DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office Action hence the respective rejections/objections have been withdrawn, except for those rejections/objections if still maintained or newly added in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims under 35 U.S.C § 102/103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI (JP 2016130904 A, prior art of record, hereinafter as “IWAMI”) in view of MASAYOSHI (JP 2002304207 A, hereinafter as “MASAYOSHI”).
Regarding claim 1, IWAMI teaches:
A method of analyzing energy consumption stability, the method comprising:
extracting a first profile comprising a production history of a product ([0056-0057]: the unit 21 generates a profile comprising production date and time data of a product) and process operation information of a process line or process equipment used to produce the product during a production period ([0056-0057]: the unit 21 also generates a first profile comprising energy consumption data of a production line used to produce the product during a production period);
determining an energy intensity per product based on the first profile, the energy intensity per product being a ratio of an amount of energy consumed to produce the product to units of the product produced ([0061]: unit 22 determines “energy consumption rate”, i.e., energy intensity per product, based on the first profile);
determining a comparative consumption energy intensity ([0169, 0171]: the energy consumption rate reference 32 is a “predetermined standard”); and
identifying consumption stability of energy consumed to produce the product by comparing the comparative consumption energy intensity with the energy intensity per product ([0069] and [0171]: the unit 23/23c classifies the energy consumption rate to be within or outside of the reference 32 by comparing to the reference 32, to identify consumption stability of energy consumption for energy optimization as recited in [0008, 0010]).
IWAMI teaches all the limitations except the reference 32 is calculated from a second profile representing production data of the product as a ratio of energy consumption to product production extracted during a comparison period different from the production period represented by the first profile.
However, MASAYOSHI teaches in an analogous art:
extracting a second profile representing production data of the product during a comparison period different from the production period represented by the first profile ([0025]: “Note that multiple machining processes are included in one machining cycle (one cycle), and when analyzing the operating status of each machining process, the power consumption is measured by high-speed sampling (for example, 0.5 second cycle). However, by displaying the graph, it is possible to simultaneously represent the amount of power used in one processing cycle (one cycle) …”; And [0028]: “The operation status management unit 24 compares the integrated data in a short time interval (for example, 0.5 second cycle) with the power consumption data in one cycle during normal operation, which is registered in advance, and compares the data in one cycle. It is analyzed which process of the change has occurred, and the analysis result is output on a screen, for example. Thereby, the abnormality of the machine tool can be promptly detected and notified”. All these teach to extract a second profile representing power consumption data during a machining cycle in “normal operation”, i.e., a comparison period which is different from power consumption data in the machine cycles and compared to);
determining a comparative consumption energy intensity calculated from the second profile during the comparison period ([0025, 0028]: the power consumption data in one cycle during “normal operation”, i.e., a comparative consumption energy intensity, is calculated and “registered in advance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI based on the teaching of MASAYOSHI, to make the method to further comprise extracting a second profile representing production data of the product during a comparison period different from the production period represented by the first profile; and determining the comparative consumption energy intensity calculated from the second profile as a ratio of energy consumption to product production during the comparison period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order that “the abnormality of the machine tool can be promptly detected and notified”, as MASAYOSHI suggests in [0028].
Regarding claim 2, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
MASAYOSHI further teaches:
performing pre-processing to extract the first profile and the second profile ([0025, 0028]); and
setting the comparison period for extracting the second profile from which the comparative consumption energy intensity is calculated ([0025, 0028]: one machining cycle is set as the comparison period),
wherein the comparison period precedes the production period represented by the first profile (([0025, 0028]: the power consumption data in the comparison period is calculated and “registered in advance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified IWAMI based on the teaching of MASAYOSHI, to make the method to further comprise performing pre-processing to extract the first profile and the second profile; and setting the comparison period for extracting the second profile from which the comparative consumption energy intensity is calculated, wherein the comparison period precedes the production period represented by the first profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order that “the abnormality of the machine tool can be promptly detected and notified”, as MASAYOSHI suggests in [0028].
Regarding claim 3, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
the identifying of the consumption stability comprises:
comparing the comparative consumption energy intensity with the energy intensity per product determined from the first profile, and
identifying the consumption stability according to a result of the comparison ([0171]: “When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination thresholds 36, and the energy basic unit is equal to or less than the energy basic unit reference values 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "within reference". In addition, when the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination reference 36, and the energy basic unit is greater than the energy basic unit reference 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit as "non-reference"”. This teaches to identify within “reference” or “non-reference” based on the comparison result).
MASAYOSHI further teaches:
determining the comparative consumption energy intensity from the second profile corresponding to the comparison period ([0025, 0028]: determine the comparative power consumption data in one machining cycle during normal operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified IWAMI based on the teaching of MASAYOSHI, to make the method wherein the identifying of the consumption stability comprises determining the comparative consumption energy intensity from the second profile corresponding to the comparison period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order that “the abnormality of the machine tool can be promptly detected and notified”, as MASAYOSHI suggests in [0028].
Regarding claim 4, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
selecting the product (FIG. 2 and [0047]: select product produced by production line 3);
setting process hierarchy structure information for each process line that produces the product (FIG. 2 and [0047]: production line 3 comprises production facilities 2A to 2D);
setting process-measurement point mapping information to extract measurement information collected from a point of an activity equipment or a processing machine designated as an analysis target in a process activity that produces the product ([0047]: “Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”); and
setting analysis time information defining a time interval for extracting the first profile from time information between a time the product started to be produced and a time production of the product is completed ([0056]: “the data acquisition unit 21 generates production date and time data in which dates and times indicated by the acquired production triggers are arranged in time series. The data acquisition unit 21 outputs the generated energy consumption time-series data and production date and time data to the basic unit calculation unit 22. The energy consumption data and the production trigger acquired by the data acquisition unit 21 are referred to as measurement data”).
Regarding claim 5, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting a production profile of the production period comprising the production history of the product ([0056-0057]: “from a certain date and time to the next date and time indicated by the production date and time data, assuming that the production line 3 has produced one product between the time points indicated by the production date and time data”);
determining whether production amount is measurable in the process line or each of processes ([0043]: “the production line 3 functionally divides a production process of a product and executes one of the divided processes. The production line 3 is a functional group including one or more production facilities 2. That is, the production process of the product includes one or more production lines 3. The division unit of the production process of the product may be arbitrary”. Depending on whether a production line 3 comprising one or more production facilities 2, the production amount is measurable in the production facility or in the production line);
extracting production information of the process line by measuring production of the process line in response to determining that production amount is measurable in the process line (as shown in FIG. 2 and [0047-0048], the production line 3 comprises production facilities 2A-2D, so the sensor 6 detects the production of the process line);
extracting production information of each of the processes by measuring product amount of the process line in response to determining that the production amount is measurable in each of the processes ([0043] and [0047-0048]: when the production line 3 comprises one production facility, the sensor 6 detects the production of the production facility/process); and
extracting product production amount during an analysis period as total amount for the designated product production based on the production information of the process line or the production information of each of the processes ([0063]: “When the production trigger indicates a predetermined amount production period that is a period taken to produce a predetermined amount of product, the basic unit calculation unit 22 may calculate an energy basic unit that is energy consumed in the production of the predetermined amount of product in the production line 3. The predetermined amount production period is a period from the production start time (original unit start date and time) of a predetermined amount of product indicated by the production date and time data (production time data) to the production start time (original unit end date and time) of the next predetermined amount of product”).
Claim 12 recites a system conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 1 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a system conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 3 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of MASAYOSHI, and in further view of MINOWA (US 20220152901 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “MINOWA”).
Regarding claim 6, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
determining whether a process interruption history exists during the production period based on the production profile ([0166]: “In the first embodiment, if the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, all are classified as "in production", but actually, the production activity of the production line 3 is not performed as scheduled (for example, due to a sudden failure of the production facility 2 or the like), and the production line 3 may not perform the production activity even within the production plan time. In the present embodiment, the energy consumption in a period in which the production line 3 does not perform the production activity within the production plan time is classified as "standby". Accordingly, the energy consumption of the production line 3 can be classified with high accuracy in accordance with the actual situation”);
extracting, the profile, and product amount of the process line or the process equipment during the production period, in response to determining that the process interruption history does not exist ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is no “sudden failure” existing, the energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile and labeled as “production”); and
extracting, the profile, and product amount of the process line or the process equipment during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur, in response to determining that the process interruption history exists ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is “sudden failure” existing, that time period is labeled as “standby”. The energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile during normal operation period and labeled as “production”).
IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach all the limitations except extracting production information comprising information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product.
However, MINOWA teaches in an analogous art:
extracting information on a type of a product, a detailed specification of the product ([0027]: “in step S105, the molding control unit 110 acquires information for specifying the specification of a molded product to be molded. Specifically, the molding control unit 110 acquires type information of the molded product to be molded, material information and metal mold information for molding the molded product, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-MASAYOSHI based on the teaching of MINOWA, to make the method to further comprise extracting, as production information, information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help “manage the production”, as MINOWA suggests in [0003].
Regarding claim 14, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
extract a production profile of a production period comprising a production history of the product as the first profile ([0056-0057]: “from a certain date and time to the next date and time indicated by the production date and time data, assuming that the production line 3 has produced one product between the time points indicated by the production date and time data”);
determine whether a process interruption history exists during the production period based on the production profile ([0166]: “In the first embodiment, if the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, all are classified as "in production", but actually, the production activity of the production line 3 is not performed as scheduled (for example, due to a sudden failure of the production facility 2 or the like), and the production line 3 may not perform the production activity even within the production plan time. In the present embodiment, the energy consumption in a period in which the production line 3 does not perform the production activity within the production plan time is classified as "standby". Accordingly, the energy consumption of the production line 3 can be classified with high accuracy in accordance with the actual situation”);
extract, the profile, and production amount of the process line or the process equipment, during the production period, when the process interruption history does not exist ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is no “sudden failure” existing, the energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile and labeled as “production”); and
extract, the profile, and production amount of the process line or the process equipment during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur, when the process interruption history exists ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is “sudden failure” existing, that time period is labeled as “standby”. The energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile during normal operation period and labeled as “production”).
IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach all the limitations except extracting production information comprising information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product.
However, MINOWA teaches in an analogous art:
extracting information on a type of a product, a detailed specification of the product ([0027]: “in step S105, the molding control unit 110 acquires information for specifying the specification of a molded product to be molded. Specifically, the molding control unit 110 acquires type information of the molded product to be molded, material information and metal mold information for molding the molded product, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-MASAYOSHI based on the teaching of MINOWA, to make the system wherein the profile extraction module is configured to further comprise extracting, as production information, information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help “manage the production”, as MINOWA suggests in [0003].
Claims 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of MASAYOSHI, and in further view of Anderson (US 20150178865 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 7, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
determining whether heat ([0044]: “The production facility 2 operates by consuming arbitrary energy such as electricity, gas, and heat, and is a facility directly related to the production activity of the product”) energy intensity calculation for steam consumption is required;
determining whether electrical energy intensity calculation for electricity consumption is also required in response to determining that the heat energy intensity calculation is required ([0045]: “When the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources, the management device 1 may convert various energy amounts into the same unit …”); and
determining whether the electrical energy intensity calculation for electricity consumption is required in response to determining that the steam energy intensity calculation is not required ([0044]: “In the present embodiment, the production facility 2 is assumed to operate with electric energy”. This teaches to calculate only for electricity consumption),
wherein the determining of the energy intensity per product comprises determining at least one of steam energy intensity or electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation or the electrical intensity calculation ([0061]: unit 22 determines “energy consumption rate”, i.e., energy intensity per product).
IWAMI-MASAYOSHI teach all the limitations except steam energy.
However, Anderson teaches in an analogous art that steam energy is used together with electrical energy ([0003]: “Building energy use can be measured by total electricity, steam and natural gas consumption over a period of time, for example in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month. The kilowatt-hour can serve as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities. The energy demand of a building can be measured by the rate of energy consumption by the building”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-MASAYOSHI based on the teaching of Anderson, to make the method wherein steam energy is also required. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help provide energy, as Anderson suggests in [0003].
Regarding claim 9, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting electricity supply supplied to each of the process lines when determining the electrical energy intensity for the process line ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”);
calculating total electricity supply for the process lines based on electricity supply used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the electrical energy intensity of the process line based on the total electricity supply of the process line and total product production amount ([0061]).
Regarding claim 11, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting electricity supply supplied to each of the processes when determining the electrical energy intensity for each of processes in the process line ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”; IWAMI teaches the production line 3 can comprise only one production facility ([0043]);
calculating total electricity supply for the process lines based on electricity supply used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the electrical energy intensity of the process based on the total electricity supply of the process and a total product production amount ([0061]).
Claims 15, 17 and 19 recite a system conducting operational steps of the method in claims 7, 9 and 11 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 15, 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 7, 9 and 11, respectively.
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of MASAYOSHI and Anderson, and in further view of Misbah (US 20080214805 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Misbah”).
Regarding claim 8, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
calculating a total supplied electrical energy used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied electrical energy of the process line and total product production amount ([0061]).
IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach all the limitations except extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of process lines when determining the steam energy intensity for the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process line based on a supply flow rate used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied steam amount of the process line and total product production amount.
However, Misbah teaches in an analogous art to calculate a total supplied steam amount based on a supply flow rate ([0038]: “the total volume of steam dosed during deodorization is determined by the deodorization time, temperature and pressure, the steam mass flow rate and the heating and cooling profiles”).
Since IWAMI teaches to “convert various energy amounts into the same unit” when “the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources”, and since IWAMI teaches to determine total energy consumption in the production line 3 ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson based on the teaching of Misbah, to make the method to further comprise extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of process lines when determining the steam energy intensity for the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process line based on a supply flow rate used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied steam amount of the process line and total product production amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help manage the steam energy, as Misbah suggests in [0038].
Regarding claim 10, IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
IWAMI further teaches:
calculating a total supplied electrical energy used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied electrical energy amount and of the process and a total product production amount ([0061]).
IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson teach all the limitations except extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of processes when determining the steam energy intensity for each of processes in the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process based on a supply flow rate used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied steam amount of the process and total product production amount.
However, Misbah teaches in an analogous art to calculate a total supplied steam amount based on a supply flow rate ([0038]: “the total volume of steam dosed during deodorization is determined by the deodorization time, temperature and pressure, the steam mass flow rate and the heating and cooling profiles”).
Since IWAMI teaches to “convert various energy amounts into the same unit” when “the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources”, and since IWAMI teaches to determine total energy consumption in the production line 3 ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”, and since IWAMI teaches the production line 3 can comprise only one production facility ([0043]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-MASAYOSHI-Anderson based on the teaching of Misbah, to make the method to further comprise extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of processes when determining the steam energy intensity for each of processes in the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process based on a supply flow rate used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied steam amount of the process and total product production amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help manage the steam energy, as Misbah suggests in [0038].
Claims 16 and 18 recite a system conducting operational steps of the method in claims 8 and 10 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 8 and 10, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights