DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 and 24 are pending. Claims 17-23 are cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to European Patent Application No. 20162780.9, filed on 3/12/2020.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/6/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/23/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except where noted below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1, 2, 7 and 16 require the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) be withdrawn (pages 6-7).
It is respectfully submitted that this is moot with regard to claims 1, 2, and 16, as these claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). However, claims 7-15 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because claim 7 recites ‘determining optimizations for the specified parameter… wherein the specified parameter is optimized by adapting the physical properties of the start plant equipment layout based on the predicted parameter’ and the specification fails to describe how this is performed. Paragraphs 0037 and 0164 of the instant specification/PGPub support adapting a relative position or offset of mixer and mixing nozzle only but not the much broader claimed scope of how adapting ‘the physical properties of the start plant equipment layout’ is performed. Note that ‘adapting… the operating conditions of the production process’ is recited only as an alternative. Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that ‘However, independent claims 1, 7, 16, and 24 do not recite concepts that explicitly fall into the abstract idea exception categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or ( c) mental processes’ (page 8).
It is respectfully submitted that this argument is moot with regard to claims 1, 16 and 24 (and respective dependent claims) because these claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regard to claim 7, Applicant provides no evidence or reasoned argument as to why processing data to determine an optimized parameter and an adapted layout cannot be performed mentally. See the rejection below for further details. Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant notes Example 45 and states ‘Similarly, Claim 1, as recited, teaches, "causing, via at least one processing device, adaptation of the operating conditions of the production plant process based on the predicted parameter."’, ‘this practical application improves the operation of the for optimizing operating conditions of reactors that was not present in the production processes of chemical plants previously’, and ‘the claims… then they should still be deemed patent eligible under Step 2B as they provide an improvement to production process data of chemical plants’ (pages 8-9).
It is respectfully submitted that these arguments are moot with regard to claims 1, 16 and 24 (and respective dependent claims) because these claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first argument is moot with regard to claims 7 because claim 7 does not recite the quoted limitation. With regard to improving the operation of the reactors, claim 7 recites ‘causing alteration of at least one of the operating conditions of the production process’ but this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and not significantly more than the abstract idea. Note that this limitation is only tangentially related to the rest of the claim, e.g. the conditions are not altered based on any calculated value. This argument is there not persuasive. With regard to ‘an improvement to production process data’, it is respectfully submitted that eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (processing data to determine an optimized parameter and an adapted layout) is still merely an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant’s statement that ‘claims 1-16 and 24 meet the two prongs of the test set forth by Alice as implemented by the PEG’ (page 9) is not persuasive with regard to claim 7-15 for the reasons given above.
Applicant’s argument’s regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 9-11) are largely moot in view of the newly cited references, Gurin and Okada. With regard to Applicant’s argument that ‘Lotz teaches that models were used for experiments. Id at paragraph 0059. Therefore, there is no reason to modify Panagiotou to arrive at using a model to cause a change in the operating conditions as claimed’ and that this constitutes impermissible hindsight reasoning (page 10), it is respectfully submitted that incorporating thermodynamic effects in calculation/analysis is well-known in the art and does not require Applicant’s specification, see for example, Lawson et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130203946 [0053], Chen et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170083688 [0002-0006], or Froebel et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220219412 [0001-0006]. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument does not address the additional KSR argument. It is also noted that it is not necessary for each and every element of the prior art references to be combined, e.g. the use to which Lotz puts their models, "rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.", see In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and MPEP 2145 III. Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to independent claim 7, this claim recites ‘determining optimizations for the specified parameter… wherein the specified parameter is optimized by adapting the physical properties of the start plant equipment layout based on the predicted parameter’ and the specification fails to describe how this is performed. Paragraphs 0037 and 0164 of the instant specification/PGPub support adapting a relative position or offset of mixer and mixing nozzle only but not the much broader claimed scope of how adapting ‘the physical properties of the start plant equipment layout’ is performed. Note that ‘adapting… the operating conditions of the production process’ is recited only as an alternative.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites ‘the parameter to be adapted’ that lacks an antecedent basis.
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(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of processing data to determine an optimized parameter and an adapted layout.
Claim 7 recites a computer-implemented method for designing plant equipment layout of a chemical plant, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
wherein the method comprises:
i) specifying at least one parameter of a production process to be optimized;
iii) determining optimizations for the specified parameter via at least one processing device,
wherein the specified parameter is optimized by adapting the physical properties of the start plant equipment layout based on the predicted parameter and/or the operating conditions of the production process;
iv) determining a target plant equipment layout based on an adapted set of physical properties of the start plant equipment layout data that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. computer implementation (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), a chemical plant comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and receiving input data via at least one input channel, wherein the input data comprises operating conditions of the production process, physical properties of a start plant equipment layout, and at least one predicted parameter determined from a physico-chemical white box model, wherein the physico-chemical white box model comprises at least one thermodynamics model, at least one solid formation model and a computational fluid dynamic based numerical simulation for predicting a precipitation process, and wherein the at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), providing the target plant equipment layout via a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and causing alteration of at least one of the operating conditions of the production process (insignificant extra-solution activity — instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f) — note that this limitation is only tangentially related to the rest of the claim) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, computer implementation (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), a chemical plant comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and receiving input data via at least one input channel, wherein the input data comprises operating conditions of the production process, physical properties of a start plant equipment layout, and at least one predicted parameter determined from a physico-chemical white box model, wherein the physico-chemical white box model comprises at least one thermodynamics model, at least one solid formation model and a computational fluid dynamic based numerical simulation for predicting a precipitation process, and wherein the at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), providing the target plant equipment layout via a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and causing alteration of at least one of the operating conditions of the production process (insignificant extra-solution activity — instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f) — note that this limitation is only tangentially related to the rest of the claim) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Note that a chemical plant that comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Panagiotou (cited below), Devenney et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130256939 (particularly 0283), or Ulmert U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200407250 and Shearing U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120107206.
Claim 8 recites up-scaling or down-scaling a plant equipment layout (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 merely specifies production process. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the chemical plant comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note that a chemical plant that comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process is well-understood, routine and conventional (see above). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 merely specifies the type of parameter being optimized. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 merely specifies the type of parameter being predicted. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites different types of operating condition abstract data that are gathered. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites a type of abstract model. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites how the abstract predicted parameter is determined on inputted abstract data (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panagiotou et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200397696 (hereinafter Panagiotou) in view of Lotz et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200290945 (hereinafter Lotz) and further in view of Gurin U.S. Patent No. 9233485 (hereinafter Gurin).
Regarding claim 1, Panagiotou teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling and/or monitoring equipment of a chemical plant [0017 — systems/apparatus and methods for continuously processing at least two liquid feed streams… pumping a first feed stream to an in-line mixer at an actively automatically controlled rate; 0154 — total flow rate of the system of the present disclosure is measured at the outlet of the homogenizer; 0066 — The function of the in-line mixer is two-fold: (a) it forms a substantially homogeneous mixture 134 that can be introduced into the microreactor 120 and mixed further, and (b) various processes that start in the in-line mixer (i.e., crystallization, chemical reactions, etc.); 0079 — various components/equipment of the systems of the present disclosure may be controlled by a control system that includes a controller having one or more processors and one or more memory devices. In some embodiments, the one or more memory devices may include instructions stored therein that are executable by the one or more processors to control various functions and activities performed by the systems of the present disclosure.],
wherein the chemical plant comprises at least one reactor, wherein the reactor is configured for performing at least one precipitation process [0066 — The function of the in-line mixer is two-fold: (a) it forms a substantially homogeneous mixture 134 that can be introduced into the microreactor 120 and mixed further, and (b) various processes that start in the in-line mixer (i.e., crystallization, chemical reactions, etc.); 0071 — The nanoparticles 136 flow from the microreactor 120 to the heat exchange unit 124 via conduit 126. The heat exchange unit 124 is utilized to cool the nanoparticles 136. Nanoparticles 136 flow from heat exchange unit 124 to the collection tank 128 via conduit 126. Mixing highly affects the rates of phenomena that are responsible for forming the nanoparticles 136, including precipitation, crystallization, emulsification, or chemical reactions.],
wherein the method comprises:
a) specifying at least one parameter of a production process to be optimized [0072 — In the illustrative embodiment, the pump 106 in combination with the high pressure pump (not shown) control the flow rate ratios of the two streams. The energy input to the fluid at different locations of the system is controlled by the geometry of the flow path. Thus, energy dissipation may be controlled/minimized (optimized) through advantageous piping design/layout, the design/geometry of the microreactor 120, and the design/layout of heat exchange unit 124 positioned downstream of the microreactor 120.];
b) receiving input data via at least one input channel,
wherein the input data comprises operating conditions of the production process [0124 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate],
physical properties of a plant equipment layout [0124 —Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts (input data includes an original design/layout)], and
at least one predicted parameter determined from a physico-chemical white box model, wherein the physico-chemical white box model comprises a computational fluid dynamics based numerical simulation for predicting a precipitation process [0124-0126 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate… Both precipitation and crystallization processes are characterized by a solid material that is formed from solution; 0104 — systems and methods may be effectively and advantageously used, inter alia, to measure millisecond kinetics, conduct micro-scale reactions, facilitate formation of nano-emulsions/suspensions via turbulent mixing, and achieve enhanced mass transfer operations needed for controlled nucleation and growth in precipitation and crystallization]; and a parameter associated with a particle physical property [0094 — The disclosed apparatus/system may be used in a wide range of applications and/or implementations, e.g., particle size reduction applications; 0137 — the present disclosure advantageously facilitate generation of stable mean particle sizes in the range 50 to 100 nm and requisite/desired narrow particle size distributions.]; and
c) causing, via at least one processing device, adaptation of the operating conditions of the production process based on the predicted parameter [0121-0123 — apparatus/systems and methods of the present disclosure facilitate improved reactor performance (improved materials processing capabilities). In particular, the disclosed reactors can provide a number of key advantages by, for example, cutting residence times, accelerating reaction rate, minimizing side reactions and/or reducing energy intensive downstream processing steps, such as distillation and extraction… enhanced identification and/or control of the temperature profile throughout the reactor may be achieved, which generally leads to better control of the reaction rate. By way of illustration, a highly exothermic reaction carried out in a large batch vessel may require several hours, not because of any inherent kinetics constraint but because of the time necessary to remove the heat of reaction safely via its poor transfer area-to-volume ratio using a traditional coil configuration. With intense mixing and improved heat transfer mechanisms associated with the low holdup of material in the reactor, better productivity is possible according to the present disclosure. As a result of these enhanced transport capabilities/features, the selectivity of a multiple reaction scheme increases, resulting in improved product yields and quality (improved materials processing capabilities) with reduced separation requirements.; 0038-0039 — the present disclosure facilitates encapsulation down to the nano-scale of hydrophobic substances… The disclosed systems/methods may be used to provide active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) that are encapsulated or otherwise contained within a polymeric matrix].
But Panagiotou fails to clearly specify that a model comprises at least one thermodynamics model and at least one solid formation model and wherein the at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property.
However, Lotz teaches that a model comprises at least one thermodynamics model and at least one solid formation model [0061-0062 — a suite of thermodynamic data on 4,4′-substituted biphenyl components was generated and used to model the results of both distillation and crystallization (solid formation) of a mixture… A thermodynamic model mimicking the generated volatility and VLE information was then applied and used to model the distillation in a process simulation tool.; 0072 — In order to model crystallization (solid formation), the melting temperature and melting enthalpy of each crystallizing species were generated, as well as binary solid-liquid equilibrium (SLE) values for each binary pair of crystallizing species to model interaction behavior of these binary pairs with the liquid phase of the solution (e.g., liquid phase non-idealities, or activity coefficients). A thermodynamic model mimicking the generated information was then applied to and used to generate the SLE equations governing the modeled crystallization. The thermodynamic model chosen was non-random two-liquid model (NRTL)... SLE values (predicted by solid solubility thermodynamic theory combined with group contribution method UNIFAC); 0078 — models indicate that crystallization at 112° C. separates the mixture into (a) a crystalline product containing 95 mol % of the total crystallization product composed of 100 mol % 4,4′-biphenyldicarboxylic acid diester and (b) a mother liquor containing 5 mol % of the total crystallization product].
Panagiotou and Lotz are analogous art. They relate to chemical processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Panagiotou, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lotz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to capture thermodynamic effects in the reaction process of Panagiotou. In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known thermodynamic, solid formation and CFD models for the CFD model of Panagiotou for the predictable result of a method that incorporates thermodynamic, solid formation and CFD models.
But the combination of Panagiotou and Lotz fails to clearly specify that at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property.
However, Gurin teaches that at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property [col. 12 line 61 – col. 13 line 17, Fig. 5 — by comparing the average particle size to a size setpoint 72 chosen by the manufacturer. If the average particle size is greater than the setpoint, the process must be adjusted by increasing the void fraction of the slag foam 15. In order to prevent cement 20 of inadequate particle size from being produced, which would then require further processing, a controller can be used to predict the particle size of the final product using variables such as the slag 11 composition, the types and quantities of additives 14 in the slag foam 15, the void fraction, and the grinder 16 scenario (i.e., whether a grinder 16 or atomizer 17 is used). Using such a controller, the variables can be altered during the mixing and grinding/atomizing steps, resulting in cement 20 of the desired particle size].
Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin are analogous art. They relate to material processing systems; and Panagiotou and Lotz relate to chemical processing systems
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Panagiotou and Lotz, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Gurin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to facilitate improved process control for obtaining a desired particle property/size by the predicting particle property/size produced by the system, as suggested by Gurin [col. 12 line 61 – col. 13 line 17]. In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known predicted particle physical property of Gurin for the known predicted parameter of Panagiotou for the predictable result of a method for controlling and/or monitoring equipment that utilizes a predicted particle physical property.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Panagiotou teaches the predicted parameter comprises information about a predicted value of the parameter to be optimized and/or at least one predicted local and/or temporal and/or spatial condition of chemical and/or physical properties of the equipment of the chemical plant and/or at least one predicted state of the equipment of the chemical plant [0124-0126 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate; 0072 — In the illustrative embodiment, the pump 106 in combination with the high pressure pump (not shown) control the flow rate ratios of the two streams. The energy input to the fluid at different locations of the system is controlled by the geometry of the flow path. Thus, energy dissipation may be controlled/minimized (optimized) through advantageous piping design/layout, the design/geometry of the microreactor 120, and the design/layout of heat exchange unit 124 positioned downstream of the microreactor 120].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Panagiotou teaches the operating conditions of the production process comprise at least one parameter selecting from the group consisting of: temperature; pressure; pH-value; viscosity; rotational speed of mixer; flow rate; feed composition; feed mass flow; ingredients, concentration; order of additions [0035 — operational parameters, e.g., microreactor design, microreactor geometry, pressure generated by the high pressure pump, supersaturation ratio, solvents, antisolvents, temperature and combinations thereof.; 0067 — the time required for complete mixing may be calculated as a result of velocities in the tube, the type of flow in the tube (turbulent or laminar, single phase or multiphase), the dimensions of the tube, the diffusivity of the species and other physical properties, as well the pressure and temperature; 0088 — The temperature of the fluids throughout the system influences the final product.].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Panagiotou teaches the physico-chemical white box model comprises at least one model of at least one precipitation process [0124-0126 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate… Both precipitation and crystallization processes are characterized by a solid material that is formed from solution; 0104 — systems and methods may be effectively and advantageously used, inter alia, to measure millisecond kinetics, conduct micro-scale reactions, facilitate formation of nano-emulsions/suspensions via turbulent mixing, and achieve enhanced mass transfer operations needed for controlled nucleation and growth in precipitation and crystallization].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Panagiotou teaches at least one prediction step, wherein, in the prediction step, the at least one predicted parameter is determined from the physico-chemical white box model, wherein the operating conditions [0124 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate] and plant equipment layout are used as input for the physico-chemical white box model [0124-0126 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts (input data includes an original design/layout). CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate… Both precipitation and crystallization processes are characterized by a solid material that is formed from solution; 0104 — systems and methods may be effectively and advantageously used, inter alia, to measure millisecond kinetics, conduct micro-scale reactions, facilitate formation of nano-emulsions/suspensions via turbulent mixing, and achieve enhanced mass transfer operations needed for controlled nucleation and growth in precipitation and crystallization].
Regarding claim 16, Panagiotou a teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when the program is executed by a computer or computer network [0079 — various components/equipment of the systems of the present disclosure may be controlled by a control system that includes a controller having one or more processors and one or more memory devices. In some embodiments, the one or more memory devices may include instructions stored therein that are executable by the one or more processors to control various functions and activities performed by the systems of the present disclosure; 0017 — systems/apparatus and methods for continuously processing at least two liquid feed streams… pumping a first feed stream to an in-line mixer at an actively automatically controlled rate; 0154 — total flow rate of the system of the present disclosure is measured at the outlet of the homogenizer; 0066 — The function of the in-line mixer is two-fold: (a) it forms a substantially homogeneous mixture 134 that can be introduced into the microreactor 120 and mixed further, and (b) various processes that start in the in-line mixer (i.e., crystallization, chemical reactions, etc.)], cause the computer or computer network to carry out the following steps:
A) specifying at least one parameter of a production process to be optimized [0072 — In the illustrative embodiment, the pump 106 in combination with the high pressure pump (not shown) control the flow rate ratios of the two streams. The energy input to the fluid at different locations of the system is controlled by the geometry of the flow path. Thus, energy dissipation may be controlled/minimized (optimized) through advantageous piping design/layout, the design/geometry of the microreactor 120, and the design/layout of heat exchange unit 124 positioned downstream of the microreactor 120.];
B) receiving input data via at least one input channel, wherein the input data comprises operating conditions of the production process [0124 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate], physical properties of a plant equipment layout [0124 —Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts (input data includes an original design/layout)], and at least one predicted parameter determined from a physico-chemical white box model, wherein the physico-chemical white box model comprises a computational fluid dynamics based numerical simulation for predicting a precipitation process [0124-0126 — Process data (operating conditions), connected with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, may advantageously provide a basis for design, redesign and/or reconfiguration of system designs and layouts. CFD can also be used to predict: (1) velocity and stress distribution maps in complex reactor performance studies; (2) transport properties for non-ideal interfaces; and (3) materials processing capabilities useful in encapsulation technology and designing functional surfaces, especially where self-assembly mechanisms, surface tension and interfacial forces, and turbulent energy driven processes dominate… Both precipitation and crystallization processes are characterized by a solid material that is formed from solution; 0104 — systems and methods may be effectively and advantageously used, inter alia, to measure millisecond kinetics, conduct micro-scale reactions, facilitate formation of nano-emulsions/suspensions via turbulent mixing, and achieve enhanced mass transfer operations needed for controlled nucleation and growth in precipitation and crystallization]; and a parameter associated with a particle physical property [0094 — The disclosed apparatus/system may be used in a wide range of applications and/or implementations, e.g., particle size reduction applications; 0137 — the present disclosure advantageously facilitate generation of stable mean particle sizes in the range 50 to 100 nm and requisite/desired narrow particle size distributions.]; and
C) causing, via at least one processing device, adaptation of the operating conditions of the production process based on the predicted parameter [0121-0123 — apparatus/systems and methods of the present disclosure facilitate improved reactor performance (improved materials processing capabilities). In particular, the disclosed reactors can provide a number of key advantages by, for example, cutting residence times, accelerating reaction rate, minimizing side reactions and/or reducing energy intensive downstream processing steps, such as distillation and extraction… enhanced identification and/or control of the temperature profile throughout the reactor may be achieved, which generally leads to better control of the reaction rate. By way of illustration, a highly exothermic reaction carried out in a large batch vessel may require several hours, not because of any inherent kinetics constraint but because of the time necessary to remove the heat of reaction safely via its poor transfer area-to-volume ratio using a traditional coil configuration. With intense mixing and improved heat transfer mechanisms associated with the low holdup of material in the reactor, better productivity is possible according to the present disclosure. As a result of these enhanced transport capabilities/features, the selectivity of a multiple reaction scheme increases, resulting in improved product yields and quality (improved materials processing capabilities) with reduced separation requirements.; 0038-0039 — the present disclosure facilitates encapsulation down to the nano-scale of hydrophobic substances… The disclosed systems/methods may be used to provide active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) that are encapsulated or otherwise contained within a polymeric matrix].
But Panagiotou fails to clearly specify that a model comprises at least one thermodynamics model and at least one solid formation model and wherein the at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property.
However, Lotz teaches that a model comprises at least one thermodynamics model and at least one solid formation model [0061-0062 — a suite of thermodynamic data on 4,4′-substituted biphenyl components was generated and used to model the results of both distillation and crystallization (solid formation) of a mixture… A thermodynamic model mimicking the generated volatility and VLE information was then applied and used to model the distillation in a process simulation tool.; 0072 — In order to model crystallization (solid formation), the melting temperature and melting enthalpy of each crystallizing species were generated, as well as binary solid-liquid equilibrium (SLE) values for each binary pair of crystallizing species to model interaction behavior of these binary pairs with the liquid phase of the solution (e.g., liquid phase non-idealities, or activity coefficients). A thermodynamic model mimicking the generated information was then applied to and used to generate the SLE equations governing the modeled crystallization. The thermodynamic model chosen was non-random two-liquid model (NRTL)... SLE values (predicted by solid solubility thermodynamic theory combined with group contribution method UNIFAC); 0078 — models indicate that crystallization at 112° C. separates the mixture into (a) a crystalline product containing 95 mol % of the total crystallization product composed of 100 mol % 4,4′-biphenyldicarboxylic acid diester and (b) a mother liquor containing 5 mol % of the total crystallization product].
Panagiotou and Lotz are analogous art. They relate to chemical processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above non-transitory computer-readable medium, as taught by Panagiotou , by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lotz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to capture thermodynamic effects in the reaction process of Panagiotou. In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known thermodynamic, solid formation and CFD models for the CFD model of Panagiotou for the predictable result of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that incorporate thermodynamic, solid formation and CFD models.
But the combination of Panagiotou and Lotz fails to clearly specify that at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property.
However, Gurin teaches that at least one predicted parameter is associated with a particle physical property [col. 12 line 61 – col. 13 line 17, Fig. 5 — by comparing the average particle size to a size setpoint 72 chosen by the manufacturer. If the average particle size is greater than the setpoint, the process must be adjusted by increasing the void fraction of the slag foam 15. In order to prevent cement 20 of inadequate particle size from being produced, which would then require further processing, a controller can be used to predict the particle size of the final product using variables such as the slag 11 composition, the types and quantities of additives 14 in the slag foam 15, the void fraction, and the grinder 16 scenario (i.e., whether a grinder 16 or atomizer 17 is used). Using such a controller, the variables can be altered during the mixing and grinding/atomizing steps, resulting in cement 20 of the desired particle size].
Panagiotou, Lotz and Gurin are analogous art. They relate to material processing systems; and Panagiotou and Lotz relate to chemical processing systems
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as taught by the combination of Panagiotou and Lotz, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Gurin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to facilitate improved process control for obtaining a desired particle property/size by the predicting particle property/size produced by the system, as suggested by Gurin [col. 12 line 61 – col. 13 line 17]. In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known predicted particle physical property of Gurin for the known predicted parameter of Panagiotou for the predictable result of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that utilize a predicted particle physical property.
Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panagiotou in view of Lotz and further in view of Gurin and further in view of Okada U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070260432 (hereinafter Okada).
Regarding claim 7, Panagiotou teaches a computer-implemented method for designing plant equipment layout of a chemical plant [0017 — systems/apparatus and methods for continuously processing at least two liquid feed streams… pumping a first feed stream to an in-line mixer at an actively automatically controlled rate; 0154 — total flow rate of the system of the present disclosure is measured at the outlet of the homogenizer; 0066 — The function of the in-line mixer is two-fold: (a) it forms a substantially homogeneous mixture 134 that can be introduced into the microreactor 120 and mixed further, and (b) various processes that start in the in-line mixer (i.e., crystallization, chemical reactions, etc.); 0079 — various components/equipment of the systems of the present disclosure may be controlled by a control system that includes a controller having one or more processors and one or more memory devices. In some embodiments, the one or more memory devices may include instructions stored therein that are executable by the one or more processors to control various functions and activities performed by the systems of the pre