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 .
Status
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-22 are pending. Claims 3, 12, and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10, 14-20 are amended. Claims 21-22 are added.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102, and claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103. Although claim 22 is not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103, it is not indicated as allowable due to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments. The added limitation of “automatically causing operation…” in the independent claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments rely on the newly presented amendments which have not been previously addressed. The amended or newly presented claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103 as necessitated by the amendments.
Although claim 22 is not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103, it is not indicated as allowable due to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
The dependent claims are argued to be allowable because the independent claims are supposedly allowable. However, the independent claims are not allowable; therefore, the dependent claims are not allowable since they do not add any further allowable limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 22 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “wherein the apparatus is further caused to identify the non-buffer dynamic element model for use in generating the first predicted blending element based at least in part on a tank type associated with the first predicted blending element.” In [0049] of the specification, a non-buffer model is described as a modeling a component without a buffer tank. A pipe is an example of a component without a buffer tank. Although [0068] describes “[identifying] a particular model for use associated with a particular tank, for example based at least in part on a tank type”, it is not clear that this would apply to a component without a tank such as a pipe. Therefore, using the tank type to determine the type of non-buffer dynamic element model is not sufficiently disclosed and is new matter.
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 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “wherein the apparatus is further caused to identify the non-buffer dynamic element model for use in generating the first predicted blending element based at least in part on a tank type associated with the first predicted blending element.” In [0049] of the specification, a non-buffer model is described as a modeling a component without a buffer tank. A pipe is an example of a component without a buffer tank. Although [0068] describes “[identifying] a particular model for use associated with a particular tank, for example based at least in part on a tank type”, it is not clear that this would apply to a component without a tank such as a pipe. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2021/0132591 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses an apparatus for modeling of predicted blending elements ([0004] “An example method includes optimizing continuous conversion of petroleum stocks into blending components and non-continuous conversion of the blending components into refinery products. In this example, a master model predictive controller (MPC) receives constraints on petroleum stocks available during a period of time, and receives constraints on blending components that can be produced during the period of time”), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer-coded instructions thereon, the computer coded instructions, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: ([0006] “Another example includes a non-transient computer readable medium with instructions stored hereon. When the instructions are executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors are caused to receive constraints on initial components of a continuous manufacturing process that produces a plurality of blending components and to receive constraints on the plurality of blending components produced by the continuous manufacturing process.”)
generate a first predicted blending element utilizing a non-buffer dynamic element model ([0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models. A processing unit can be modeled as one or more input feeds and one or more output feeds.” The processing unit can be used for modeling product blending without using a buffer tank.)
generate a second predicted blending element utilizing at least one of a pool tank dynamic element model (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. More than one may be mapped for the sake of compact prosecution. [0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models. A processing unit can be modeled as one or more input feeds and one or more output feeds. A pool tank can be modeled as a mixing tank or a non-mixing (simple storage) tank.”). Also, see equation 12 below (equation 12 includes the predicted blending element in light of applicant specification par [0102]).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or a heel volume dynamic element model ([0155] “In some cases, there may be left over components, known as heels, to be accounted for. A general distribution matrix D can be used to specify these components:”); and
automatically cause operation of at least one physical component of a processing plant based on at least one of the first predicted blending element or the second predicted blending element ([0004] “This disclosure provides industrial process control and automation systems and methods that can be optimized for both continuous production of intermediate components and the non-continuous production of final products from those intermediate components. An example method includes optimizing continuous conversion of petroleum stocks into blending components and non-continuous conversion of the blending components into refinery products.” [0037] “As shown in FIG. 1, the system 100 includes various components that facilitate production or processing of at least one product or other material.”).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein at least one of the first predicted blending element or the second predicted blending element is applied to a plant-wide optimization process that generates an optimized product distribution associated with a target time interval (Fig. 27 “A master model predictive controller (MPC) receiving constraints on petroleum stocks available during a period of time” “The master MPC controller performing plant-wide optimization that includes the conversion of petroleum stocks into blending components as well as the noncontinuous production of refinery products” ).
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: automatically generate, via a system, a user interface including at least one of the first predicted blending element or the second predicted blending element ([0089] “Since the cascaded MPC architecture 300 uses a pair of models, the planning model 200 can naturally be used to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) with a clear bird's eye view of a plant. FIG. 5 illustrates an example GUI 500 for use with a cascaded MPC architecture according to this disclosure. The GUI 500 includes various icons 502 identifying different units 202 within the planning model 200. The master MPC controller 302 can provide various information within the GUI 500. For example, the master MPC controller 302 could provide unit production rates, available inventories, scheduled product deliveries, cost structures, total profit margins, each unit's contribution to the profit margin, and other relevant information pertaining to the real-time execution of a production plan.”), wherein the system is configured to enable control of at least one of at least one physical component of a processing plant based on at least one of the first predicted blending element or the second predicted blending element (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. [0044] “The operator stations 116 represent computing or communication devices providing user access to the machine-level controllers 114, which could then provide user access to the controllers 106 (and possibly the sensors 102a and actuators 102b ).” “In addition, the operator stations 116 could receive and display warnings, alerts, or other messages or displays generated by the controllers 106 or the machine-level controllers 114.” The user can control the physical component in the plant for blending based on the blending model. [0059] “The master MPC controller is cascaded on top of one or more slave MPC controllers. The slave MPC controllers could, for example, represent controllers at the unit level (Level 3) of a system, and each slave MPC controller provides the master MPC controller with its operating states and constraints.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein the second predicted blending element is generated utilizing the pool tank dynamic element model ([0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models.”), wherein the pool tank dynamic element model is based at least in part on at least one flow rate associated with the tank ([0109] “Multiple streams of materials (Fin) flow into the tank 900, and each stream has r properties. Also, multiple streams of materials (Fout) flow out of the tank 900, and all streams have the same properties.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein the second predicted blending element is generated utilizing the pool tank dynamic element model ([0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models.”), wherein the pool tank dynamic element model is one of a linear blending pool tank dynamic element model (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. More than one may be mapped for the sake of compact prosecution. [0108] “Also note that the input streams can be similar enough so that a linear mixing rule is accurate enough for measurement feedback, although other approaches ( such as those using a nonlinear correction term or nonlinear blending laws) could be used.”),a corrective bonuses blending pool tank dynamic element model, or a non-linear blending pool tank dynamic element model ([0108] “Also note that the input streams can be similar enough so that a linear mixing rule is accurate enough for measurement feedback, although other approaches ( such as those using a nonlinear correction term or nonlinear blending laws) could be used.”).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, and Lu discloses wherein the corrective bonuses blending pool tank dynamic element model is based at least in part on a polynomial bonus factor ( Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. [0109] “Blending bonuses can also be used in an oil and gas system as follows:”, Eq. (14). [0109] “( such as those using a nonlinear correction term or nonlinear blending laws) could be used.”).
Regarding claim 8, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the non-buffer dynamic element model utilized for the first predicted blending element is a non-linear blending dynamic element model (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. [0104] “This model format matches with the structure commonly used in planning models. Strictly speaking, it is not a linear model as it has linear dynamics with quadratic gains. The model has a single input feed per unit, and each property of an output product has a similar time-constant and delay as the product draw.” The examiner also notes that only one of a linear or a non-linear model must be taught which describes all versions of the model, so the amended limitation is not meaningfully narrowing.).
Regarding claim 9, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 8. The remainder of claim 9 further describes a corrective bonuses blending non-buffer dynamic element model as originally recited in claim 8. The corrective bonuses blending non-buffer dynamic element model in claim 8 is not required as it is one of a list of alternatives; therefore, the additional description of the non-buffer dynamic element model as outlined in claim 9 is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 10, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second predicted blending element is generated utilizing the heel volume dynamic element model(([0155] “In some cases, there may be left over components, known as heels, to be accounted for. A general distribution matrix D can be used to specify these components:”), wherein the heel volume dynamic element model is a non-linear blending heel volume dynamic element model (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. [0155], Eq. (24)-(25). The matrix D describes the heel volume in the blending equation. Equation (25) shows a non-linear equation model. The examiner also notes that only one of a linear or a non-linear model must be taught which describes all versions of the model, so the amended limitation is not meaningfully narrowing.).
Regarding claim 11, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, The remainder of claim 11 further describes a corrective bonuses blending heel volume dynamic element model as originally recited in claim 10. The model in claim 10 is not required as it is one of a list of alternatives; therefore, the additional description of the heel volume dynamic element model as outlined in claim 10 is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 14, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein the second predicted blending element is generated utilizing the pool tank dynamic element model ([0164] A product may be a combination of two or more intermediate component products. A product such as an intermediate component product may be produced using a heel model as in [0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models. A processing unit can be modeled as one or more input feeds and one or more output feeds. A pool tank can be modeled as a mixing tank or a non-mixing (simple storage) tank.”),
and the apparatus is further caused to generate a third predicted blending element utilizing a heel volume dynamic element model ([0164] A product may be a combination of two or more intermediate component products. A product such as an intermediate component product may be produced using a heel model as in [0155] “In some cases, there may be left over components, known as heels, to be accounted for. A general distribution matrix D can be used to specify these components:”.).
Regarding claim 15, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and Lu discloses wherein the second predicted blending element is generated utilizing the pool tank dynamic element model ([0102] “For example, two base models (a processing unit model and a pool tank model) could be provided for forming planning models. A processing unit can be modeled as one or more input feeds and one or more output feeds. A pool tank can be modeled as a mixing tank or a non-mixing (simple storage) tank.”). Also, see equation 12 below (equation 12 includes the predicted blending element in light of applicant specification par [0102]).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) derived from a Laplace transform of a flow mass balance equation ([0109] “The following can be obtained using Laplace transforms and reorganizing”) and a linear element blending equation ([0108] “Also note that the input streams can be similar enough so that a linear mixing rule is accurate enough for measurement feedback, although other approaches ( such as those using a nonlinear correction term or nonlinear blending laws) could be used.”).
Regarding claim 16, Lu discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: ([0004] “An example method includes optimizing continuous conversion of petroleum stocks into blending components and non-continuous conversion of the blending components into refinery products.” [0006] “Another example includes a non-transient computer readable medium with instructions stored hereon. When the instructions are executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors are caused to receive constraints on initial components of a continuous manufacturing process that produces a plurality of blending components and to receive constraints on the plurality of blending components produced by the continuous manufacturing process.”). The remainder of the claim is rejected in the same way as claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected in the same way as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected in the same way as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected in the same way as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, Lu discloses a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, configures the computer program product for: ([0004] “An example method includes optimizing continuous conversion of petroleum stocks into blending components and non-continuous conversion of the blending components into refinery products.” [0006] “Another example includes a non-transient computer readable medium with instructions stored hereon. When the instructions are executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors are caused to receive constraints on initial components of a continuous manufacturing process that produces a plurality of blending components and to receive constraints on the plurality of blending components produced by the continuous manufacturing process.”). The remainder of the claim is rejected in the same way as claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2021/0132591 A1) in view of Kriz et al. (US 2014/0180650 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the non-buffer dynamic element model generates the first predicted blending element for a physical component embodying an inline blender.
Kriz teaches wherein the non-buffer dynamic element model generates the first predicted blending element for a physical component embodying an inline blender (0044] “Still another option is to use the predictive model to effectively remove the intermediate product tankage from service. Instead, the predictive model can allow in-line blending of the intermediate product directly to a car or tank truck.” ).
Lu and Kriz are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” blending modeling.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lu and Kriz before him or her, to modify Lu to include inline blending modeling as taught by Kriz.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Kriz [0014] “Calculated parameters consequently allow for immediate product release from a running tank; manufacturing optimization; in-line to truck/car blending; distillation operation; and crude slate optimization.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-1931. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8AM to 4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3676. 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.
/T.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights