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
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleackley et al. (US 8983815 B2.) and in view of Stagner (US 20120215362 A1.) and further in view of Ramming et al. US 20110203267 A1.).
As per claim 1, Bleackley et al. teach
A processor-implemented method for mechanical system design comprising:
obtaining a set of mechanical system requirements for a mechanical system (identifying the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to extract and process the hydrocarbons in accordance with production rates or achieving the best compromise in terms of capability and cost, col.4, lines 41-49), wherein the mechanical system comprises a plurality of components (a mechanical system comprising various process equipment items and with a process simulation application typically calculate the mass and energy balance for the plant,col.13, lines 10-22),
optimizing, using one or more processors, (Fig. 8, col. 14, lines 17-20,client/processor device 50) a plant description (The conceptual design of an exploration and production asset involves the development of many scenarios and options, col. 4,lines 27-29, a conceptual design of an oil refinery facility, col. 12, lines 13-59 ), wherein the plant description is based on the set of mechanical system plant requirements (identifying the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to extract and process the hydrocarbons in accordance with production rates or achieving the best compromise in terms of capability and cost, col.4, lines 41-49) and a library of components (Mechanical components are pumps, compressors, vessels, pipelines, distilled columns, absorber column, col. 5, lines17-20);
designing, using one or more processors (Fig. 8, col. 14, lines 17-20, client/processor device 50), a specification (“User specification”, col. 2, lines 8-10) for a mechanical system plant,
wherein the specification includes components from the library of components, along with couplings among the components; (a library of template with set of rules and built into application with mathematical model, col. 2: lines 8-23; col. 5: lines 18-22, a linear program model and rigorous simulation model with exchanging data between them to achieve high level optimization. col. 12, lines 13-59); and
outputting a mechanical system plant design, based on the specification, wherein the design enables mechanical system plant construction (selecting process equipment items such as pumps, compressors and connect them together in appropriate order for the plant to operate, using a process simulation application to calculate the flows and conditions throughout the facility to determine the plant’s feasibility. col. 5, lines 18-29, the entire concept is to design a process plant to be constructed based on a specification, col. 1: lines 10-27; col. 10: lines 37-61).
However, Bleackley et al. do not teach an energy system plant design including using a liquid piston heat engine.
In the same field of endeavor, Stagner teaches an energy system plant design (Abstract, para 3)
Stagner teaches an energy plant design to optimize the economic planning, design, and operation of heating and cooling plant by reducing significant cost, greenhouse gas, and water savings, para 3, Stagner. Stagner’s energy plant also utilizes a thermal discharge process for balancing the heating and cooling process of the plant, para 9.
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the plant design process of Bleackley et al. for designing an energy plant taught by Stagner. This would have been obvious because both Bleackley et al. and Stagner aim to optimize plant design, where Stagner further states that that due to increased energy costs, climate impacts and higher demands, designing an optimal economic heating and cooling (energy) plant is imperative (par. 3).
Although Stagner’s energy plant design teaches a thermal discharge process, it does not specifically teach a liquid piston heat engine.
In the same field of endeavor, Ramming et al. teach of a liquid piston heat engine (para 15).
In Ramming’s invention, a liquid piston heat engine as liquid heat compressor and liquid heat expander are being utilized to transfer heat in isochoric manner (para 15). This process will optimize the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bleackley et al. by including the teachings of Stagner and Ramming et al. This would have been obvious because the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach of an energy plant for energy optimization. By adding the liquid piston heat engine to the system of Bleackley and Stagner, the plant can transfer heat in isochoric manner, in which Ramming et al. states is very desirable (pars. 9-10).
As per claim 2, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 1 further comprising generating control information for the energy system plant design (col. 5, lines 3-17, col. 5, line 65-col.6 line 12, Within an oil and gas separation facility, a rigorous model has been created by adding input data such as flows, temperature, pressure, ambient condition of the location provided. This input data teaches the control information. Through a simulation model the data performs all chemical process such as chemical reaction, and components physical process such as non -linear representation of process equipment pumps, heat exchangers, etc. within the facility).
As per claim 3, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 2 wherein the control information is generated based on the specification (“User specification”, col. 2, lines 8-10, “a company guideline” to enter data for rigorous simulation, col. 5, lines 7-17, “product specification” including the carbon dioxide concentration hydrosulfide concentration, dew point temperature etch, col. 6, lines 65-67).
As per claim 4, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 2 further comprising outputting the control information (col. 5, lines 3-17, col. 5, line 65-col.6 line 12, Within an oil and gas separation facility, a rigorous model has been created by adding input data such as flows, temperature, pressure, ambient condition of the location provided. This input data teaches the control information. Through a simulation model the data performs all chemical process such as chemical reaction, and components physical process such as non -linear representation of process equipment pumps, heat exchangers, etc. within the facility, the chemical and physical process within the facility provides the outcome of the control information.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Bleackley et al., Stagner, and Ramming et al. teach
The method of claim 4 wherein the outputting the control information enables energy system plant operation (col. 5, lines 3-17, col. 5, line 65-col.6 line 13, Within an oil and gas separation facility, a rigorous model has been created by adding input data such as flows, temperature, pressure, ambient condition of the location provided. This input data teaches the control information. Through a simulation model the data performs all chemical process such as chemical reaction, and components physical process such as non -linear representation of process equipment pumps, heat exchangers, etc. within the facility, the chemical and physical process within the facility provides the outcome of the control information, Bleackley et al. Stagner teaches the energy system plant above.).
As per claim 6, the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach
The method of claim 1 further comprising simulating the energy system plant design (col. 1, lines 57-67, “Rigorous process simulator” using detailed input information data provides detailed process design, col. 2, lines 8-14 “computer modeling” includes an input module enabling a user specification by forming input data into rigorous process simulator, col. 5, lines 3-17, a rigorous simulation process for an oil and gas separation model, Bleackley et al. Stagner teaches the energy system plant above.).
As per claim 7, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 6 wherein the simulating enables a reliability analysis (col. 4, lines 63-67, considering the technical feasibility and technical risk related to changes of oil and gas pricing or changes in the gas to oil ratio by performing sensitivity analysis, col. 6, lines 15-16, finding a stable operating point or design by utilizing a software that solves mass and energy balance).
As per claim 8, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 6 wherein the simulating provides feedback about the plant description (col. 6, lines 13-18, The process simulation software solves the mass and energy balance to find the stable operating point or design. “The goal of the process is to find the optimal condition of the process”. The “optimal condition” of the process teaches feedback.).
As per claim 9, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 6 wherein the simulating generates operational controls (Fig. 7. User select button (operation), col. 6, lines 18-24, The simulation process will enable a user to interact with the process simulation to edit and save preference files. This process will enable a user to adapt changes over a time in engineering practice or changes in product specifications. The editing and saving process gives user an operational control).
As per claim 10, the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach
The method of claim 9 wherein the operational controls enable energy system plant functionality (plant design, col. 1, lines 10-27, col. 10, lines 37-61, limited data include any combination of type of facility, a production rate profile, a geographic location, environmental factors and product pricing, col 2. lines 59-66), Fig. 7, when user selects the operation button the system auto generates the design case and the user can run the different option of the case studies and can auto generate case files and Excel reports, Also the user can perform sensitivity studies to utilize and investigate different detailed production profile of the plant, col. 11 lines 64-67: col.12 lines 1-9, Bleackley et al.).
As per claim 11, the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the set of energy system plant requirements comprises a plurality of constraints for the mechanical system (col.4, lines 41-49,identifying the appropriate infrastructure and facilitates to extract and process the hydrocarbons in accordance with production rates or achieving the best compromise in terms of capability and cost, col. 7, lines 12-22, selecting Peng Robinson Equation of Equation of State(EOS) to vapor Liquidation equilibrium to solve any single with a high degree of efficiency, Bleackley et al.).
As per claim 12, the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the set of energy system plant requirements comprises a plurality of constraints for the components (col. 4, lines 41-49, achieving the best compromise in terms of capability and cost, col. 7, lines 12-22 increasing efficiency and reliability, col. 5, lines 18-29, selecting process equipment items such as pumps, compressors and connect them together in appropriate order for the plant to operate, using a process simulation application to calculate the flows and conditions throughout the facility to determine the plant’s feasibility, Bleackley et al.).
As per claim 13, the combination of Bleackley et al. and Stagner teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the set of energy system plant requirements comprises a plurality of goals for the mechanical system (col. 4, lines 50-62, The overall purpose is to make economic decisions by assessing the net present value over the projected life of the asset. The process optimization relies on various parameters such as nature of hydrocarbon in the assets, the existing infrastructure, and also on the company’s expertise and the best practices. Based on that it could be determined whether or not to use floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels process, and the process complexity, also maximizing oil production, maximizing natural gas liquids (NGL) production, and minimizing capital expenditure, Bleackley et al.).
As per claim 14, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 13 wherein the plurality of goals includes a primary goal (col. 4, lines 50-62, The overall purpose is to make economic decisions by assessing the net present value over the projected life of the asset. The process optimization relies on various parameters such as nature of hydrocarbon in the assets, the existing infrastructure, and also on the company’s expertise and the best practices. Based on that it could be determined whether or not to use floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels process, and the process complexity, also maximizing oil production, maximizing natural gas liquids (NGL) production, and minimizing capital expenditure. The primary goal could be using floating vessel off-loading (FPSO) method for desalination, Fig. 1A step 110.).
and a secondary goal (col. 4, lines 50-62, The overall purpose is to make economic decisions by assessing the net present value over the projected life of the asset. The process optimization relies on various parameters such as nature of hydrocarbon in the assets, the existing infrastructure, and also on the company’s expertise and the best practices. Based on that it could be determined the process of maximizing oil production, maximizing natural gas liquids (NGL) production, and minimizing capital expenditure. The secondary goal could be gas compression process, Fig. 1A, step 160, step 150, col. 6, line 65 - col. 7, line 4, col. 8, lines 61-65).
As per claim 15, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 14 wherein the primary goal includes desalination (col. 4, lines 50-62, The overall purpose is to make economic decisions by assessing the net present value over the projected life of the asset. The process optimization relies on various parameters such as nature of hydrocarbon in the assets, the existing infrastructure, and also on the company’s expertise and the best practices. Based on that, it could be determined whether or not to use floating production storage and offloading (FPSO). The floating vessel off-loading (FPSO) is also described in col. 6, lines 30-35 Fig. 1A, #110. Offshore vessels would contain salt from the ocean so they would want to desalinate. FPSOs are known to use desalination and water treatment systems.
As per claim 16, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 15 wherein the secondary goal includes gas compression (col. 4, lines 50-62, The overall purpose is to make economic decisions by assessing the net present value over the projected life of the asset. The process optimization relies on various parameters such as nature of hydrocarbon in the assets, the existing infrastructure, and also on the company’s expertise and the best practices. Based on that it could be determined the process of maximizing oil production, maximizing natural gas liquids (NGL) production, and minimizing capital expenditure. The secondary goal could be gas compression process, Fig. 1A, step 160, step 150, col. 6, line 65 - col. 7, line 4, col. 8, lines 61-65).
As per claim 17, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the components comprise pressure vessels, valves, turbines, or pumps (Mechanical components are pumps, compressors, vessels, pipelines, distilled columns, absorber column, col. 5, lines17-20, control valve, col.17, line 63).
As per claim 18, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing includes matching needed component specifications with available components (Fig. 1F, match process between the step 660 and the production profile specified flow sheet 400 and step 600, col. 10, lines 12-22, a match process between the templates retrieved from the library and the high-level topology defined in the LP model together with those generated by prior rules, col. 14, lines 9-12).
As per claim 24, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing encompasses a design envelope (See definition of the design envelope in par. 40 of the specification) (range of temperature considered in vapor liquidation process in Peng Robinson Model, col. 7, lines 14-25, range of pressure considered in sour Pend Robinson model, col, 7, lines 53-55, range of glycol used dehydration process, col.19, lines 23-36).
Claims 25 and 26 have the same limitations as claim 1. Please refer to the analysis above.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleackley et al. (US 8983815 B2.) in view of Stagner (US 20120215362 A1.) and Ramming et al. US 20110203267 A1.), and further in view of Gregersen et al. (US 20200095979 A1).
As per claim 19, Bleackley et al. Stagner, Ramming et. al. do not teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing includes providing component dwell times.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gregersen e et al. teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing includes providing component dwell times.
Gregersen et. al. teach a power plant that determines the longevity of the equipment in the plant (para 41). Gregersen et al.’s power plant includes an application deployed system 230 comprising data analysis tool 114 that can perform predictive analysis of operating data in the wind turbine zone and allow the wind power plant to predict and maintain any outage (para 41, Gregersen et al.).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bleackley et al. by including the teachings of Stagner, Ramming et al, and Gregersen et al. This would have been obvious because the combination of Bleackley et al., Stagner, Ramming et al. and Gregersen et al. teach of an energy plant for energy optimization. By adding the feature of longevity determination of the equipment through the data analytic tool, the wind turbine manufacturers can determine the time to failure. Based on the data and outcome from the analytic tool, the plant system can be modified or redesigned to exceed component longevity and functional improvement. Such a modification is very desirable for the energy plant system, (para 41, Gregersen et al.).
As per claim 20, the combination of Bleackley et al, Stagner, Ramming et al., and Gregersen et al. teach
The method of claim 19 wherein the component dwell times include valve open times (Valve 31 simultaneously open with conduit 29, para 39, Ramming et al.), valve shut times (Valve 31 closed when the compression ends, para 40, Ramming et al.) compressor run times (compressor running in two cycles, para 15, Ramming et al.), expander run times (Expander is running in two cycles, para 15, Ramming et al.), turbine run times (Turbine running longevity, para 41,Grgersen et al..), and actuator active times (hydraulic motor is loading with hydrochloric fluid while the motor is running, para 13, hydrochloric motor teaches actuator, Ramming et al.).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleackley et al. (US 8983815 B2.) in view of Stagner (US 20120215362 A1.) and Ramming et al. US 20110203267 A1.), and further in view of Krack et al. (US 20220145845 A1.).
As per claim 21, the combination of Bleackley et al, Stagner, and Ramming et al. do not teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing includes redundancy definitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor Krack et al. teach
The method of claim 1 wherein the designing includes redundancy definitions.
Krack et al. teach a pump power system where a group of plurality of seals can be arranged in the area of fluid level between the buoyant piston and the working cylinder in order to provide an improved sealing and a redundancy. In the event of a failure of a seal, the group of seals can work as spare to maintain the fluid flow between the upper fluid compartment and the lower fluid compartment (para 30, Krack et al.).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bleackley et al. by including the teachings of Stagner, Ramming et al and Krack et al. This would have been obvious because the combination of Bleackley et al., Stagner , Ramming et al. and Krack et al. teach of an energy plant for energy optimization. By adding the feature of redundancy as arranging extra seals to the fluid level between the buyout piston and working cylinder, the power flow will continue smoothly in the event of any failure which is desirable for Krack et al.’s power system (para 30, Krack et al.).
As per claim 22, the combination of Bleackley et al., Stagner, Ramming et al., and Krack et al. teach
The method of claim 21 wherein the redundancy definitions are based on component specifications (The redundancy of adding spare seals to the fluid area level based on the fluid level flow. The components are fluid flow level, the buyout piston, working cylinder, para 30, Krack et al).
As per claim 23, Bleackley et al. teach
The method of claim 22 wherein the component specifications are updated based on field performance data (selecting process equipment items such as pumps, compressors and connect them together in appropriate order for the plant to operate, using a process simulation application to calculate the flows and conditions throughout the facility to determine the plant’s feasibility. col. 5, lines 18-29).
However Bleakly et al. do not teach the process how the component can be put together and achieve system in real world.
In the same field of endeavor Ramming et al. defines a power system containing piston and pump which satisfies the selecting process equipment, (para 15), Stagner teaches a plant design with simulation which satisfies the simulation process (Abstract, para 3), Krack et al teach the redundancy for the liquid flow maintenance, para 39).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Bleackley et al. by including the teachings of Stagner, Ramming et al and Krack et al as mentioned above to get the outcome of the energy plant. This would have been obvious because the combination of Bleackley et al., Stagner, Ramming et al., and Krack et al. teach of an energy plant for energy optimization. The combination of the above teaching will enable the design to be achieved practically.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please refer to the form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)-272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118