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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendments of claims, filed 06/22/2023, has been fully considered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-30 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 06/22/2023, 10/02/2025, and 02/06/2026 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1 & 2, directed towards methods, are merely black boxes with no steps or actions defined. Additionally, Figure 5 does not have clear and clean lines and the text is unclear. The examiner requests that applicants resubmit a clearer image of Fig. 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 20, 24-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 refers to “the plant”. Claim1 line 1 previously refers to “the blue plant” The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/nomenclature when referring to the same feature of the claimed invention, and to carry the terminology/nomenclature throughout the entire claim set. A similar objection is also made over claims 13, 20, and 29-30.
Claims 24-28 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 24-28 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-23 and 29-30 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 1 line 5 refers to “the production process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what production process applicant is referring to. Applicant previously recites “for production of a chemical or fuel product” in line 2, however, no particular process is defined in the claim and it is unclear what process applicant is referring to. Claims 2-23 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1. A similar rejection is also made over claims 11, 16, 17, 29 and 30.
Claim 5 refers to “the hydrogen plant steam reformer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what applicant is referring to. Further, claim 1 previously refers to “a blue plant”. It is unclear if the blue plant and the hydrogen plant are synonymous with one another or if applicant is referring to another plant entirely. A similar rejection is also made for claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “a display device interactively displays input data”. Claim 1 line 3 previously recites “means for registering input data”. It is unclear if the input data recited in claim 9 is referring to the input data of claim 1 or if applicant is intending to introduce another set of input data. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “the input data”.
Claim 9 recites “the monitoring system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what applicant is referring to by this phrase. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “a monitoring system”?
Claim 10 refers to “utilization factors”. This is ambiguous in view of claim 1 lines 4-5 which previously recite “receiving input data indicative of … a utilization factor”. It is unclear whether only a single utilization factor is required by the claims or if a plurality of utilization factors are required.
Claim 11 line 4 recites “the set point of the production process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what setpoint of the production process applicant is referring to.
Claim 11 lines 8-9 refer 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”? A similar rejection is also made over claim 16.
Claim 14 recites “the manipulated underlying variables”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what applicant is referring to as the manipulated underlying variables.
Claim 14 recites “an undesired effect”. However, it is unclear to a potential infringer what would or would not be considered “an undesired effect” without further clarification.
Claim 15 recites “the observed deviations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what observed deviations applicant is referring to.
Claim 16 recites “the improved values for one or more of the underlying variables”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the improved values” and “one or more of the underlying variables” and it is unclear what applicant is referring to by these phrases.
Claim 16 recites “a significant portion of CO2 is captured, optionally more than 30% of CO2”. The term “significant” is a relative term and it is unclear what would or would not be considered “significant”. Further, the term “optionally” is exemplary claim language which renders the claim unclear as to whether the feature is actually required or not by the claims.
Claim 18 recites “the replacement of catalysts”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what replacement of catalysts applicant is referring to.
Claim 18 recites “a result of calculations based on input data”. However, claim 1 line 3 previously recites “input data”. It is unclear if the term “input data” is referring to the input data previously in claim 1, or if applicant is intending to introduce additional input data. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “the input data”?
Claim 20 recites “Computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant … input data … sustainability scores … a server”. However, claim 20 incorporates the limitations of claim 19 which further incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 also recites “computer-implemented monitoring method for a blue plant … receiving input data … calculating a sustainability score”. It is unclear if the computer-implemented monitoring system is structurally distinct from the computer-implemented monitoring method, or if the two are synonymous with one another. Further, it is unclear if the blue plant, the input data, and the sustainability scores are synonymous with one another of if applicant is intending to introduce another blue plant, additional input data and a distinct sustainability score(s). Further, it is unclear if “a server” is referring to the server of claim 19 or if applicant is intending to define another server entirely.
Claim 21 recites “a blue plant”. Claim 20 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”? A similar rejection is also made over claims 22-23.
Claim 22 refers to “the same or different underlying variables or parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed feature and it is unclear what applicant is referring to by the same or different underlying variables or parameters.
Claim 23 recites “wherein said plurality of sensors are located along a reactor to collect data from different positions in the same location of the equipment”. It is unclear how the sensors are located at both different positions and in the same location. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the equipment” and it is unclear what applicant is referring to as the equipment.
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 1-23 and 29-30 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.
Claims 1, 29, and 30 recites the abstract idea(s) “receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor”, and “calculating a sustainability score from the received input data” 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. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III).
Claims 29 and 30 additionally recite the abstract ideas “determining a deviation in the sustainability score”, “determining an underlying variable as a cause of the deviation”, and “changing the underlying variable to obtain a target sustainability score” which are mental processes and could be performed by a human person or by pen and paper or by a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (III). The computer-implement monitoring method/system configured to receive data, calculate values, determine a deviation, and change 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Upon calculating the score and/or changing the variable no further action is performed, and therefore is not a particular practical application.
Claims 1, 29, and 30 also recite a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising means for registering input data, and receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor. If this is deemed not to be an abstract idea under step 2A prong one, then 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, 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.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
Claims 1, 29, and 30 recite a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising means for registering input data, and receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor. 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 – hereinafter “Antolin”) and Arjona Antolin et al. (US 2012/0290362 – hereinafter “Arjona”). Antolin and Arjona disclose a blue plant configured for production of a chemical or fuel comprising means for registering input data, and receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (Antolin; fig. 1, [0041, 0058, 0061-0096, 0098] and Arjona; [0002, 0014, 0032, 0090]).
Claims 2 and 21-23 further limits the means for registering input data as comprising a plurality of sensors. 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). Additionally, 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] as evidenced by Antolin [0061, 0074-0075].
Claim 5 further limits the gaseous streams as comprising H2 or feed streams to the hydrogen plant steam reformer. However, 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 [0098].
Claim 6 further limits the gaseous stream as comprising at least 75 vol% H2 or feed streams to the hydrogen plant reformer. However, 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 [0098] and Yamase et al. (US Patent No. 9,149,600 – hereinafter “Yamase”). Yamase teach ranges of composition of product-gas in the reformer as 65-80 vol % H2; col. 2 lines 38-41.
Claims 7-8 recites the input data are received at regular intervals and/or continuously. However, 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 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, and 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception). 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 and 20 recites the additional elements of a display device configured to display the input data. However, 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, 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 12 recites transmitting executable instruction via a communication network. However, 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 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 § 2106.05(d), Well-understood, Routine, Conventional 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, 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 of the manipulated underlying variables” (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 the observed deviations. However, correcting a value is merely instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception and does would 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 improved values for one or more of the underlying variables are calculated to improve 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].
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 replacement of catalysts 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. 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 and Monna et al. (US 2018/0209873 – hereinafter “Monna”). Monna teach sensors provided upstream and downstream of a catalytic reaction step to calculate a conversion ratio, and when the calculated value falls below a threshold as the lower limit value of the allowable conversion ratio range determined in advance, the catalyst is determined to be degraded and replacement is required; [0147].
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 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; fig. 1, [0058-0064, 0063, 0075].
Examiner’s Comment – Prior Art Rejection of Indefinite Claims
In view of the indefiniteness and lack of clarify in the instant claims, as set forth in the 35
USC 112(b) rejections above, the Examiner has had difficulty in properly interpreting instant claims. However, to avoid piecemeal prosecution and to give applicant a better appreciation for relevant prior art if the claims are redrafted to avoid the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the Examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood for purposes of applying the following prior art rejections. Applicant is reminded that prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be applied in the next Office action in light of applicant's amendments, and that the next Office action can properly be made "Final" if these rejections are necessitated by amendment. See MPEP 706.07.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-17, 19-23, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Antolin et al. (US 2012/0290205 – hereinafter “Antolin”).
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 syngas where CO2 co-products are produced; fig. 1, [0041, 0058, 0098]), the plant being configured for production of a chemical or fuel product (Antolin; fig. 1, [0029, 0041, 0098]) , the 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:
a) receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (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]), and
b) 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 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 2, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 4 above, wherein said gaseous streams comprise H2 or feed streams to the hydrogen plant steam reformer (Antolin disclose the method for gasification to convert feedstock into synthesis gas which comprise an H2 stream; [0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein the input data are received at regular intervals and/or 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]).
Regarding claim 8, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, wherein a display device interactively displays input data, the display device being configured for graphically or textually receiving an input signal from the monitoring system via a dedicated communication infrastructure, creating an interactive display for a user (Antolin; fig. 1, #6, [0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 9 above, wherein utilization factors are displayed on the display device (Antolin; [0047-0054, 0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising optimizing the production process comprising: a) evaluating the current status and the 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 a 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, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose 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 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, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising:
- setpoint tracking and identifying optimal setpoint deviations in one or more of the manipulated underlying variables causing an undesired effect (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 15, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1 above, further comprising adjusting one or more underlying variables in response to the observed 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]).
Regarding claim 16, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 1, wherein the improved 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, wherein a significant portion of CO2 is captured, optionally more than 30% of CO2 from a carbon containing gas is captured, by use of carbon capture (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]).
Regarding claim 17, Antolin disclose 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 19, Antolin disclose 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, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant 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 (As best understood, 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]), said monitoring system comprising:
- the means for registering input data (The means for registering input data has previously been discussed above);
- the data-processing system according to claim 19 (The data-processing system according to claim 19 has previously been discussed above)
wherein said system is coupled to a server for communicating with said 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]).
Regarding claim 21, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant 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 22, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring system for a blue plant according to claim 21 above, wherein said plurality of sensors monitor the same or different underlying variables or parameters of the production process (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0075, 0077, 0086]).
Regarding claim 23, Antolin disclose 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 equipment (Antolin; fig. 1, #2, [0061-0063, 0075, 0077, 0086]).
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 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 the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (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]);
c) determining a deviation in 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]);
d) determining an underlying variable as a cause of the deviation (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]); and
e) changing the underlying variable to obtain a target 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]).
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 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 the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (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]);
c) determining a deviation in 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]);
d) determining an underlying variable as a cause of the deviation (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]); and
e) changing the underlying variable to obtain a target 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]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antolin and further in view of Yamase et al. (US Patent No. 9,149,600 – 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antolin and further in view of Monna et al. (US 2018/0209873 – hereinafter “Monna”).
Regarding claim 18, Antolin disclose computer-implemented monitoring method according to claim 17 above.
Antolin does not disclose wherein the replacement of catalysts is optimized, being scheduled as a result of calculations based on input data.
However, Monna teach the analogous art of computer implemented monitoring method (Monna; fig. 1, “DS1”, [0022]), wherein the monitoring method comprises a catalytic reaction step and the method comprises receiving input data for the catalytic reaction step, wherein the replacement of catalysts is optimized, being scheduled as a result of calculations based on input data (Monna teach HC sensors provided upstream and downstream of a catalytic reaction step to calculate a conversion ratio, and when the calculated value falls below a threshold as the lower limit value of the allowable conversion ratio range determined in advance, the catalyst is determined to be degraded and replacement is required; [0147]).
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 of Antolin to further comprise upstream and downstream sensors configured to optimize catalyst replacement based on calculations of input data from the sensors, as taught by Monna, because Monna teach the monitoring method determines when a problematic state is occurring due to degradation of the catalysts (Antolin; [0147]). 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 Monna both teach monitoring system for fuel applications.
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 plant being configured for production of a chemical or fuel product, the plant comprising means for registering input data (18/258,966 – Claim 1), the method comprising:
a) receiving input data indicative of a measure of at least one of a material input to the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (18/258,966 – Claim 1), and
b) calculating a sustainability score from the received input data (18/258,966 – Claim 1).
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 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 the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (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 variable as a cause of the deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 25); and
e) changing the underlying 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 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 the production process, a production energy consumption, and a utilization factor (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 variable as a cause of the deviation (18/258,966 – Claim 26); and
e) changing the underlying 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.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Griffin (US 2013/0179078) disclose software for monitoring GHG emissions to maintain compliance with regulatory and environmental standards, wherein the software is programmed to measure the system emissions and make adjustments to setpoint parameters.
Norbeck et al. (US 2005/0032920) disclose a process and apparatus for producing a synthesis gas for use as a gaseous fuel or as feed into a Fischer-Tropsch reactor.
Weedon et al. (US 2009/0117024) disclose a process for hydrogen production with co-production and capture of carbon dioxide from steam methane reforming.
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
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
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798