimed limitation wherein R is 0.017 or greater, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any additional coke present from accumulation in other sources would serve to increase the R ratio (coke amount is in the numerator of the R ratio), such that R of 0.017 or greater would continue to be met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukushima (US 4913406 A): teaches wherein smaller grain sizes of ore and coke concentrated at a central portion of the furnace causes greater pressure drops (Col. 7, lines 62-66).
Ikuta (WO 2020196769 A1, English Equivalent US 20220177985 A): teaches an injection rate of pulverized iron ore from 2.5-50kg/tp in order to reduce pressure loss (Abstract; para. [0055]-[0057]).
Shimizu (US 4963186 A): teaches charging coke to the central part of a blast furnace at 150kg/charge (Col. 14, lines 30-39).
Sakurai (US 6090181 A): teaches charging coke three times at a rate of 20kg/charge (Col. 7, lines 37-44).
Mori (US 3588067 A): teaches a ore/coke ratio of 3.2 (which is a ratio of coke to ore of 0.3125).
Kogure (applied above, previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed August 9, 2024, JP 2020152989 A English Translation provided, further teachings): further teaches wherein conventionally the iron source comprises iron ore pellets in an amount of 40wt% or less, such as 15wt% (para. [0036]-[0039]; para. [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an amount of 40wt% or less, such as 15wt%, iron pellets in the iron source material, as taught by Kogure, because Kogure teaches this is a well-known and conventional amount of iron ore pellets used in blast furnace operations (see teaching above).
The invention of Inada and Kogure therefore comprises a P value of 40% or less, such that α is equal to 0.017*(0.001*(0.40 or less) + 0.97) and therefore 0.0172 or less per the claimed formula. A P value of 15% for example (see teaching above), results in an α value of 0.167. Thus, the invention of Inada and Kogure, which comprises an MC/O ratio (R ratio) of 0.005-0.039 (ratio of coke charged in a central portion to total ore in one charge – see Claim 1 above), satisfies the claimed requirement wherein MC/O is equal to or greater than α.
An (CN 109022654 A, English Machine translation provided): teaches wherein a blast furnace is controlled to produce a central portion ore to coke ratio of about 13.7-15 (see Table in para. [0040]). 13.7-15 (O/C) gives an R ratio (C/O) of about 0.067-0.073.
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 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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (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 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights