DETAILED ACTION
Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
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.
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: “prediction unit” and “output unit” in claim 6.
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.
Paragraph 69 of the specification gives structural support for the prediction unit and output unit as computing devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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 2-3 and 7-8 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.
The term “past operating conditions” in each of claims 2 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “past operating conditions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to relative to what time (e.g. the effective filing date of the application) to which operating conditions are in the past. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that any operating conditions are “past operating conditions.”
The term “current operating condition” in each of claims 3 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “current operating condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to relative to what time (e.g. the effective filing date of the application) to which the operating condition is current. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that any operating condition is a “current operating condition.”
The term “middle pressure steam” in each of claims 3 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “middle pressure steam” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the pressure of the steam needed to be “middle pressure steam.” For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that steam at any pressure is “middle pressure steam.”
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection #1:
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 11 is drawn to a computer-readable recording medium. Since paragraphs 71-72 of the specification do not limit the computer-readable recoding medium to be non-transitory, it is interpreted that the computer-readable medium can comprise transitory subject matter, such as carrier waves, which are not subject matter eligible.
Claim 12 is drawn to an application for terminal devices. Software applications are not subject matter eligible. In addition, claim 12 recites that the application is stored in a computer-readable transitory recording medium. Transitory subject matter comprise transitory signals, such as carrier waves, which are not subject matter eligible.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and drawn to methods, and claims 6-10 are drawn to devices.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES; except for claims 11-12) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 1 and 6 recite the mental step of training a prediction model for predicting the product properties of the NSU.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the mental step of inputting an input variable to the trained prediction model to acquire a prediction value for each output variable.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the mental step of outputting the acquired prediction values for the output variables.
Claim 2 recites the mental step of generating a random forest model as the prediction model.
Claims 2 and 7 recite the mental steps of training the random forest model using results of analyzed operating conditions for the naphtha splitter column of the NSU and product properties acquired under the operating conditions.
Claims 3 and 8 recite the mental step of constraining the operating condition to include at least one of an amount of middle pressure steam supplied to the naphtha splitter column, an amount of return flow, an operating pressure, and an operative temperature.
Claims 4 and 9 recite the mental step of constraining the output variables for determining the product properties of the NSU to include an amount of LSR D95, LSR D90, HSR D05, and an amount of HSR C6 paraffin.
Claim 5 recites the mental step of controlling operation of the HSU on the basis of the output prediction values.
Claim 10 recites the mental step of generating a control signal for controlling operations of the naphtha splitter column in the NSU on the basis of the acquired prediction value.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-12 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment.
As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-12 is/are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
The document of Kinzer [WO 2008/030337 A2; on attached 892 form] teaches that using signal generation units to control the operations of machinery pertaining to hydrocarbons is routine and conventional in the prior art.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed analysis engine requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-12 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #1:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shammari et al. [WO 2019/239353 A1; on attached 892 form] in view of Kwon et al. [KR 10-1975436 B1; on IDS]. An English machine translation of Kwon et al. is cited in the instant Office action.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of predicting product properties of an NSU. The method comprises training a prediction model for predicting the product properties of the NSU. The method comprises inputting an input variable to the trained production model to acquire a prediction value for each output variable. The method comprises outputting the acquired prediction values for the output variables.
Claim 6 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 1, except claim 6 is drawn to a device.
Claim 11 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 1, except claim 11 is drawn to a computer-readable recording medium.
Claim 12 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 1, except claim 12 is drawn to an application.
The document of Al-Shammari et al. studies naphtha splitter integration with HNCC technology [title]. The abstract of Al-Shammari et al. teaches a method and apparatus for splitting light naphtha from heavy naphtha. Figure 1 of Al-Shammari et al. illustrates the NSU. Claims 1-3 of Al-Shammari et al. teach the input variable of operating temperature needed to obtain each type of output hydrocarbon.
Al-Shammari et al. does not teach using a prediction model to acquire the output data.
The document of Kwon et al. teaches an apparatus and method for forecasting production for a shale gas well in transient flow using a machine learning model [title]. The abstract of Kwon et al. teaches using parameters of a shale well in a machine learning model (i.e. an artificial neural network) to predict future production of transient flow from a shale gas well.
With regard to claims 3 and 8, claims 1-3 of Al-Shammari et al. teaches use of operating temperature as a parameter.
With regard to claim 7, the abstract of Kwon et al. teaches using parameters of a shale well in a machine learning model (i.e. an artificial neural network) to predict future production of transient flow from a shale gas well.
With regard to claims 5 and 10, Figure 1 of Al-Shammari et al. teaches the apparatus and signal generation of the NSU. The claims of Kwon et al. teach that both input and output variables are inserted into the artificial neural network model such that there is optimal correlation between the input parameters and output variables of the model.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the operating conditions and output production of naphtha from an NSU of Al-Shammari et al. by use of the machine learning prediction model of Kwon et al. wherein the motivation would have been that application of machine learning optimized operation of the reactor [claims of Kwon et al.]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining Al-Shammari et al. and Kwon et al. because the machine learning model of Kwon et al. is robust and generally applicable to hydrocarbon reactors in general, including the NSU of Al-Shammari et al.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shammari et al. in view of Kwon et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-12 above, in further view of Ratnayake et al. [PetroVietnam, volume 6, 2020, pages 4-14; on attached 892 form].
Claim 2 is further limiting comprising generating a random forest model as the prediction model, and training the random forest model using, as training data, results of analyzing past operating conditions for the naphtha splitter column of the NSU and product properties acquired under the past operating conditions.
The documents of Al-Shammari et al. and Kwon et al. make obvious using machine learning to predict future output values of an NSU based on current/past parameter values, as discussed above.
Al-Shammari et al. and Kwon et al. do not teach use of a random forest model.
The document of Ratnayake et al. studies application of deep learning and random forest algorithms in a machine learning-based well log analysis for a small data set of a sand zone [title]. The abstract of Ratnayake et al. teaches that while artificial neural networks work best for large data sets, the random forest model works best form small data sets.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the operating conditions and output production of naphtha from an NSU of Al-Shammari et al. and the machine learning prediction model (i.e. artificial neural networks) of Kwon et al. by use of the random forest algorithm of Ratnayake et al. wherein the motivation would have been that the random forest model is optimal form smaller hydrocarbon data sets [abstract of Ratnayake et al.].
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Claims 4 and 9 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest that the output variables are variables for determining the product properties of the NSU and include an amount of LSR D95, LSR D90, HSR D05, and an amount of HSR C6 paraffin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Russell Negin, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1083. This Examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 3 pm and variable hours on Fridays.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Larry Riggs, Supervisory Patent Examiner, can be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/RUSSELL S NEGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686 24 December 2025