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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, it appears “a model determination unit” should be replaced with --a model parameter determination unit--.
In claim 1, line 13, it appears “a furnace state calculation unit configured to calculate state quantities” should be replaced with -- a furnace state calculation unit configured to calculate furnace state quantities--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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 1, recites the following limitation: “an input unit configured to ……” in line 2.
Since this claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: this recited unit is identified in the specification with a label 11, and described in the specification para [0028] as for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a pointing device, a data receiver, and/or a graphical user interface (GUI).
Claim 1, recites the following limitations: (i) “a model determination unit
configured to …” in line 8; (ii) “a furnace state calculation unit configured to …” in
line 13; and (iii) “a model determination unit configured to ….” in line 16.
Since each one of these claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: each one of these recited units is identified in the specification with a label 14, 15 and 13, respectively and described in the specification para [0031] as an arithmetic processing unit such a CPU.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-9 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 the limitation "an input unit configured to receive track record information and conditions of refining treatment, the track record including" in lines 2-3. However, how and the source from which said track record information and conditions of refining treatment is received is lacking in the claim, the limitation is therefore
deemed vague and thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In addition, the specification [0028], describes the input unit as for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a pointing device, a data receiver, and/or a graphical user interface (GUI); therefore it is unclear as to how a device such as a keyboard, a mouse, and a pointing device listed in the specification as being among the corresponding features for the claimed input unit can perform the function as an information receiving means as the claim appears to require.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an input unit configured to receive track record information and conditions of refining treatment, the track record including" in lines 2-3. However, while, what constitutes track record information is recited in the claim, the conditions of the refining treatment are missing in the claim, thereby making the claim appears incomplete and amounting to a gap between the claimed elements; thereby rendering the claim indefinite and the scope unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “measurement results regarding the refining equipment that include flow rate and component concentration of exhaust gas discharged from the refining equipment” in lines 6-7. In particular in the specification, the term “flow rate” is directed to the top-blown oxygen and the bottom-blown gas, and therefore it is unclear how said flow rate is associated with the refining equipment as the claim appears to convey. The claim is therefore deemed indefinite as the scope is unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a model determination unit configured to determine model parameters in the refining treatment of a target charge using past model parameters acquired from a database that stores model parameters for models related to blowing reaction in the refining equipment, the track record information, and the conditions of refining treatment” in lines 8-12. However, the claim lacks any definition or reference to any model parameters or models related to blowing reaction in the refining equipment; thereby rendering said claimed determination vague, and the scope of the
claim unascertainable.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8, each recites at least one of the following limitations to
include: a model determination unit, model parameters, a database that stores model parameters for models related to blowing reaction in the refining equipment, determined model parameters; model parameter calculation unit, past model parameters, model determination step, model parameter calculation step, averaging model parameters, model relationship between the past model parameters, and determine the model parameters for the refining treatment of the target charge based on a model.
However, the term model or models by plain meaning as applied to metallurgical or furnace systems or processes such as molten steel production or refining is/are directed to computational and analytical frameworks used to simulate and optimize metallurgical processes; for example, models aim to predict temperature, flow, chemistry, and inclusion behavior to improve product quality and reduce costs. However, the use of the word model or models in the instant claims appear to be indiscriminately and not aligned with the art are recognized definition or the word (model or model), thereby rendering the claims confusing and raising issues of clarity; thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of multiple instances of the word “model” appears to make the claim confusing. For instance, the claim includes (i) “model determination unit is configured to model relationship between the past model parameters”; (ii) “determine the model parameters for the refining treatment of the target charge based on a model”. In particular the word “model” in this claim has been used as a noun, an adjective and a verb, thereby making it unclear as to what the word “model” is intended to convey. Furthermore, from the manner in which the claim is written, it is unclear what the term model, the determined model parameters for the refining treatment of the target charge are based on. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Art Rejection
7. Besides the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, the claims are not art rejected due to the multiple raised issues of clarity under 112(b) presented above in the instant Office action.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kase et al. (US 11,966,669), Tamiyama (JP2017008349) and Tamiyama et al. (JP2018050589) are also cited in PTO-902.
9. 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