Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/17/20234 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
PERALA disclosed calculating a sequence kappa factor based upon oxidant applied as equivalent Cl2 (TEC number) and the unbleached kappa number. PERALA discloses adjusting the kappa factor based to maintain a constant kappa out of the D-E stage (feedback control). PEREALA further discloses using MPC to control kappa number.
VAN FLEET controls a bleach plant with model predictive control. VAN FLEET discloses optimizing the total chemical to save money through MPC [pg. 38]. VAN FLEET uses bleach load as a control variable and does not exclusively use incoming kappa number [pg. 39]
WESTBERG disclosed using advanced process control to “spread the load” control chemicals and thereby decrease cost of oxidant chemicals and alkali [pg. 23-25].
HONEYWELL Profit Suite for Bleaching discloses reducing bleaching chemical cost through multivariable predictive control. HONEYWELL adjusted TEC to maintain a contact kappa after the extraction stage.
None of the prior art disclosed “generating a sequence kappa factor corresponding to the incoming kappa value and target kappa value”. Further, while multiple models calculated a TEC and optimized to a lower cost of bleaching chemicals it did not generate and select multiple scenarios to generate a total consumption score based upon oxidants.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the applicant claims “generating a sequence kappa factor corresponding to the incoming kappa value and target kappa value”. It is not clear how the applicant is “generating a sequence kappa factor” or how the Examiner should interpret the limitation. The Examiner understands “sequence kappa factor” to mean the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
78
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant needs to particularly point out this limitation of “generating a sequence kappa factor corresponding to the incoming kappa value and target kappa value” so that the Examiner can consider whether this limitation is enabled to the person of ordinary skill in the art. It is not clear whether the scope of “generating” is understood the person of ordinary skill in the art and how it should be interpreted in this instance.
How is the target kappa value used to generate the sequence kappa value when it is not part of the definition for “sequence kappa factor”?
In claims 1, 10, and 17 the applicant claims “maintains a relationship between a plurality of kappa factors and a plurality of incoming and target kappa values”. Is “plurality of kappa factors” supposed to refer to different kappa factors than “sequence kappa factor”?
The claims dependent therefrom are similarly rejected.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 recites the limitation "the pulp bleaching process". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 20 recites the limitation "the second stage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 20 recites the limitation "the first stage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748