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 .
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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 22 May 2024 and 05 February 2025 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected, grounds follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Use of an abbreviated term (“cogen” for cogeneration) without first setting forth the full term. Examiner suggests “…optimize operation for a cogeneration (cogen) facility, comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandurangan “Optimization of co-generation system operation”, 2014 6th IEEE Power India International Conference (PIICON), Delhi, India, 2014., pp 1-6 (Citations to IFW copy furnished 05 February 2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Pandurangan discloses:
A method for developing a model to optimize operations for a cogen facility, (see abstract, “optimization of cogeneration system operation… addresses the problem of both equipment selection and equipment operation by handling it as a mixed integer non-linear programming problem”) comprising: collecting data on the operation of the cogen facility; (e.g. Page 1 “statistical models”; operation information such as e.g. fuel input, power output, see fig. 1 page 2, water and steam, fig. 2, page 2, load setpoints see page 3, second column, etc.)
creating an objective function (page 1 column 2 “two main problems statements in cogeneration optimization ca be stated as 1. Selecting which equipment to run under the specified constraints; 2. How to run the selected equipment so as to achieve minimum cost of operation”) to minimize total operating cost of the cogen facility, (see equation 6, page 2, “the cogeneration optimization problem can be summarized as: minimize the cost function:” including e.g. fuel cost, water cost, import power cost, etc. i.e. operating costs of the facility.)
wherein the objective function is based, at least in part, on a fuel cost (page 2 equation 6, “fuel.cost”) and a net power cost; (ibid. “import.power – export.cost”)
and providing an output from the objective function, wherein the output is used to control a mixture of gas turbines used in the cogen facility and steam generation rates. (see page 4, first column, e.g.: “Thus before the optimization run in stage 3, the integer variables that give the best possible solution are already known, thus addressing the problem of selection of equipment. Now that it is known which equipment has to be run, the problem of how to run the selected equipment is found by solving the optimization step in stage 3.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
collecting data on steam demand from the cogen facility. (see e.g. page 5, column 2 “3) optimization for lowest cost … the system selects the generators and the boilers to be run such that the operational cost is the minimum while satisfying power and steam demand simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 5, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
comprising collecting data on power demand from the cogen facility. (see e.g. page 5, column 2 “3) optimization for lowest cost … the system selects the generators and the boilers to be run such that the operational cost is the minimum while satisfying power and steam demand simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 6, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
comprising collecting data on the power cost for the cogen facility. (see page 2 column 2, “III optimization problem” “The model splits the operational cost into three headers, namely the power header, fuel header and water header; that represent the power cost, fuel cost and water cost, respectively”)
Regarding Claim 7, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
comprising collecting data on the fuel gas cost for the cogen facility. (see page 2 column 2, “III optimization problem” “The model splits the operational cost into three headers, namely the power header, fuel header and water header; that represent the power cost, fuel cost and water cost, respectively”)
Regarding Claim 8, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the objective function is based, at least in part, on a performance model for equipment in the cogen facility. (see page 2 , section “A. Plant and Equipment Modeling” describing modeling equations for GT models, de-aerators, etc.)
Regarding Claim 9, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the objective function is based, at least in part, on a logical model of the cogen facility. (see page 4, column, 1 “the turning on and turning off of any equipment can be mapped in linear programming by pre-multiplying all the equations and variables associated with the equipment with the running status variable (n.b. 0 or 1)
Regarding Claim 10, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the objective function is based, at least in part, on a material and energy balance in the cogen facility. (see page 2, column 2, “the optimization problem, the modeling variables and equations as shown in section II are used as variables and constraints.” Nb. Fuel, power, water – material and energy balance for the optimization equation.)
Regarding Claim 11, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the objective function is based, at least in part, on operating capacity of equipment in the cogen facility. (see page 4, column 1, section b. “The primary focus of reliable operation is to ensure that the downstream units are not affected due to an unexpected trip of a generator or boiler. Most of the cogeneration units follow the (n+1) concept to achieve this objective; i.e. for a block load of N there is always (n+1) generation capacity available. This concept is usually applied to both steam and power networks”)
Regarding Claim 12, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the output includes an operating cost for the cogen facility. (see page 4 column 1: “The output of stage 3 gives the setpoint of the generators and the steam sources that will give the minimum possible cost.” See also Table V, particularly final operating cost values.)
Regarding Claim 13, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the output includes a target for power generation. (see e.g. page 5, column 2 “3) optimization for lowest cost … the system selects the generators and the boilers to be run such that the operational cost is the minimum while satisfying power and steam demand simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 14, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the output includes a fuel consumption rate. (see page 2 column 2, “III optimization problem” “The model splits the operational cost into three headers, namely the power header, fuel header and water header; that represent the power cost, fuel cost and water cost, respectively”)
Regarding Claim 15, Pandurangan discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further discloses:
wherein the output includes a steam production rate. (see e.g. page 5, column 2 “3) optimization for lowest cost … the system selects the generators and the boilers to be run such that the operational cost is the minimum while satisfying power and steam demand simultaneously”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandurangan in view of Gauder et al., US Pg-Pub 2009/0043406.
Regarding Claim 2, Pandurangan teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan further teaches:
comprising collecting data on water injection rates. (Page 1, column 1: “The operation of these plants is optimized by reducing the fuel consumption of the power and steam generation units, and also by bringing down auxiliary costs associated with boiler feed water production, steam conversion, etc”)
Pandurangan differs from the claimed invention in that:
Pandurangan does not clearly articulate that the water may be seawater.
However, Gauder teaches a cogeneration system including desalination (see e.g. [0003] “The heating or combination power plants for power generation produce the steam and/or power required for water desalination, according to which desalination process technology is currently being used, which includes both thermal and membrane-based water desalination processes.”) which optimizes the operation of the cogeneration plant (see e.g. [0036] “Process optimization is used to optimize the operating points of relevant characteristic operating values of various units, also referred to below as plant sections”) where the water used in the co-generation process is sea water for desalination (see e.g. [0078] “planning the operation of, monitoring processes in, simulating, and optimizing the combined installation of power generation and water desalination plants can be used to perform, in combination, the optimization and simulation functions for the coupled power generation and sea-water desalination plant”)
Gauder is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of cogeneration optimization.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Pandurangan to include optimizing a desalination process as part of the cogeneration plant, as suggested by Gauder.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to use waste steam to desalinate sea water, as suggested by Gauder ([0002] “For example, waste steam from the power plants or the power plant units is used for thermal water desalination to desalinate sea water or salt water.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Pandurangan teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan differs from the claimed invention in that,
Pandurangan does not appear to clearly articulate: comprising collecting data on production rates.
However, Gauder teaches a cogeneration system including desalination (see e.g. [0003] “The heating or combination power plants for power generation produce the steam and/or power required for water desalination, according to which desalination process technology is currently being used, which includes both thermal and membrane-based water desalination processes.”) which optimizes the operation of the cogeneration plant (see e.g. [0036] “Process optimization is used to optimize the operating points of relevant characteristic operating values of various units, also referred to below as plant sections”) including collecting data on production rates for simulation ([0038] Simulation by the process simulation module is used to investigate the effect produced by a change in influential parameters on the behavior of the whole installation. For example, it is possible to simulate what impact a change in the heat transfer coefficients has on the production of desalinated water.”)
Gauder is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of cogeneration optimization.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Pandurangan to include optimizing a desalination process as part of the cogeneration plant, as suggested by Gauder.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to use waste steam to desalinate sea water, as suggested by Gauder ([0002] “For example, waste steam from the power plants or the power plant units is used for thermal water desalination to desalinate sea water or salt water.”)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandurangan in view of Ruan et al., Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 110165688 (citations to IFW copy furnished 05 February 2025).
Regarding Claim 16, Pandurangan teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan differs from the claimed invention in that:
Pandurangan does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the output includes C02 emission from the cogen facility.
However, Ruan teaches an optimization for a cogeneration system which includes minimizing CO2 emissions as part of the solution for the model (see [0010] “cogeneration hybrid renewable energy system model that minimizes the cost of electricity generation, minimizes the cost of CO2 emissions”; [0042] “minimizing the cost of processing carbon dioxide emissions”)
Ruan is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of cogeneration optimization.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Pandurangan to include outputting a CO2 emission value from the cogeneration facility as part of the optimization model, as suggested by Ruan.
One ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the environmental hazards of the cogeneration facility, as suggested by Ruan ([0042] “the optimal solution … can improve the energy efficiency of the cogeneration… energy system, and reduce the environmental hazards.”)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandurangan in view of Przybylski, US Pg-Pub 2019/0072943.
Regarding Claim 17, Pandurangan teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Pandurangan differs from the claimed invention in that:
Pandurangan does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the output includes an energy intensity for the cogen facility.
However, Przybylski teaches an optimization problem formulation and solver (see summary [0006] “The method further includes formulating an optimization problem using the systems and the groups of the equipment and operating the equipment in the central plant according to the optimization problem.”) for equipment including cogeneration equipment (see [0113] “Plant resource diagram 550 is shown to include a boiler subplant 572, a cogeneration subplant 574” ) which includes the solver outputting an energy intensity for the cogen facility (see e.g. [0140] “[0140] Data and processing results from demand response optimizer 630, subplant control module 628, or other modules of central plant controller 600 may be accessed by (or pushed to) monitoring and reporting applications 626. … GUI elements may summarize relative energy use and intensity across energy storage systems in different buildings (real or modeled).)
Przybylski is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of cogeneration optimization.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Pandurangan to include outputting model energy intensity as part of the outputs of the optimization problem, as suggested by Przybylski.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to permit monitoring of key performance indicators of the system, as suggested by Przybylski ([0140] “monitoring and reporting applications 626 may include a web-based monitoring application with several graphical user interface (GUI) elements (e.g., widgets, dashboard controls, windows, etc.) for displaying key performance indicators (KPI) or other information to users of a GUI.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pietrasanta et al., Optimization of Cogeneration Power-Desalination Plants, Energies 15.22 (2022): 8374
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119