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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected group II (claims 6-9 and 11) are withdrawn from prosecution in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to replace the “A hot metal temperature prediction method comprising:” with -- A blast furnace hot metal temperature prediction method comprising: --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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. Claim 1, at least requires calculating a reaction amount inside a blast furnace using a physical model that takes into account reactions and heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace which leads to calculating a deviation.., adjusting a parameter and a prediction of a future hot metal temperature, however, the specification as originally filed does not provide specific details regarding the means, how and what manner the reaction amount inside the blast furnace is calculated using the physical model as it relates to the heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace. In addition, the phrase “heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace” is vague in that it fails to state between what objects/entities or regions within the blast furnace any exchange of thermal energy (heat) occurs, and furthermore the claim as recited lacks any hot metal temperature measurements for example an initial or present temperature measurement. Thus, the present specification does not clearly include sufficient details to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the invention showing how and what manner the calculation of reaction amount and deviation of reaction amount occurs leading to the prediction of a future hot metal temperature.
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 1-5 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 is directed to an abstract idea. In particular Claim 1, lines 2- 3, recites the limitation “calculating a reaction amount inside a blast furnace using a physical model that takes into account reactions and heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace”. It is unclear what the phrase “take into account means” because the equation used in the specification for example page 7 for the physical model does not contain any components related to heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace. It is also unclear from the claim, the objects or entities within the furnace that the exchange of thermal energy (heat) occurs, particularly since the specification is also appears silent. The claim is therefore indefinite since the metes and bound are unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "adjusting a parameter of the physical model that causes drift in a gas inside the blast furnace" in lines 6-7, meaning the parameter is an attribute of the physical model or a mathematical model (i.e. as shown in the specification page 9, para [0028], line 25) used for the hot metal temperature prediction, however claim 3, which depends from the base claim 1, recites the limitation “wherein the parameter is at least one of void ratio and grain size in a specific region within a packed layer inside the blast furnace” in line 2-3. Thus, from claim 3, it appears the parameter would be associated with a feed material input or a burden material input of the blast furnace. Therefore, it is unclear as to what constitutes a parameter of the physical model or in other words what does the phrase “a parameter of the physical model” mean, to the extent that it can be adjusted as recited in claim 1, line 6. The claim
is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, recites the limitation “predicting a future hot metal temperature using the physical model for which the parameter was adjusted”. In is unclear how the physical model is used or can be used to predict a future hot metal temperature since the physical model is the tool used for calculating the reaction amount inside the blast furnace, one reading the claim would have expected the result obtained using the physical model to be used in predicting a future hot metal temperature, and thus raising ambiguities in the meaning the claim and consequently rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is unclear what the phrase “presenting an operation action” or “operation action presented” means, particularly since the specification appears not to provide any clear definition for the word “presenting” so as to provide any clear direction as to what “presenting an operation action to increase the hot metal temperature based on the hot metal temperature predicted” means. The claims are indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In particular, claims 4 and 5 do not set forth any clear operation guidance except the phrase “presenting an operation action” and therefore both claims add nothing more to the prediction method already recited in the claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Hashimoto et al. (JP2018024935, also see Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto et al. teaches a method of predicting a temperature of a molten metal in a blast furnace (see “EEMTV”: abstract and para [0001]), comprising calculating the state inside the blast furnace (i.e. which is interpreted to be equivalent to a claimed phrase reaction amount inside a blast furnace, see “EEMTV”: para [0007]-[[0011]) using a physical model (see “EEMTV”: abstract, para [0007]-[0012]) based on the heat exchange between ore and coke and the other burden material fed into the blast furnace (which is interpreted to be equivalent to the claimed phrase takes into account reactions and heat transfer phenomena inside the blast furnace, see “EEMTV”: para [0020]-[0021]), calculating a deviation or difference between the reaction amount calculated using the physical model and a measured reaction amount (see “EEMTV”: abstract, para [0007], [0010]-[0013] and [0020]-[0021]); adjusting a parameter of the physical model that causes drift in a gas inside the blast furnace, so that the calculated deviation is reduced (see EEMTV”: abstract, para [0007], [0010]-[0014]); and predicting a future hot metal temperature using the result obtained using physical model for which the parameter was adjusted (see (see “EEMTV”: abstract, para [0007], [0010]-[0013] and [0020]-[0021]). Claims 4 and 5 do not set forth any clear operation guidance except
the phrase “presenting an operation action” and therefore both claims add nothing more to the prediction method already recited in claim 1 and therefore claims 4 and 5 are rejected together with claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto et al. teaches a method of predicting a temperature of a molten metal in a blast furnace (see “EEMTV”: abstract and para [0001]) in which the state inside the blast furnace the reaction amount includes at least one of a solution loss carbon amount and a gas utilization ratio (see “EEMTV”: para [0008], [0021]- [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto et al. teaches a method of predicting a temperature of a molten metal in a blast furnace (see “EEMTV”: abstract and para [0001]) in which the parameter is low coke ration and high pulverized coal ration ( which is interpreted to be equivalent to the claimed is at least one of void ratio and grain size in a specific region within a packed layer inside the blast furnace (see “EEMTV”: para [0002], [0005], [0008], [0009] and [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inada et al. (US 10,106,863) and Lee et al. (US 11,242,575) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights