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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on October 22, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner. The Examiner acknowledges the addition of claims 13-18 by the amendment. Claims 1-18 are now pending in the application.
Examination of Application
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 15, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on May 15, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for determining a content of at least metallic iron (Femet) in sponge iron or a sample thereof produced by direct reduction from iron ore, comprising the following steps:
detecting at least one measurement variable (Ameas), which is dependent on at least one electromagnetic property of the sponge iron or sample thereof,
providing a mathematical model whose model output variable (Amod) is described as a function of the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, wherein the mathematical model has an effective medium approximation (EMA) for permeability (μeff) and electrical conductivity ( σeff) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, and
implementing an estimation method for determining the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) using the detected measurement variable (Ameas) and the mathematical model.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " detecting at least one measurement variable (Ameas), which is dependent on at least one electromagnetic property of the sponge iron or sample thereof, providing a mathematical model whose model output variable (Amod) is described as a function of the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, wherein the mathematical model has an effective medium approximation (EMA) for permeability (μeff) and electrical conductivity ( σeff) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, and implementing an estimation method for determining the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) using the detected measurement variable (Ameas) and the mathematical model". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (as a typical human activity by measuring the variables using a detection instrument by ordinary skills in the art) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, providing mathematical model). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data:” implementing an estimation method for determining the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) using the detected measurement variable (Ameas) and the mathematical model”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of those computational analysis. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 2-8: the instant claim is directed to a computational analysis or an extension of the mathematical model, and is considered a human activity.
Dependent claim 9-12: the instant claims describe the method of obtaining measured values through electromagnetic means and would be contributing to the action of data gathering at a higher level of generality.
Dependent claims 13-18: the instant claims are directed to determining of various contents through the estimation method which is part of the measurement scheme which are data gathering steps at a highest level of generality.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-18: Troxler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,091,627, hereon Troxler) discloses a method for measuring the density of a material. Further, the method includes a material property gauge with a nuclear density gauge for measuring the density of a material. A radiation source adapted to emit radiation into a material and a radiation detector operable to produce a signal representing the detected radiation. A first material property calculation function may calculate a value associated with the density of the material based upon the signal produced by the radiation detector. The material property gauge includes an electromagnetic moisture property gauge that determines a moisture property of the material. An electromagnetic field generator may generate an electromagnetic field where the electromagnetic field sweeps through one or more frequencies and penetrates into the material. An electromagnetic sensor may determine a frequency response of the material to the electromagnetic field across the several frequencies (see Troxler, Abstract).
The instant application differs from Troxler in that it provides “a mathematical model whose model output variable (Amod) is described as a function of the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, wherein the mathematical model has an effective medium approximation (EMA) for permeability (μeff) and electrical conductivity ( σeff) of the sponge iron or sample thereof, and implementing an estimation method for determining the content of at least metallic iron (Femet) using the detected measurement variable (Ameas) and the mathematical model” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cintron et al. (U.S. PAP 2023/0175088) discloses a direct reduction of iron ore (DRI) reactor configured to receive iron ore and a reducing gas, and to produce iron; and a carbon dioxide reduction electrolyze configured to produce carbon monoxide and/or a hydrocarbon.
Memoli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,421,289) discloses a method for the production of cast iron starting from pre-reduced iron ore (DRI) with an electric arc furnace includes the steps of preparing a charge of pre-reduced iron ore DRI having a metallization higher than 90% and containing over 2.8% by weight of carbon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights