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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I comprising claims 1 – 9 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. This application type is a utility nonprovisional application filed under 35 USC 111(a). There is no claim of foreign priority of record in this application. Applicant traverses the restriction essentially on the ground(s) that each of the inventions are not independent and distinct (e.g., they share the same and/or overlapping subject matter) and that there would be no serious burden placed on the examiner during examination. This is not found persuasive because, as indicated in the previous restriction requirement, the inventions are indeed independent and distinct and have been accordingly separately classified. The primary classification of claimed subject matter is merely one indication of the burdensome nature of the search requirements and a serious burden on the examiner may also be shown by appropriate explanation of the field of search (see MPEP § 803). The restriction requirement merely refers to the primary classification for the inventions, not the complete scope of the prior art search in additional art class and subclass classifications or electronic database resources, or employing different search queries, that would be required in determining patentability. Furthermore, each of the inventions are drawn to different statutory classes of invention. Clearly, since each of the inventions comprise different features (e.g., additional distinct apparatus structure and/or method steps), different searches and patentability determination issues are involved in the examination of each invention group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/25/2026.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS was filed by Applicant in this application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 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(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis Michael Bazzanella et al. (“Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry,” Dechema – Gesellschaft fur Chemische Technik un Biotechnologie e.V., 1 june 2017, pages 1 – 3000; hereinafter “Bazzanella”).
Regarding claim 1, Bazzanella teaches a computer-implemented method for determining an input material demand for two or more chemical products produced in a chemical production process of a production plant (input materials are natural gas and hydrogen, both use as a source for methanol in the production of formaldehyde and methyl-tert-butyl-ether; pages 62 and 63, respectively) comprising:
receiving input material data associated with one or more input materials to the chemical production process (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen are required input materials for methanol production; page 62);
receiving process data for one or more process steps in the chemical production process (energy demand per unit of methanol production; page 64);
receiving consumption data indicating an amount of feedstock associated with producing two or more chemical products (assuming hydrogen consumption as energy demand required for producing the hydrogen stoichiometrically needed per ton of methanol; pages 64 and 65);
identifying based on the process data at least one process step producing from the one or more input materials two or more chemical products, wherein the two or more chemical products includes a first chemical product and a second chemical product (methanol serves as a source for formaldehyde and methy-tert-butyl-ether; page 62);
determining based, at least in part, on a mass allocation calculation a mass fraction feedstock demand for the first chemical product (page 65); and
determining based, at least in part, on a stoichiometric allocation calculation a stoichiometric-based feedstock demand for the first chemical product (assuming hydrogen consumption as energy demand required for producing the hydrogen stoichiometrically needed per ton of methanol; pages 64 and 65)
Bazzanella does not specifically teach the steps of:
comparing the mass fraction feedstock demand for the first chemical product with the stoichiometric-based feedstock demand for the first chemical product to determine a deviation value for the first chemical product;
determining if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds a target value;
determining based, at least in part, on steering logic a substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value;
calculating a feedstock demand for the second chemical product based, at least in part, on the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product and the consumption data; and
outputting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product and the feedstock demand for the second chemical product.
According to the description, the effect that the distinguishing features cause is to verify whether a deviation between the attribution by mass or attribution is acceptable or not to select a substitute feedstock (page 33, lines 10 – 25).
As indicated above, Bazzanella teaches selecting feedstock for producing a chemical product depending on given preferences, such as producing methanol form fossil feedstock or alternatively from low carbon sources. Bazzanella also teaches the use of different processes and feedstocks based on mass or stoichiometric calculations. Although Bazzanella is not specific about the use of an acceptable deviation to decide on the selection of the feedstock used, such selection based on an acceptable deviation would be trivial and within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art of chemical process engineering when evaluating the different chemical production processes disclosed by Bazzanella. Determining the deviation values with respect to a target value of a specific chemical product, and determining the optimum calculated feedstock required for producing a specific chemical product, would be considered routine optimization well within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Each of these particular parameters would be reasonably considered to be a known-result effective variable whose optimum specification for a particular application would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). The same arguments apply to claim 9 as well. Furthermore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the following steps of:
comparing the mass fraction feedstock demand for the first chemical product with the stoichiometric-based feedstock demand for the first chemical product to determine a deviation value for the first chemical product;
determining if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds a target value;
determining based, at least in part, on steering logic a substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value;
calculating a feedstock demand for the second chemical product based, at least in part, on the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product and the consumption data; and
outputting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product and the feedstock demand for the second chemical product.
Regarding claim 2, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining based, at least in part, on steering logic the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value further comprises: determining if the steering logic includes dedicated production data associated with the first chemical product; and selecting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product based, at least in part, on the dedicated production data associated with the first chemical product, if the steering logic includes dedicated production data associated with the first chemical product. This claim defines that whether to consider dedicated, external production date, an input or a correction factor associated with the first chemical product depending on the availability of data in the steering logic. In consideration of the description, the selection of such data would be considered routine decisions that would be within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 35, lines 6 – 30).
Regarding claim 3, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining based, at least in part, on steering logic the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value further comprises: if the steering logic does not include dedicated production data associated with the first chemical product, determining if the steering logic includes externally sourced production data associated with the first chemical product; and selecting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product based, at least in part, on the externally sourced production data associated with the first chemical product, if the steering logic includes externally sourced production data associated with the first chemical product. This claim defines that whether to consider dedicated, external production date, an input or a correction factor associated with the first chemical product depending on the availability of data in the steering logic. In consideration of the description, the selection of such data would be considered routine decisions that would be within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 35, lines 6 – 30).
Regarding claim 4, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining based, at least in part, on steering logic the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value further comprises: if the steering logic does not include externally sourced production data associated with the first chemical product, determining an input factor associated with the first chemical product; and selecting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product based, at least in part, on the input factor associated with the first chemical product. This claim defines that whether to consider dedicated, external production date, an input or a correction factor associated with the first chemical product depending on the availability of data in the steering logic. In consideration of the description, the selection of such data would be considered routine decisions that would be within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 35, lines 6 – 30).
Regarding claim 5, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein determining based, at least in part, on steering logic the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the deviation value for the first chemical product exceeds the target value further comprises determining whether to apply a correction factor to the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product based, at least in part on the steering logic. This claim defines that whether to consider dedicated, external production date, an input or a correction factor associated with the first chemical product depending on the availability of data in the steering logic. In consideration of the description, the selection of such data would be considered routine decisions that would be within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 35, lines 6 – 30).
Regarding claim 6, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein selecting the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product comprises selecting a substituted sustainable feedstock demand for the first chemical product. This claim defines that whether to consider dedicated, external production date, an input or a correction factor associated with the first chemical product depending on the availability of data in the steering logic. In consideration of the description, the selection of such data would be considered routine decisions that would be within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 35, lines 6 – 30).
Regarding claim 7, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein calculating the feedstock demand for the second chemical product based, at least in part, on the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product comprises selecting a substituted sustainable feedstock demand for the second chemical product based, at least in part, on the substituted feedstock demand for the first chemical product (Bazzanella teaches the selection of a sustainable feedstock for various specific production process such as low carbon methanol production to conventional methanol production; pages 62 and 63).
Regarding claim 8, Bazzanella teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining if the first chemical product and/or the second chemical product contain hydrogen with a mass share above a threshold value; and determining based, at least in part, on an energy content allocation calculation an energy content feedstock demand for the first chemical product, if the first chemical product and/or the second chemical product contain hydrogen with a mass share above the threshold value (Bazzanella teaches evaluating the energy demand of a specific feedstock; page 65, Table 14).
Regarding claim 9, Bazzanella teaches a non-transitory computer readable data medium storing a computer program including instructions for executing steps of the method according to claim 1 (see the rejection above for claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Breimesser et al. (US 6,944,512 B2) teach a device and method for carrying out the decentralized production of desired products from different starting material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth A Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796