DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the Amendment and Reply filed 5/26/26.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected. Claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to the claims necessitated new grounds of rejection. Previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn. New rejections are recited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 have been considered and persuasive with respect to claims as amended. The rejection has been amended to include art US 20220348830 to Kim.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0348830).
With respect to claim 1, US 2022/0348830 teaches a continuous reforming process controlled by training a first and second predictive model. Abstract. In the process, naphtha “and circulating gas containing a large amount of hydrogen is heated to about 520° C and pressurized to 4 atmospheric pressures while passing through the feed exchanger and the heater, and then passes through four reactors in turn. In this case, the catalyst moves together with reactants in the reactor set 210. Oil from the reactor set 210 is separated into a gas containing a large amount of hydrogen and liquid phase through a separator.” [0041]; Figure 2. The process is for “efficiently operating a reactor by predicting properties of feed and products in a reformer in real time and using predicted data as an operating index of the reactor in the reformer.” [0008] “[T]he properties of feed and products in a reformer are continuously predicted in real time, it is possible to efficiently control the operation of the reactor based on the predicted data.” [0090]. The operator may directly control the operating conditions of the reactor based on the models. The control process includes receiving state and control variables and generate using two predictive models, an improved control variable to improve the performance variable. “Examples of the operating conditions of the reactor set may include the feed flow rate, the circulating gas flow rate, the hydrogen purity, the operating pressure, the operating temperature for each reactor (internal temperature for each reactor), and the inlet and outlet temperatures of each reactor.” [0044]. The predictive model is trained utilizing past, current, or experimental data. [0010]-[0011]; [0044]-[0046]. The operating conditions include the operating temperature, the operating pressure, the feed flow rate, the circulation gas flow rate, and the hydrogen purity is changed so that the degree of reaction in the reactor may be maintained at the existing level even if the content of the component increases. [0071]. The operator may adjust the control variables in the continuous reformer. [0071]
Kim teaches training the models based on real time data, which requires receiving the data. Kim teaches calculating and controlling the improved properties based on predicted properties of feed or products, which is adjusting the properties. Kim teaches that the operator may adjust control variables based on the prediction model.
With respect to claim 2, Kim teaches changing control variables which would include sending signal to actuator hardware.
With respect to claims 3-5, Kim teaches controlling a reactor in a reformer capable of predicting properties of feed and products in a reformer in real time. [0090]. Control in real time would require receiving data, generating new control variable, and adjusting the variable in real time.
With respect to claim 6, conditions used in modeling include for example feed properties ]and operating pressure. [0067]
With respect to claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the performance controlled is the product yield.
With respect to claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the reactant stream comprises refinery naphtha.
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the predictive model includes multiple inputs, followed by computation performed, and a final prediction, thus appears to be a neural network model.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights