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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “estimation module… to process”, in claim 1; “image classification module… to classify”, in claim 1; “feature-enhancer module… process”, in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the path”, in line 7. This appears to be due to typographical error, since Claim 1 first introduces “the path” in line 7. Therefore, Examiner suggest changing the limitation “the path”, in line 7, to —a path—.
In claim 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the path”, in line 10. This appears to be due to typographical error, since Claim 3 first introduces “the path” in line 10. Therefore, Examiner suggest changing the limitation “the path”, in line 10, to —a path—.
In claim 3, there is a typographical error for the term “(ii)”, in line 17, since claim 3 first introduces “(ii)” in line 16. Therefore, Examiner suggest changing the term “(ii)”, in line 17, to —(iii)—.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “an auxiliary machine learning tool”, in line 2. This appears to be due to typographical error, since parent Claim 7 first introduces “an auxiliary machine learning tool”, in line 2. Therefore, Examiner suggest changing the limitation “an auxiliary machine learning tool”, in line 2 of claim 8, to —the auxiliary machine learning tool—.
In claim 14, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “a computer implemented method according to claim 1.”, lines 3-4. This appears to be due to typographical error in the dependency, since Claim 3 introduces “a computer implemented method” not claim 1. Thus, claim 14 should be dependent on claim 3 not claim 1. Such as, the examiner suggest changing the limitation ““a computer implemented method according to claim 1.”, in lines 3-4 of claim 14, to —the computer implemented method according to claim 3.—.
In claim 15, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the computer implemented method according to claim 1.”, lines 2-3. This appears to be due to typographical error in the dependency, since Claim 3 introduces “a computer implemented method” not claim 1. Thus, claim 15 should be dependent on claim 3 not claim 1. Such as, the examiner suggest changing the limitation “the computer implemented method according to claim 1.” in lines 2-3 of claim 15, to —“the computer implemented method according to claim 3.” —.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is drawn to a computer program product for carrying out the computer executable instructions, which is no more than just a software computer program. The software computer program is non-statutory since it cannot be interpreted to fall into any of the four patentable categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If Applicant is going to change the claims to cover the computer-readable storage medium, Applicant is suggested to exclude the transitory embodiment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-16 of copending Application No. (18/998,257). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claims 15-16 of Copending application:
Regarding claim 1, A system for estimating the content of a chemical element in molten material that is available at an opening of a metallurgical vessel, the system comprising;, [Claim 15, lines 1-3]
a pyrometer [Claim 15, lines 4-6]
a camera [Claim 15, lines 7-9]
a computer with an estimation module and with an image classification module, [Claim 15, lines 10-11]
wherein the estimation module is adapted to process the radiation data (further enhanced radiation data comprise radiation data) with a regression model to provide an estimation with preliminary content data[Claim 15, lines 21-24] wherein the estimation module has been trained by training data collected during a data-collection phase, [Claim 15, lines 24-25] wherein the collected data is a combination of historical radiation data [Claim 15, lines 25-26], and historical content data[Claim 15, lines 26-28], wherein the image classification module is adapted to classify the one or more images [Claim 15, lines 30-32], with the phenomena selectively comprising at least one of the following:(i) accretion, fumes or reflections that are located in the path[Claim 16, lines 1-4], wherein the image classification module is further adapted to subsequently - according to the identified phenomena provide a reliability classification[Claim 15, lines 32-35].
Instant application claim 2 is anticipated by claims 15-16 of Copending application:
Regarding claim 2, The system according to claim 1,
wherein the computer [claim 15, line 10] [claim 15, lines 12-14],
wherein the estimation module [claim 15, lines 19-22], wherein the radiation data together with the feature data [claim 15, lines 19-20], wherein the estimation module has been trained by training data [claim 15, line 24] that further comprise feature data that are identified according to the plurality of feature enhancement rules, [claim 15, lines 28-29].
Regarding claims 14-15, the claims are objected due to typographical error in the dependency , since Claim 3 first introduces “A method” not claim 1 “A system” (as indicated on the objection section above). Thus, claims 14-15 should be dependent on claim 3 not claim 1. Therefore, claims 14-15 are being interpreted as dependent of claim 3, such as are not rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 are allowed.
Regarding Claims 3, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A computer-implemented method to estimate the content of a chemical element in molten material that is available at an opening of a metallurgical vessel, the method including the following steps: from a pyrometer that is arranged to monitor the opening, a computer receiving radiation data that represent the thermal radiation from the molten material at the opening, for at least two wavelengths; from a camera, the computer receiving one or more images showing the opening or showing the path between the opening and the pyrometer; the computer classifying the one or more images to identify phenomena, wherein the phenomena selectively comprise at least one of the following: (i) accretion, fumes or reflections that are located in the path, (ii) degree of alignment of the pyrometer to the opening, (ii) the share of metal and slag on the images; and classifying the radiation data from the pyrometer as reliable radiation data or non-reliable radiation data, according to the identified phenomena; the computer operating a processing module that processes the reliable radiation data, wherein the processing module has a regression model to estimate the content of the chemical element, wherein the processing module has been trained in advance. ”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 4-13 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 3 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Claims 1-2 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under nonstatutory double patenting., set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claims 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A system for estimating the content of a chemical element in molten material that is available at an opening of a metallurgical vessel, the system comprising: a pyrometer that is adapted to monitor the opening and to provide radiation data that represent the thermal radiation from the molten material at the opening, for at least two wavelengths; a camera that is adapted to monitor the opening or the path between the opening and the pyrometer , to provide one or more images showing the opening or the path; and a computer with an estimation module and with an image classification module, wherein the estimation module is adapted to process the radiation data with a regression model to provide an estimation with preliminary content data for the chemical element in the molten material, wherein the estimation module has been trained by training data collected during a data-collection phase, wherein the collected data is a combination of historical radiation data, and historical content data obtained by measurements on samples taken from the molten material at the opening, wherein the image classification module is adapted to classify the one or more images to identify phenomena at the opening or at the path, with the phenomena selectively comprising at least one of the following:(i) accretion, fumes or reflections that are located in the path ; (ii) a degree of alignment of the pyrometer to the opening ; and(iii) share of metal and slag on the images, wherein the image classification module is further adapted to subsequently - according to the identified phenomena provide a reliability classification for the radiation data, so that the computer outputs preliminary content data as content data only if the reliability classification complies with a pre-defined rule.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 1 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
The closes art:
Fry et al. (US 2022/0382250 A1), discloses a system for a metallurgical vessel, the system comprising: a pyrometer (Fig. 7 element 180) monitor discrete wavelengths of light to characterize temperature variations in real-time occurring on a build plane to determine thermal energy density and/or other parameters”, [0043], for at least two wavelengths, [0044]; a camera (Fig. 7 element 150-1) the opening (Fig. 7 element 145), [0018] or the path between the opening and the pyrometerthe opening or the path, [0019, 0038]; and a computer (Fig. 1 element 140) with an estimation module and with an image classification module.
Dave et al. (US 2017/0090462 A1), discloses a computer-implemented method to estimate the content of a chemical element in molten material that is available, [abstract], from a pyrometer (Fig. 6 element 609) that is arranged to monitor [0083], a computer receiving radiation data that represent the thermal radiation from the molten material, [0082], from a camera, [0083], classifying the radiation data from the pyrometer as reliable radiation data or non-reliable radiation data, (there can exist some a posteriori data, expert knowledge, or some other historical and/or training data set or set 313 which would enable the classifiers and to act upon their respective feature sets and so as to separate the set of process outcomes into nominal and off-nominal subsets, [0069]).
Pauna H. ET AL: "Optical emission spectroscopy as a method to improve the process automation of electric arc furnaces and ladle furnaces", IFAC-PapersOnline, vol. 55, no. 2, 1 January 2022 (2022-01-01), pages 78-83, (included in IDS on 01/24/2026), discloses computer-implemented method to estimate the content of a particular chemical element in molten material that is available at an opening of a metallurgical vessel (figures 1 and 2), the method comprising the following steps: from a camera that is arranged to monitor the opening, a computer receiving radiation data that represent the thermal radiation from the molten material at the opening, for at least two wavelengths (section 3.1).
The cited art taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose process radiation data from a pyrometer with a regression model to provide an estimation with preliminary content data for chemical element in the molten material, based on training data collected, classify images to identify a phenomena at the opening of the vessel, provide a reliability classification for the radiation data to output preliminary content data only if the reliability content data complies with a pre-defined rule.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kase et al. (US 2021/0216680 A1), discloses a system for estimating the content of a chemical element in molten material that is available at an opening of a metallurgical vessel, (as shown in Fig. 1, [0019]), a computer (Fig. 1 element 1) and spectrometer (Fig. 1 element 106).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights