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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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. In the instant application the applicant claims “a transmission and reception means for transmitting and receiving the detection wave” is not described in the specification in a manner that would convey one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claims invention.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 limitation “a transmission and reception means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the instant application, the disclosure is teaches an antenna that performs the transmit and receive functions but the antenna cannot be connected to the antenna and therefore cannot be interpreted as the structure that performs the function in the manner that is described in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “operating the surface profile detection apparatus of a burden”. The claims supplies the burden to the container based on a detection result but doesn’t teach how the result is obtained or in what manner the result is obtained. It is missing an essential step in the method.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashihara et al (US 20210041172) in view of Kayano et al (WO 2020241008).
Regarding claim 1, Kashihara teaches a surface profile detection apparatus of a burden (abs), the surface profile detection apparatus being installed to an opening of a container of various facilities and being configured to detect a surface profile of the burden by transmitting through the opening (fig 2, item 60 and paragraph 33), a detection wave toward a surface of the burden supplied and deposited in the container and receiving the detection wave reflected on the surface of the burden (para 35), the surface profile detection apparatus comprising: a transmission and reception means for transmitting and receiving the detection wave (fig 2, item 50 and para 35); an antenna connected to the transmission and reception means and configured to transmit and receive the detection wave (fig 2, item 52 and para 28); a circumferential scanning means for scanning the detection wave in a circumferential direction of the container (para 27, “a basis of distance data for the entire blast furnace related to distances to the surface of the burden 4 obtained by scanning a detection wave of the radio wave distance meter 5a in a circumferential direction of the blast furnace bod”).
Regarding claim 1, Kashihara does not teach a diametrical scanning means for scanning the detection wave in a diametrical direction of the container by tilting an angle variable reflection plate, wherein the diametrical scanning means tilts the angle variable reflection plate by means of a swing mechanism and a spline driven by a drive source for driving the circumferential scanning means, and wherein the circumferential scanning means and the diametrical scanning means are caused to cooperate with each other, thereby scanning the detection wave in the diametrical direction of the container while scanning the detection wave in the circumferential direction of the container. Kayano teaches a diametrical scanning means for scanning the detection wave in a diametrical direction of the container by tilting an angle variable reflection plate (fig 8), wherein the diametrical scanning means tilts the angle variable reflection plate by means of a swing mechanism and a spline driven by a drive source for driving the circumferential scanning means (fig 8, item 170), and wherein the circumferential scanning means and the diametrical scanning means are caused to cooperate with each other, thereby scanning the detection wave in the diametrical direction of the container while scanning the detection wave in the circumferential direction of the container (fig 7). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara to include a diametrical scanning means for scanning the detection wave in a diametrical direction of the container by tilting an angle variable reflection plate, wherein the diametrical scanning means tilts the angle variable reflection plate by means of a swing mechanism and a spline driven by a drive source for driving the circumferential scanning means, and wherein the circumferential scanning means and the diametrical scanning means are caused to cooperate with each other, thereby scanning the detection wave in the diametrical direction of the container while scanning the detection wave in the circumferential direction of the container because it is merely a substitution of the well-known scanning device of Kashihara with the scanning device of Kayano to yield a predictable scanning device.
Regarding claim 2, Kayano teaches swing mechanism is a traverse cam or a crank mechanism (para fig 8, item 170). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara to include swing mechanism is a traverse cam or a crank mechanism because it is merely a substitution of the well-known scanning device of Kashihara with the swing mechanism device of Kayano to yield a predictable scanning device.
Regarding claim 3, Kayano teaches the traverse cam is independently driven separately from the spline (fig 8, item 118 and 119). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara to include the traverse cam is independently driven separately from the spline because it is merely a substitution of the well-known scanning device of Kashihara with the swing mechanism device of Kayano to yield a predictable scanning device.
Regarding claim 4, Kashihara teaches a rotating case having an opening formed on a bottom surface facing the container is provided (fig 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kayano teaches the antenna is accommodated in the rotating case and the antenna is not rotated (fig 6, and page 3, paragraph 7, “A gear 112 is provided on the outer peripheral surface of the rotating shaft 110, and the gear 155 of the motor 113 meshes with the gear 112. Therefore, by driving the motor 113, the rotating shaft 110 rotates as shown by reference numeral Y in the drawing, and the rotating plate 120 is moved into the opening 2 of the blast furnace 1 in the same direction as the rotating shaft 110. On the other hand, it rotates horizontally”). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara to include the antenna is accommodated in the rotating case and the antenna is not rotated because it is merely a substitution of the well-known scanning device of Kashihara with the swing mechanism device of Kayano to yield a predictable scanning device.
Regarding claim 6, Kayano teaches an angle fixed plate configured to transmit the detection wave from the antenna to an angle fixed reflection plate, the angle variable reflection plate, and a link mechanism connected to the angle variable reflection plate are accommodated in the rotating case, and the angle fixed reflection plate, the angle variable reflection plate, and the link mechanism are simultaneously rotated (fig 6 and fig 8). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara to include an angle fixed plate configured to transmit the detection wave from the antenna to an angle fixed reflection plate, the angle variable reflection plate, and a link mechanism connected to the angle variable reflection plate are accommodated in the rotating case, and the angle fixed reflection plate, the angle variable reflection plate, and the link mechanism are simultaneously rotated because it is merely a substitution of the well-known scanning device of Kashihara with the swing mechanism device of Kayano to yield a predictable scanning device.
Regarding claim 9, Kashihara teaches driving of the circumferential scanning means and the diametrical scanning means is intermittently stopped, a measurement is performed multiple times at stopped positions to obtain an average value (para 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 10, Kashihara teaches supplying the burden to the container, based on a detection result by the surface profile detection apparatus of a burden according to claim 1 (abs).
Regarding claim 11, Kashihara teaches operation method comprising supplying the burden to the container, based on a detection result by the surface profile detection apparatus of a burden according to claim 4 (abs and fig 2).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashihara in view of Kayano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kayano (JP 2017048421).
Regarding claim 7, Kayano (421) teaches the opening of the rotating case is covered with an adiabatic material made of a heat-resistant material that transmits the detection wave, and a purge gas is ejected from the container side toward the adiabatic material along a radial direction to remove dust attached to the adiabatic material (page 7, paragraph 9, “the opening of the connecting member 115 is covered with a breathable filter 140 made of a material that transmits the detection wave. As the filter 140, for example, a woven fabric made of “Tyranno fiber” manufactured by Ube Industries, Ltd. can be used. The Tyranno fiber is a ceramic fiber made of silicon, titanium, zirconium, carbon, and oxygen, and the one knitted into a planar shape becomes a heat-resistant ventilation material”). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara in view of Kayano to include the opening of the rotating case is covered with an adiabatic material made of a heat-resistant material that transmits the detection wave, and a purge gas is ejected from the container side toward the adiabatic material along a radial direction to remove dust attached to the adiabatic material because it is would protect and clean the scanning device of Kashihara.
Regarding claim 8, Kayano (421) teaches an outer box surrounding the rotating case and attached to the opening of the container (fig 6 and 8); and an air filter configured to block the opening of the container and made of a heat-resistant material that transmits the detection wave (page 7, paragraph 9, “the opening of the connecting member 115 is covered with a breathable filter 140 made of a material that transmits the detection wave. As the filter 140, for example, a woven fabric made of “Tyranno fiber” manufactured by Ube Industries, Ltd. can be used. The Tyranno fiber is a ceramic fiber made of silicon, titanium, zirconium, carbon, and oxygen, and the one knitted into a planar shape becomes a heat-resistant ventilation material”), wherein a purge gas introduced from a purge gas intake port provided in the outer box is discharged from the air filter (page, columns “the vent hole 116 reaches the gas supply port 151, the inert gas from the gas supply port 151 enters the filter 140 through the vent hole 116. The dust from the inside of the furnace ejected toward the filter and attached to the filter 140 can be removed. Further, since the inert gas passes through the filter 140 and reaches the reflecting surface 120a of the reflecting plate 120, dust attached to the reflecting surface 120a can be remove”). It would have been obvious to modify Kashihara in view of Kayano to include an outer box surrounding the rotating case and attached to the opening of the container and an air filter configured to block the opening of the container and made of a heat-resistant material that transmits the detection wave wherein a purge gas introduced from a purge gas intake port provided in the outer box is discharged from the air filter because it is would protect and clean the scanning device of Kashihara.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648