/
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12, 14-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al (US20190113278A1)1 in view of Wassick et al (US 6056781)2.
In re Claim 12, Thomas discloses a method for configuring a control system for a process plant (See Fig. 1), using a dynamic model of the process plant (101 and 102 and See [0046]), the method comprising:
configuring a control system for the process plant (See Fig. 1) using a dynamic model of the process plant (101 and 102 and See [0046]),
the dynamic model (101 and 102) being a first principles model and being based on at least one of
equations of state and physical properties of the plant and material and components ([0017]: uses equations that involve the principles of thermodynamics) used therein
topology of components of the process plant ([0099]-[0102]: This model approach allows a simplified initialization strategy to be applied with time as a homotopy parameter)
the dynamic model receiving process parameters of the process plant as input values ([0016]: time-variable parameters taken into consideration by model),
the dynamic model being adapted to represent a transition from one to another state of the process plant ([0018]: the model can represent change from single phase gas flow to two phase or two-phase rectification to a single-phase gas flow), and
the dynamic model (Thomas 101/102)
being a pressure-driven model (Thomas [0017]: the model, all the—both gaseous and liquid—fluid movements are brought about by a driving total pressure difference. In this approach, which is referred to as a pressure-driven approach) and
covering the entire operating range of the process plant ([0018]: invention thus presents a model which can represent the complete operating range of a distillation column, with the result that both steady and dynamic states can be determined),
wherein the entire operating range of the process plant (Thomas [0018]: invention thus presents a model which can represent the complete operating range of a distillation column, with the result that both steady and dynamic states can be determined) includes the following operating phase of the plant: start-up (Thomas [0018]: during a change from a zero flow to a fluid movement, i.e., start-up), regular operation (Thomas [0018]:during a change from a single-phase gas flow to a two-phase rectification or during a change from a two-phase rectification to a single-phase gas flow, i.e., regular operation), and shut-down (Thomas [0018]: a change from a fluid movement to a zero flow, i.e., shutdown),
the control system using a controller being based on model predictive control (Thomas [0020]: model predictive control (MPC) is involved)
wherein the model predictive control has a control model ([0020]: model predictive control has a control model in the form of a time-discrete dynamic model),
wherein, based on input and output values of the dynamic model ([0020]: possible for input, output and state limitations to be considered simultaneously), a behavior of the process plant is predicted ([0020]: model predictive control (MPC) is involved. In the MPC, use is made of a time-discrete dynamic model of the process to be controlled in order to calculate, in a manner dependent on the input signals).
However, Thomas does not explicitly teach, wherein the dynamic model is used in an offline mode, in which the dynamic model is used in stand-alone fashion, to configure the control system prior to start-up of the plant, and wherein, based on the predicted behavior of the process plant, the control system is configured.
On the other hand, Wassick discloses wherein the dynamic model is used in an offline mode (Col 7:5-10: enable simulations to be conducted off-line), in which the dynamic model is used in stand-alone fashion (Col 7:5-10: Additionally, the integration of these System components will enable a process currently running in the plant to remain 30 operational through the action of the process control computer 32, while the model predictive controller 46 is briefly taken off-line) to configure the control system prior to start-up of the plant (See Col 36:1-5), and wherein, based on the predicted behavior of the process plant (Col 6:47-51: The executive sequencer 46 will preferably test all of the manipulated parameter values for validity and/or reasonableness, and transmit the current Set of accepted manipulated parameter values to the process control computer 32.), the control system (32) is configured.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Thomas and to have modified them by having the dynamic model of Thomas used in an offline mode as taught by Wassick, in which the dynamic model of Thomas is used in stand-alone fashion as taught by Wassick and wherein, based on the predicted behavior of the process plant of Thomas, the control system is configured as taught by Wassick , in order to pre-tune the real-time performance of the model predictive controller (See Wassick Col 6:44-51 and Col 7:5-10) without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 14, Thomas as modified discloses wherein, based on the predicted behavior of the process plant (Wassick Col 5:50-55), parameters of a controller (Wassick 46; Col 7:9-10: the model predictive controller) of the control system (Wassick 32) are configured (Wassick Col 6:17-30: the model predictive controller 44 will be used to determine a set of optimized manipulated parameter values over a predetermined prediction horizon).
In re Claim 15, Thomas as modified discloses wherein the parameters of a controller (Wassick 46; Col 7:9-10: the model predictive controller) of the control system (Wassick 32) are configured prior to use of the control system (Wassick Col 12:27-30 and Col 14:60-65: In Step one, the prior disturbance observations are calculated as the difference of the past process measurements and the output of the model integrated through time without the compensation of the state estimator) to control the process plant (Thomas Fig. 1).
In re Claim 17, Thomas as modified discloses wherein the control model for the model predictive control is deduced from the dynamic model (Thomas [0016]: to determine the change with respect to time of the operating conditions or of the state, it is preferable to apply a backward difference method with a predictor-corrector method), based on the behavior of the process plant (Thomas [0016]: the modelling of a distillation column having multiple column stages based on a rigorous dynamic thermohydraulic simulation of a distillation column, with time-variable parameters).
In re Claim 18, Thomas as modified discloses wherein a linear parameter-varying system (Thomas [0018]: this approach and a linearization of the pressure and flow relationship allows stable calculation of a zero flow and also of flow reversal) is deduced from the dynamic model (101), based on the behavior of the process plant (See [0046]).
In re Claim 19, Thomas as modified discloses wherein the process plant (Fig. 1) includes at least an air separation unit (Thomas 100; [0039]: air separation plant).
In re Claim 20, Thomas as modified discloses wherein, in the offline mode, the dynamic model further is used without any online connections to the control system of the process plant (Wassick Col 7:1-10: it should also be appreciated that this particular division of responsibility will also enable simulations to be conducted off-line).
In re Claim 21, Thomas as modified discloses wherein the entire operating range of the process plant (Thomas [0018]: invention thus presents a model which can represent the complete operating range of a distillation column, with the result that both steady and dynamic states can be determined) further includes emergency shut-down (Thomas [0093]: it is also desirable to consider a complete shutdown of the rectification system. A problem for this scenario is the use, for a dynamic starting process, of design correlations determined in a steady manner).
In re Claim 22, Thomas as modified discloses a computing unit ([0022]: a computing unit) configured, preferably by means of a computer program to perform a method (([0023]: implementation of the method in the form of a computer program).
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al (US20190113278A1)3 as modified by Wassick et al (US 6056781)4, further in view of Wegerich (US 20020128731 A1).
In re Claim 23, Thomas as modified discloses wherein the entire operating range of the process plant (Thomas [0018]: invention thus presents a model which can represent the complete operating range of a distillation column, with the result that both steady and dynamic states can be determined) further includes emergency shut down (Thomas [0093]: it is also desirable to consider a complete shutdown of the rectification system. A problem for this scenario is the use, for a dynamic starting process, of design correlations determined in a steady manner).
However, Thomas as modified does not explicitly teach further includes plant failure.
On the other hand, Wegerich teach further includes plant failure ([0048]: process upset or machine failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Thomas as modified and to have modified them by having the operating range of Thomas as modified further includes plant failure as taught by Wegerich, in order to provide adequate warning to prevent unexpected shutdowns, equipment damage, loss of product quality or catastrophic safety hazards (See at least Wegerich [0003]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of August 6, 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 5 ¶3-Page 6¶1 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claims 12-22 are obvious over Thomas in view of Wassick because there is allegedly no basis in Wassick for using a model for the operating phases of a plant. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teachings of Thomas that the model is used for operating a plant because the disclosure focuses on the operation of a distillation column. Furthermore, Applicant argues the mere occurrence of a zero flow in a distillation column does not mean startup and/or shutdown of a plant, because one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that start-up and shut-down require more than changing flow rates but also include initializing temperatures, pressures etc. Applicant elaborates by asserting This is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Thomas. Contrary to Applicant' s assertion, one with ordinary skill would consider the plant to be shutdown when flow stops because the cessation of flow necessarily means the unit is no longer in operation for its intended purpose which is separation. 5 Shutting down the plant by stopping the flow affect the entire plant of the air installation of Thomas (See [0036] and [0037]), i.e. process plant, because pressure builds up and internal components must stop to prevent trays from overheating or creating temperature imbalances. Assuming arguendo that only the distillation column is shutdown this essential structure necessarily would stop the process of Thomas because the plant would fail to continue operation without the continued process flow through the distillation column. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., start-up and shut-down require more than changing flow rates but also include initializing temperatures, pressures etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.6 The recitation of claim 12 requires wherein the entire operating range of the process plant includes the following operating phases of the plant: start-up, regular operation, and shut-down, but does not necessarily require shut-down require more than changing flow rates but also include initializing temperatures, pressures. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
On Remarks Page 7¶4-Page 8¶4, Applicant argues that the Thomas/Wassick combination to a control model in a model predictive controller would still not yield applicants’ invention because configuring the control system, containing the model predictive controller, prior to start-up of the plant since the claimed method involves two models: a control model and a dynamic model. Applicant emphasizes that Applicants clearly argue that neither Thomas nor Wassick suggests an arrangement of a control system having a control model and a dynamic model being used to configure the control system. This is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant' s assertion and characterization of Thomas and Wassick, first, it should be noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In light of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the findings of fact outlined in the rationale and motivation for the 103 rejection based on Thomas and Wassick satisfy the requirements to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In essence, the fact that Wassick’s overall goal is to provide a model predictive controller for a process control system provides evidence that the process control system of Thomas is indeed compatible with the teachings of Wassick.
Second, Thomas teaches a predictive model that uses a controller bases on model predictive control and predictive control has a control model (See Thomas [0020] and Thomas [0023]: is also desirable to consider a complete shutdown of the rectification system. A problem for this scenario is the use, for a dynamic starting process, of design correlations determined in a steady manner). Wassik teaches a dynamic control model (Wassick Col 7:1-10). When combined the process plant predicts behavior based on the predicted behavior using the predictive model and dynamic model of Thomas/Wassik. Thus one with ordinary skill would consider combining Thomas and Wassik to arrive at the claimed invention especially during start-up and shutdown operations.
Moreover, the test for obviousness it not whether the prior art references are within the same field of endeavor as each other, but rather, whether the prior art references are within the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Since Thomas (classified in CPC class G05B) and Wassick (classified in CPC class G05B) are within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (which contains classifications in G05B, as evidenced by the cover page of the printed publication: US20220243980A1), the prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention, which is explicit evidence that the combination would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
On Remarks Page 9¶4, Applicant argues that the Thomas/Wassick/Wegerich combination fail to teach plant failure and emergency shutdown because Wegerich only disclose a process or machine state can change due to “machine failure.” This is not persuasive.
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Thomas/Wassick in view of Wegerich. Wegerich teaches that a process can change due to process upset or machine failure which includes shutdown. If there is machine failure (or process upset) this necessarily suggests there is a failure in the plant which constitutes an emergency because there is a failure in process that allows for proper function of the plant.
Since Thomas/Wassick teach or suggest all the limitations of Claim 12, applicant’s remaining arguments are moot as the rejection of Claim 12 is maintained and additional arguments are not presented in regards to Claims 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See IDS filed 12/22/2021
2 Id.
3 See IDS filed 12/22/2021
4 Id.
5 “Shutdown.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown. Accessed 21 Aug. 2025.
6 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).