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 Status
Claims 1-21, and 23-30 are pending and under examination.
Claims 22 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the drawings, received 05/29/2026, are accepted and the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
The claim amendments, received 05/29/2026, have overcome the claim objections previously set forth. Therefore, the previous claim objections have are withdrawn. However, based on the amended claims, new claim objections have been set forth.
The 112(f) claim interpretation has been maintained.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome most of the 112(b) rejection(s). However, some have been maintained. Further, based on the claim amendments, new 112(b) rejection(s) have been set forth.
The 101 rejection(s) have been modified and maintained to address the claim amendments.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, the previous prior art rejection over Antolin has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
The double patenting rejection(s) have been modified and maintained based on the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 line 12 recites “and/or sending input data over the network., the blue plant comprising…”. The period “.” after the word “network” appears to be a grammatical/clerical mistake.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for registering input data” in claims 1, 2, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30.
“means of manipulating at least one of a plurality of input variables” in claim 11
Claim limitation “means for registering input data” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of applicants printed publication disclose “FIG. 1 illustrates a first embodiment of the computer-implemented monitoring method 100 according to the present disclosure. In the first step 110, measured data 115 are received from a plurality of means for registering input data, preferably sensors that are each configured to monitor parameters of a production process in a plant. Means for registering input data used in the present disclosure comprise said sensors but also, in particular, samples from feedstock and intermediate or final products may be collected, analyzed and respective results are stored in a database with a timestamp for when the sample was taken.”, see paragraph [0076]. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim limitation “means for registering input data” as sensors configured to monitor parameters of a production process in a plant or as samples from feedstock and intermediate or final products that have been analyzed and results stored in a database with a timestamp when the sample was taken.
Claim limitation “means of manipulating at least one of a plurality of input variables” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of applicants printed publication disclose:
“c) solving a multi-objective optimization problem subject for maximizing a utilization factor, e.g. product yield and minimizing the environmental footprint of the production process, the emissions from processing, by means of manipulating at least one of a plurality of input variables.”, see paragraph [0134].
“Input variables are a subset of “Input data” and used as manipulated variables in the optimization strategy. A manipulated variable is an independent variable subject to adjustments of an optimization strategy to optimize its effect on the objective function – a non-negative measure of plant performance to be minimized, see paragraph [0051].
For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim limitation “means for manipulating at least one of a plurality of input variables” as input data from a variable for optimization.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 20, and 23-28 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.
Claim 16 refers to “a utilization factor”. However, claim 1 line 5 previously recites “a utilization factor”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same utilization factor or if applicant is intending to introduce another utilization factor. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “the utilization factor”?
Claim 20 recites “a blue plant”. However, claim 20 incorporates the limitations of claim 19 which further incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 also recites “a blue plant”. It is unclear if the blue plant are synonymous with one another of if applicant is intending to introduce another blue plant.
Claim 23 recites “a blue plant”. Claim 23 is dependent from claims 20, 19, and 1 which previously refer to “a blue plant”. It is unclear if applicant is introducing another blue plant or if applicant is intending to refer to “the blue plant”. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “the blue plant”?
Claim 24 recites “Blue plant for production of a chemical or fuel product”. Claim 24 is dependent from claims 19 and 1. Claim 1 previously recites “a blue plant … for a chemical or fuel product”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the blue plant and the chemical and the fuel product in claim 1, or if applicant is intending to define a different blue plant, a different chemical, and a different fuel product. Claims 25-28 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 24.
Claim 24 recites “a data processing system according to claim 19”. Claim 19 previously introduces “Data processing system”. It is unclear if applicant is defining a separate data processing system or attempting to refer to “the” data processing system of claim 19.
Claim 24 recites “a server”, “a material input to the production process”, “a production energy consumption”, a utilization factor”, and “a sustainability score”. Claim 24 depends from claims 19 and 1. Claim 19 previously refers to “a server”. Further, claim 1 previously refers to “a material input to a production process”, “a production energy consumption”, “a utilization factor”, and “a sustainability score”. It is unclear if these features are attempting to refer to the features previously defined in claims 19 and 1, or if applicant is attempting to define another set of features entirely.
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.
Claims 1-22 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a method. Claim 29 is directed toward a method. Claim 30 is directed toward a system.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea(s) “receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant”, “calculating a current sustainability score from the received input data”, “comparing the current sustainability score to a predetermined target sustainability score to calculate a sustainability score deviation”, and “determining one or more underlying process variables as a cause of the sustainability score deviation”. Claims 29 and 30 recite the abstract idea(s) “receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant”, “calculating a sustainability score from the received input data”, determining a deviation in the sustainability score”, and “determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation” which are mental processes and/or a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and could be performed by a human person or by pen and paper or by a generic computer.
The computer-implement monitoring method/system configured to receive data, calculate values, determine a deviation, and adjust setpoint variables is merely a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Upon calculating the score and/or adjusting the setpoint variable, no further action is performed, and therefore is not a particular practical application.
Claims 1, 29, and 30 also recite a computer-implemented monitoring system/method, a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising, and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation.
The abstract ideas are performed by computer-implemented monitoring system/method which is just a general-purpose computer. However, use of conventional computer functions to apply the judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II) and MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III)).
The additional element “adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation” is interpreted as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea to the field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception).
If “receiving” is deemed not to be an abstract idea, then the additional element “receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant” is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
Claims 1, 29, and 30 recite the additional elements a computer-implemented monitoring system/method, a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising, and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation. These additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin et al. (US 2012/0290205; already of record – hereinafter “Antolin”) and Holzmeister et al. (US 2022/0143569 – hereinafter “Holzmeister). Antolin and Holzmeister disclose a computer-implemented monitoring system/method, a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising (Antolin; fig. 1, [0041, 0058, 0061-0096, 0098] and Holzmeister; [0070-0075]), and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation (Holzmeister; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
Claims 2 and 21, 23, and 25 further limits the means for registering input data as comprising a plurality of sensors located along a reactor and configured for transmitting data to a server via the internet. However, these additional elements are interpreted as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity. Further, the sensors do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0077, 0086].
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of the sustainability score as comprising a carbon intensity score, a greenhouse gas emissions score, or another carbon footprint score, or a life cycle assessment score (step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under step 2A prong 2 because it considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry as evidenced by Antolin [0064-0096].
Claim 4 recites the input data as being related to liquid, gaseous, or solid streams and comprising a mass flow, volume flow, temperature, pressure, chemical composition and/or electrical consumptions. However, these additional elements are interpreted as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, the additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin [0061, 0074-0075].
Claims 5-6 and 26-28 further limit the gaseous streams as comprising H2 or feed streams to the hydrogen plant steam reformer and/or the production of a product combined with carbon capture. However, these additional elements are interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment), but do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin [0098] and Yamase et al. (US Patent No. 5,149,600 – hereinafter “Yamase”)
Claims 7-8 recites the input data are received continuously or in real time. However, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry as evidenced by Antolin [0047-0054, 0063, 0075].
Claims 9-10, 20, and 24 recite the additional elements of a display device configured to display the input data and receive an input signal via communication infrastructure. However, these additional elements are interpreted as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Displaying is not considered a practical application, such as improving the functioning of a computer, effecting a transformation, effecting a particular treatment, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Indeed, the Court did not find that displaying information on a computer display without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result (information display) was not sufficient to show patent eligibility. Nor did the court find that arranging information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists in processing information more quickly was sufficient to show patent eligibility. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; fig. 1, #6, [0047-0054, 0058].
Claim 11 recites the abstract ideas “evaluating the current status and set point of the production process”, “cleansing the input data before calculating sustainability score”, and “solving a multi-object optimization problem” (step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under 2A prong 2 because data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application because data gathering is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception. Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity. Further, the additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088].
Claim 12 recites transmitting executable instruction via a communication network. However, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088].
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea “calculating improved values” and “reporting the calculated improved values” (Step 2A Prong 1), but does not integrate the judicial exception under step 2A prong 2 or provide significantly more as performing repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III), MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0017, 0047-0054, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088].
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea “setpoint tracking and identifying optimal setpoint deviations in one or more manipulated underlying variables causing an observed decrease in the utilization factor or a worsening of the sustainability score” (Step 2A Prong 1), but does not integrate the abstract idea under step 2A prong 2 because these elements are interpreted as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, but does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088].
Claim 15 recites adjusting one or more underlying variables in response to identifying the optimal setpoint deviations. However, correcting a value is interpreted as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception, but does not integrate the abstract idea under step 2A prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment). Further, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088].
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea “the adjusted values for one or more of the underlying variables are calculated to adjust the sustainability score or the production process and/or utilization factor” (Step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under Step 2 Prong 2 because data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application because data gathering is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception. Further, these additional elements of a carbon capture do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0041, 0058, 0098] and Black et al. (US 2011/00615333 – hereinafter “Black”). Black teach capturing 50-80% CO2; [0071-0072].
Claim 17 recites a catalytic step and receiving input data in the catalytic step. However, data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application because data gathering is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception. Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity. Further, these additional elements of a carbon capture do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; [0023, 0039].
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea “the replacing one or more catalysts of the catalytic reaction step is optimized, being scheduled as a result of calculations based on input data” (Step 2A Prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under step 2A prong 2 because data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application because data gathering is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception. Further, these additional elements of a carbon capture do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin and Holzmeister. Holzmeister teach the method used to forecast the remaining lifetime of the catalyst as determined from limitations of the operating conditions; [0104, 0108-0109].
Claim 19 recites a data-processing system comprising a server. However, a general-purpose computer that applies the judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine (MPEP § 2106(b)(I)). Accordingly, these elements amount to a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system and would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III), MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Further, these additional elements of a server do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Antolin; fig. 1, [0058-0064, 0063, 0075].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-5, 7-15, 17-21, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antolin et al. (US 2012/0290205; already of record – hereinafter “Antolin”) in view of Holzmeister et al. (WO 2020/165045 where US 2022/0143569 is used as the corresponding document – hereinafter “Holzmeister”).
Regarding claim 1, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method for a blue plant (Antolin disclose a computer-implement method for monitoring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a plant for production of fuels where CO2 co-products are produced; fig. 1, [0041, 0058, 0098]), the blue plant being configured for production of a chemical or fuel product (Antolin; fig. 1, [0029, 0041, 0098]) , the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (Antolin disclose a plurality of sensors that collect at least one variable related to GHG emissions or direct values of GHG factor and activity data values associated to each process. The data collected by the sensors 2 is transmitted to at least one database accessible by a processing unit 5 by means of data transmission means 3, said data transmission means 3 may be connected at least to the plurality of sensors 2 and to a GHG emissions modelling module 4 to process and model GHG emissions data from the plant; fig. 1, [0061-0063]), the method comprising:
receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (Antolin disclose activity data is a characteristic parameter of the activity or tasks of the equipment, installations, processes or vehicles associated with a given source, which allows determining their emissions for a given period through calculations, and is collected using a plurality of sensors arranged along the site; [0045]. The sensors monitor, collect and report the variables related to the GHG emissions which may be related to individual processes or part of the entire process of producing bioproducts from a source material such as sugar cane, straw, wine alcohol, etc.; [0061-0062]. The sensors communicate with processing unit 5 and modeling unit 4 to receive the at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the blue plant to calculate the activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0063-0093]), and
calculating a current sustainability score from the received input data (Antolin disclose receiving the at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating a sustainability score for GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0011, 0059-0093]).
Antolin does not teach comparing the current sustainability score to a predetermined target sustainability score to calculate a sustainability score deviation, determining one or more underlying process variables as a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation.
However, Holzmeister teach the analogous art of a computer-implemented monitoring method for a plant configured for production of a chemical (Holzmeister disclose systems, methods, computer programs, computer readable non-volatile storage media, catalyst, chemical processes and computer program products that use data-driven models including catalyst deactivation and age to optimize energy costs, market supply of raw materials, or need for the plant product by optimizing parameters derived from target operating parameters [0070-0075]), wherein the method comprises comparing the current sustainability score to a predetermined target sustainability score to calculate a sustainability score deviation (Holzmeister teach the method receives operating data from sensors and compares the operating data for the operating condition with historical data and catalyst age to determine at least one target operating parameter; [0017-0027, 0095]) , determining one or more underlying process variables as a cause of the sustainability score deviation (Holzmeister teach the determination takes account for the catalyst deactivation while finding minimum or maximum optimization parameters or target parameters in order to provide optimal system monitoring and control [0072-0073, 0103, 0106-0113]), and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation (Holzmeister disclose the determined operating parameters are used to adjust temperatures to achieve a certain desired conversion; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, because Holzmeister teach the method for reducing deviations enables the plant operator to improve and optimize operations policies on a day-to-day basis and easily assess scheduled or current runs based on the operating conditions present in the plant (Holzmeister; [0073-0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Antolin and Holzmeister bother teach computer software and methods for controlling the operations in a plant.
Regarding claim 2, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the means for registering input data include a plurality of sensors, and said input data is based on measurements by one or more of the plurality of sensors (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0077, 0086]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the sustainability score is or comprises a Carbon Intensity (CI) score, a Green House Gas (GHG) emission score, or another carbon footprint score, or a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) score (Antolin disclose a GHG emissions score; [0064-0093]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein at least some of the input data are related to liquid, gaseous, or solid streams, and comprise a mass flow, a volume flow, a temperature, a pressure, a chemical composition, and/or electrical consumption (Antolin disclose the sensor monitory individual processes and can measure various parameters for various states of matter throughout the process [0061, 0074-0075]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 4 above, wherein said gaseous streams comprise H2 or feed streams to a hydrogen plant steam reformer of the blue plant (Antolin disclose the method for gasification to convert feedstock into synthesis gas which comprise an H2 stream; [0098]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the input data are received continuously and the sustainability score is calculated continuously (Antolin disclose the sensors 2 are configured to monitor and report data via transmission means 3 using a wired, wireless, or near field communications means where data sets can be searched and selected from a database to calculate performance; [0047-0054, 0063, 0075]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the method is a time-series forecast optimizes the plant on a day-to-day basis; [0073, 0103, 0187]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the input data are received in real time (Antolin disclose the sensors 2 are configured to monitor and report data via transmission means 3 using a wired, wireless, or near field communications means where data sets can be searched and selected from a database to calculate performance; [0047-0054, 0063, 0075]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein a display device interactively displays the input data, the display device being configured for graphically or textually receiving an input signal from a monitoring system via a dedicated communication infrastructure, creating an interactive display for a user (Antolin; fig. 1, #6, [0058]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 9 above, wherein the utilization factor is displayed on the display device (Antolin; [0047-0054, 0058]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising optimizing the production process comprising: a) evaluating a current status and a set point of the production process using the means for registering input data and monitoring parameters of the production process, b) cleansing the input data before calculating the sustainability score, c) solving a multi-objective optimization problem subject for maximizing the utilization factor, and minimizing the environmental footprint of the production process, the emissions from processing, by means of manipulating at least one of a plurality of input variables (Antolin disclose using more than one variable to calculate the emissions factor or activity data by searching and selecting the best available data for each production plant and raw material type, and calculating performance using the data selected to get the total emission value expressed in g CO2eq/MJ bioproduct as a result of adding all the stages involved; [0047-0054]. The software executes instructions related to the calculation of the GHG emission level associated with at least one variable impacting emissions of the GHG resulting from the bioproduct generation at the site; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1, further comprising transmitting executable information to the blue plant via a communication network (Antolin; fig. 1, [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising calculating improved values for one or more underlying variables, and reporting the calculated improved values to an operator of the blue plant (Antolin disclose searching and selecting the best available data for each production plant and raw material type, and calculating performance using the data selected to get the total emission value expressed in g CO2eq/MJ bioproduct as a result of adding all the stages involved; [0047-0054]. The software executes instructions related to the calculation of the GHG emission level associated with at least one variable impacting emissions of the GHG resulting from the bioproduct generation at the site; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising:
- setpoint tracking and identifying optimal setpoint deviations in one or more manipulated underlying variables causing an observed decrease in the utilization factor or a worsening of the sustainability score (Antolin disclose using more than one variable to calculate the emissions factor or activity data by searching and selecting the best available data for each production plant and raw material type, and calculating performance using the data selected to get the total emission value expressed in g CO2eq/MJ bioproduct as a result of adding all the stages involved; [0047-0054]. The software executes instructions related to the calculation of the GHG emission level associated with at least one variable impacting emissions of the GHG resulting from the bioproduct generation at the site; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the method comprises comparing the determined operating parameters and the measured operating parameters with a threshold value to the operation model is valid; [0095, 0106, 0108, 0155]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 14 above, further comprising adjusting one or more underlying variables in response to identifying the optimal setpoint deviations (Antolin disclose using more than one variable to calculate the emissions factor or activity data by searching and selecting the best available data for each production plant and raw material type, and calculating performance using the data selected to get the total emission value expressed in g CO2eq/MJ bioproduct as a result of adding all the stages involved; [0047-0054]. The software executes instructions related to the calculation of the GHG emission level associated with at least one variable impacting emissions of the GHG resulting from the bioproduct generation at the site; [0017, 0058, 0061, 0079, 0088]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the determined operating parameters are used to adjust temperatures to achieve a certain desired conversion; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the production process comprises a catalytic reaction step, and the method comprises receiving input data for temperature and pressure in the catalytic reaction step (Antolin disclose the process includes a catalytic reaction, for example enzymatic hydrolysis and/or gasification, where temperature and pressure are monitored and reported using sensors [0023, 0039]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 17 above, wherein replacing one or more catalysts of the catalytic reaction step is optimized, being scheduled as a result of calculations based on the input data (The modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the method used to forecast the remaining lifetime of the catalyst as determined from limitations of the operating conditions; [0104, 0108-0109]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Antolin teach data-processing system for performing the computer- implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 (The computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 has previously been discussed above. Antolin disclose data-processing system 4 and 5; fig. 1, [0058-0064]), said data-processing system comprising a server, the server being located distant from the blue plant and being connected to the internet (Antolin disclose wired or wireless transmission of data from the sensors to a database using transmission means 3; fig. 1, [0063, 0075]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant comprising a display device for calculating and interactively displaying input data and sustainability scores, the display device being configured for graphically or textually receiving an input signal, using a human machine interface via a dedicated communication infrastructure (The computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Antolin further disclose a display device for calculating and interactively displaying input data and sustainability score; [0047-0054, 0058]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the method includes a display for calculating and displaying data using a human machine interface; [0036, 0061, 0095, 0107, 0205, 0214]), said monitoring system comprising:
- the means for registering input data (The means for registering input data has previously been discussed above. See also Holzmeister; [0087, 0106]);
- the data-processing system according to claim 19 (The data-processing system according to claim 19 has previously been discussed above.)
wherein said monitoring is coupled to the server for communicating with said blue plant via a communication network, using a web-based platform for receiving and/or sending input data, over the network (The data-processing system comprising a server connected to the internet has previously been discussed in claim 19 above. Antolin disclose wired or wireless transmission of data from the sensors to a database using transmission means 3; fig. 1, [0063, 0075]. See also Holzmeister; [0036, 0061, 0095, 0106-0107, 0205, 0214]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring system for according to claim 20 above, wherein said means for registering input data are a plurality of sensors located at the blue plant, configured for transmitting sensor data to the server via the internet (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0077, 0086]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Antolin teach computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant according to claim 20 above, wherein said plurality of sensors are located along a reactor to collect data from different positions in the same location of the reactor (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0074-0075, 0077, 0086]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Antolin teach blue plant for production of a chemical or fuel product from a feedstock or source, the blue plant comprising:
a data processing system according to claim 19 (The system and method for a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel product from a feedstock source according to claims 1 and 19 have previously been discussed above); and
a monitoring system providing a display device for calculating and interactively displaying input data and sustainability scores, the display device being configured for graphically or textually receiving an input signal, using a human machine interface via a dedicated communication infrastructure (Antolin disclose a display device for calculating and interactively displaying input data and sustainability score; [0047-0054, 0058]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the method includes a display for calculating and displaying data using a human machine interface; [0036, 0061, 0095, 0107, 0205, 0214]), said monitoring system comprising:
the means for registering input data (The means for registering input data has previously been discussed above. See also Holzmeister; [0087, 0106]);
wherein said monitoring system is coupled to a server for communicating with said blue plant via a communication network, using a web-based platform for receiving and/or sending input data over the network (The data-processing system comprising a server connected to the internet has previously been discussed in claim 19 above. Antolin disclose wired or wireless transmission of data from the sensors to a database using transmission means 3; fig. 1, [0063, 0075]. See also Holzmeister; [0036, 0061, 0095, 0106-0107, 0205, 0214]), the blue plant comprising the means for registering input data and being arranged such that:
a) input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to the a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant are received (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0063-0093]. Further, Holzmeister teach the method receives operating data from sensors and compares the operating data for the operating condition with historical data and catalyst age to determine at least one target operating parameter; [0017-0027, 0095]),
b) a sustainability score from the received input data is calculated (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating a sustainability score for GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0011, 0059-0093]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Antolin teach blue plant according to claim 24 above, wherein the means for registering input data are one or more sensors (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0077, 0086]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Antolin teach blue plant according to claim 24 above, wherein said blue plant is arranged for production of a blue chemical or fuel product via carbon capture and storage and/or carbon capture and utilization combined with hydroprocessing, hydrogen production, ammonia production or production of methanol, ethanol, naphtha, synthesis gas, gasoline, jet fuel or diesel (Antolin; [0041, 0058, 0074, 0098]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Antolin teach blue plant according to claim 26 above, wherein the blue chemical or fuel product is 1) an oxygenate such as methanol, DME or ethanol, 2) a hydrocarbon, 3) hydrogen, 4) synthesis gas, 5) ammonia or 6) gasoline from alcohols (Antolin; [0041, 0058, 0062, 0074, 0098]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Antolin teach blue plant according to claim 26 above, wherein the blue chemical or fuel product is a blue transportation fuel or petrochemical raw material (Antolin; [0041, 0058, 0062, 0074, 0098]).
Regarding claim 29, Antolin disclose computer-implemented method of controlling production of a chemical or fuel product by a blue plant (Antolin disclose a computer-implement method for monitoring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a plant for production of syngas where CO2 co-products are produced; fig. 1, [0029, 0041, 0058, 0098]), the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (Antolin disclose a plurality of sensors that collet at least one variable related to GHG emissions or direct values of GHG factor and activity data values associated to each process. The data collected by the sensors 2 is transmitted to at least one database accessible by a processing unit 5 by means of data transmission means 3, said data transmission means 3 may be connected at least to the plurality of sensors 2 and to a GHG emissions modelling module 4 to process and model GHG emissions data from the plant; fig. 1, [0061-0063]), the method comprising:
a) at a predetermined measuring interval, or continuously, receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0063-0093]);
b) at a predetermined calculating interval, or continuously, calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy using a sustainability score related to GHG emissions; fig. 1, [0059-0093]).
Antolin does not teach c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score, d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation, and e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score.
However, Holzmeister teach the analogous art of a computer-implemented monitoring method for a plant configured for production of a chemical (Holzmeister disclose systems, methods, computer programs, computer readable non-volatile storage media, catalyst, chemical processes and computer program products that use data-driven models including catalyst deactivation and age to optimize energy costs, market supply of raw materials, or need for the plant product by optimizing parameters derived from target operating parameters [0070-0075]), wherein the method comprises c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score (Holzmeister teach the method receives operating data from sensors and compares the operating data for the operating condition with historical data and catalyst age to determine at least one target operating parameter; [0017-0027, 0095]), d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation, (Holzmeister teach the determination takes account for the catalyst deactivation while finding minimum or maximum optimization parameters or target parameters in order to provide optimal system monitoring and control [0072-0073, 0103, 0106-0113]), e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score (Holzmeister disclose the determined operating parameters are used to adjust temperatures to achieve a certain desired conversion; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, because Holzmeister teach the method for reducing deviations enables the plant operator to improve and optimize operations policies on a day-to-day basis and easily assess scheduled or current runs based on the operating conditions present in the plant (Holzmeister; [0073-0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Antolin and Holzmeister bother teach computer software and methods for controlling the operations in a plant.
Regarding claim 30, Antolin disclose computer-implemented system for controlling production of a chemical or fuel product by a blue plant (Antolin disclose a computer-implement method for monitoring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a plant for production of syngas where CO2 co-products are produced; fig. 1, [0029, 0041, 0058, 0098]), the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (Antolin disclose a plurality of sensors that collet at least one variable related to GHG emissions or direct values of GHG factor and activity data values associated to each process. The data collected by the sensors 2 is transmitted to at least one database accessible by a processing unit 5 by means of data transmission means 3, said data transmission means 3 may be connected at least to the plurality of sensors 2 and to a GHG emissions modelling module 4 to process and model GHG emissions data from the plant; fig. 1, [0061-0063]), the system being configured for:
a) at a predetermined measuring interval, or continuously, receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy; fig. 1, [0063-0093]);
b) at a predetermined calculating interval, or continuously, calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (Antolin disclose receiving at least one variable from the plurality of sensors from the plant and calculating activity data related to thermal loss in a gas turbine, an energy of gasses coming out from exhaust, or vapour enthalpy using a sustainability score related to GHG emissions; fig. 1, [0059-0093]).
Antolin does not teach c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score, d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation, and e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score.
However, Holzmeister teach the analogous art of a computer-implemented monitoring method for a plant configured for production of a chemical (Holzmeister disclose systems, methods, computer programs, computer readable non-volatile storage media, catalyst, chemical processes and computer program products that use data-driven models including catalyst deactivation and age to optimize energy costs, market supply of raw materials, or need for the plant product by optimizing parameters derived from target operating parameters [0070-0075]), wherein the method comprises c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score (Holzmeister teach the method receives operating data from sensors and compares the operating data for the operating condition with historical data and catalyst age to determine at least one target operating parameter; [0017-0027, 0095]), d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation, (Holzmeister teach the determination takes account for the catalyst deactivation while finding minimum or maximum optimization parameters or target parameters in order to provide optimal system monitoring and control [0072-0073, 0103, 0106-0113]), e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score (Holzmeister disclose the determined operating parameters are used to adjust temperatures to achieve a certain desired conversion; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, because Holzmeister teach the method for reducing deviations enables the plant operator to improve and optimize operations policies on a day-to-day basis and easily assess scheduled or current runs based on the operating conditions present in the plant (Holzmeister; [0073-0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Antolin and Holzmeister bother teach computer software and methods for controlling the operations in a plant.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antolin and Holzmeister, and further in view of Yamase et al. (US Patent No. 5,149,600; already of record – hereinafter “Yamase”).
Regarding claim 6, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 5 above, wherein at least one of said gaseous streams is a stream comprising H2 (Antolin disclose the method for gasification to convert feedstock into synthesis gas which comprise an H2 stream; [0098]).
Antolin does not teach the stream comprising at least 75% H2 or feed streams to the hydrogen plant steam reformer.
However, Yamase teach the analogous art of a system for the production of a fuel product (Yamase; fig. 2, col. 1, lines 61-62), wherein the system comprise a gaseous stream comprising at least 75% vol. H2 and feed streams to a reformer (Yamase teach ranges of composition of product-gas in the reformer as 65-80 vol % H2, 5-20 vol % CO, and 5-25 vol % CO2, and theses vary depending on operation-conditions; col. 2 lines 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feed stream and/or operating conditions of the plant of Antolin with the feed stream and operation-conditions which achieve 65-80 vol% H2, as taught by Yamase, because Yamase teach the operation-conditions which achieve 65-80 vol% H2 produce a high purity hydrogen by control of pressure using membrane separation method (Yamase; figs. 3A-B, col. 4 lines 29-31). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Antolin and Yamase both teach system for the production of high purity hydrogen and CO2 co-production.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antolin and Holzmeister, and further in view of Black et al. (US 2011/0061533 – hereinafter “Black”).
Regarding claim 16, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 15, wherein the adjusted values for one or more of the underlying variables are calculated to improve the sustainability score of the production process and/or a utilization factor (Antolin disclose a computer-implement method for monitoring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a plant for production of syngas where CO2 co-products are produced; fig. 1, [0041, 0058, 0098]. Activity data values resulting from processing the at least one variable related to GHG emissions produced by each bioproduct production process are determined; [0032-0035, 0041-0043]. Further, the modification of the computer-implemented monitoring method to be configured to compare the current sustainability score with a target sustainability score, determine a cause of the sustainability score deviation, and adjust a setpoint of one or more process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation, as taught by Holzmeister, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Holzmeister teach the determined operating parameters are used to adjust temperatures to achieve a certain desired conversion; [0087, 0106-0107, 0138, 0141]).
Modified Antolin does not teach wherein more than 30% of CO2 from a carbon containing gas is captured, by use of carbon capture.
However, Black teach the analogous art of a computer implemented method for a plant (Black; fig. 1, #134, [0063]) wherein the plant comprise a carbon capture system that captures 50-80% of CO2 (Black; fig. 1, [0054-0055, 0071-0072]).
It would have been obvious to modify the carbon capture system of modified Antolin to capture 50-80% of CO2 from a carbon containing gas, as taught by Black, because Black teach there is an increasing demand for the reduction of emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to concerns of global warming; [0003]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Antolin and Black both teach generating CO2 from fuels.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/258,966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 18/258,966 disclose:
Regarding claim 1, 18/258,966 disclose computer-implemented monitoring method for a blue plant, the blue plant being configured for production of a chemical or fuel product, the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (18/258,966 – Claim 1), the method comprising:
receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (18/258,966 – Claim 1),
calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (18/258,966 – Claim 1);
calculating a current sustainability score from the received input data (18/258,966 – Claim 1);
comparing the current sustainability score to a predetermined target sustainability score to calculate a sustainability score deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 1, “identifying deviations”);
determining one or more underlying process variables as a cause of the sustainability score deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 1, “manipulated underlying process variable”); and
adjusting a setpoint of the one or one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 1, “automatically adjusting one or more underlying variables based on the identified deviation”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 29 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of copending Application No. 18/258,966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 18/258,966 disclose:
Regarding claim 29, 18/258,966 disclose computer-implemented method of controlling production of a chemical or fuel product by a blue plant, the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (18/258,966 – Claim 25), the method comprising:
a) at a predetermined measuring interval, or continuously, receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (18/258,966 – Claim 25);
b) at a predetermined calculating interval, or continuously, calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (18/258,966 – Claim 25);
c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score (18/258,966 – Claim 25);
d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 25); and
e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score (18/258,966 – Claim 25).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 30 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/258,966 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 18/258,966 disclose:
Regarding claim 30, Antolin disclose computer-implemented system for controlling production of a chemical or fuel product by a blue plant, the blue plant comprising means for registering input data (18/258,966 – Claim 26), the system being configured for:
a) at a predetermined measuring interval, or continuously, receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant (18/258,966 – Claim 26);
b) at a predetermined calculating interval, or continuously, calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (18/258,966 – Claim 26);
c) determining a deviation in the sustainability score (18/258,966 – Claim 26);
d) determining an underlying process variable as a cause of the deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 26); and
e) adjusting a setpoint of the underlying process variable to obtain a target sustainability score (18/258,966 – Claim 26).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/29/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments towards the claim objections and drawing objections on pages 10-11 of their remarks have been fully considered and were found persuasive. Accordingly, the previous claim and drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments towards the 112(b) rejection(s) on pages 12-14 of their remarks have been fully considered. Many of the previous 112(b) rejection(s) have been addressed however, the outstanding 112(b) rejection(s) have been maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of their remarks that the claim amendments “comparing… determining… and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation” is clearly not a mental process and clearly could not be performed via pen and paper or a generic computer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer-implement monitoring method/system configured to receive data, calculate values, determine a deviation, and adjust setpoint variables is merely a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III). Although the claim recites the additional elements a computer-implemented monitoring system/method, a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising, and adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation. The abstract ideas are performed by computer-implemented monitoring system/method which is just a general-purpose computer. However, use of conventional computer functions to apply the judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I), MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II) and MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III)). The additional element “adjusting a setpoint of the one or more underlying process variables to reduce the sustainability score deviation” is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea to the field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception). Lastly, if “receiving” is deemed not to be an abstract idea, then the additional element “receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to a production process of the blue plant, a production energy consumption of the blue plant, and a utilization factor of the blue plant” is interpreted as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and also as extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process as mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized as a generic computer function and is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16 of their remarks, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Antolin in view of Holzmeister. The examiner contends the combination of references teach the amended limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s argument toward the double patenting rejection on pages 16-17 of their remarks have been fully considered. However, a Terminal Disclaimer has not been filed and the double patenting rejection has been maintained and modified.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights