DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/13/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract as currently written contains 238 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 states “wherein plurality of desalting systems” and should state “wherein the plurality of desalting systems”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 states “program code configured to plans” and should state “program code configured to generate plans”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite (step d) “while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model”. It is unclear how this limitation relates to “determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems”. Applicant’s Specification disclosure doesn’t provide clarity, thus rendering the claim indefinite. It’s also unclear if “determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems” is conditional upon “evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems”. i.e. How can you optimize one of the plurality of energy substations at the same time as “evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems”? Per MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation of “while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model” is not given patentable weight. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 11 recite (step d) “and the energy subset input parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “and the energy subsystem input parameters”. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 11 step e) recite “evaluating a desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems”. It is unclear what actions of “evaluating a desalination architecture” are to be performed. Applicant’s Specification disclosure doesn’t provide clarity, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “f) if the objective function of the desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems is not minimized, repeating steps d) and e) with a different one of the plurality of desalting subsystems; and g) when the objective function of the desalination architecture is minimized, selecting the desalination architecture wherein the desalination architecture comprises one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and one of the plurality of energy subsystems.” Per MPEP 2111.04, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For instance, if the plurality of energy subsystems is minimized, then step f) will not be performed. If the plurality of energy subsystems is not minimized, then step g) will not be performed. Thus, steps f and g are not required. For purposes of compact prosecution, the steps will be evaluated. Correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 14 recite “selected from the group”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “selected from a group”. Clarification is required.
The dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13 and 15-20, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims 1 and 11 omit the following step: “while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model”. What actions are being performed during “evaluating”? This step is considered essential in order to determine “an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems”. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 11 also omit the following step: “e) evaluating a desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems”. What actions are being performed during “evaluating”? This step is considered essential to the claimed method and computer program product. Clarification is required.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes performed using a computer as a physical aid and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
d) while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the
plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model, determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems using the energy subsystem model based on the energy requirements of the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the energy subset input parameters (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." The actions of “evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems” and “determining an optimal one” are interpreted as mental processes performed using a computer as a physical aid and/or mathematical concepts, given broadest reasonable interpretation.);
e) evaluating a desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of
the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since a person can reasonably evaluate a desalination architecture with/without the aid of pen/paper.);
f) if the objective function of the desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems is not minimized, repeating steps d) and e) with a different one of the plurality of desalting subsystems (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since a person can reasonably evaluate whether or not the objective function of a desalination architecture has been minimized, with/without the aid of pen/paper.); and
g) when the objective function of the desalination architecture is minimized, selecting the desalination architecture wherein the desalination architecture comprises one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and one of the plurality of energy subsystems (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since a person can reasonably evaluate whether or not the objective function of a desalination architecture has been minimized, with/without the aid of pen/paper, and then make the decision to “select” the desalination architecture thereafter.).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
a) constructing a desalting subsystem model comprising a superstructure
representation configured to evaluate a plurality of desalting subsystems in response to desalting subsystem input parameters; b) constructing an energy subsystem model configured to evaluate a plurality of energy subsystems in response to energy subsystem input parameters; c) selecting an objective function configured to minimize one or more system attributes for a desalination architecture; The additional limitations amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Also, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. These limitations fail to recite details of how the subsystems models (i.e. desalting and energy) are constructed and configured “to evaluate”. Similarly, step c) fails to recite details of how an objective function is “configured to minimize” and selected.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" [ ] Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites, wherein plurality of desalting subsystems are selected from the group consisting of reverse osmosis desalting systems, multi-effective distillation desalting systems, thermal vapor compression desalting systems, and multi-stage flash desalting systems. The additional element elaborates on the desalting subsystem selection options, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3, the method of claim 2, recites wherein the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters comprises an operating environment for each of the plurality of desalting subsystem. The additional element elaborates on the desalting subsystem input parameters, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites wherein the plurality of energy subsystems are selected from the group consisting of photovoltaic cells, wind energy convertors, concentrated solar power, battery storage, and grid electricity. The additional element elaborates on the energy subsystem selection options, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, the method of claim 4, recites wherein the objective function is configured to at least reduce a cost parameter, to reduce a greenhouse gas emissions parameter, or to increase a water recovery parameter. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element is directed towards Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites further comprising identifying a subset of the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters and the plurality of energy subsystem input parameters that contribute a greater amount to the objective function, and in step d) evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with subset of the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters and determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems using the energy subsystem model based on the energy requirements of the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems. The additional elements are further directed towards Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites wherein the desalination architecture selected in step g) comprises one or more of a location, a desalting subsystem, and an energy subsystem. The additional element elaborates on the desalination architecture selection options, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites wherein the plurality of energy subsystems comprise renewable energy sources. The additional element elaborates on the plurality of energy subsystems, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites wherein the objective function comprises a plurality of objective functions. The additional element elaborates on the objective function selection, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 recites further comprising generating plans for building the desalination architecture and/or building the desalination architecture. The additional element is directed towards Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-10, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fthenakis, V., Yetman, G., Zhang, Z. et al. A solar energy desalination analysis tool, sedat, with data and models for selecting technologies and regions. Sci Data 9, 223 (Published May 20, 2022) (hereinafter referred to as “Fthenakis”) in view of Doufene, Abdelkrim, et al. "System architecture and optimization to support variability and flexibility in design." 2016 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Doufene”), in further view of Skiborowski, Mirko, et al. "Model-based structural optimization of seawater desalination plants." Desalination 292 (2012): 30-44. (hereinafter referred to as “Skiborowski”).
Regarding claim 1, Fthenakis discloses A method of selecting a desalination architecture, the method comprising: a) constructing a desalting subsystem model comprising a configured to evaluate a plurality of desalting subsystems in response to desalting subsystem input parameters (“Sedat incorporates several well-tested desalination models; a list is shown in Table 4. The inputs and outputs for desalination models were constructed in the same format as SAM variables, in order to be integrated into the same GUI frame.” Fthenakis [Pg.16 Desalination models], “The software allows the user to interact between the model inputs and simulation results as shown by the bi-directional arrows between the sedat block and the outputs cluster in Fig. 2 (see below).” Fthenakis [Pg.8 Discussion].;
PNG
media_image1.png
626
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) constructing an energy subsystem model configured to evaluate a plurality of energy subsystems in response to energy subsystem input parameters; (“This interface provides default value inputs for technical design as well as capital and operating cost parameters to allow for comparative analyses between different solar thermal desalination technologies as well as other competing desalination technologies.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.5]. Also see Solar Energy models in Fig. 2 above.)
e) evaluating a desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems (“The software quantifies the performance of user-selected desalination systems based on regional specifications and cost parameters, while listing
the underlying assumptions. The user can change the assumptions and select another system of interest for evaluation.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.5]); .
Fthenakis fails to specifically disclose a superstructure representation, selecting an objective function configured to minimize one or more system attributes for a desalination architecture, while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model, determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems using the energy subsystem model based on the energy requirements of the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the energy subset input parameters, if the objective function of the desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems is not minimized, repeating steps d) and e) with a different one of the plurality of desalting subsystems; and when the objective function of the desalination architecture is minimized, selecting the desalination architecture wherein the desalination architecture comprises one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and one of the plurality of energy subsystems.
However, Doufene discloses c) selecting an objective function configured to minimize one or more system attributes for a desalination architecture (“Decision variables seed the objective functions for framework, which are then used by the other models.” Doufene [Pg.3 B. Detailed Framework / Technology Library]. The objective function is interpreted as minimizing one or more system attributes because “the optimizer is another important component of the framework that iteratively simulates design performance to meet the multiple objectives of minimizing water cost, water shortages, and environmental impacts, and maximizing economic asset value of the single solar desalination plant.” Doufene [Pg.4 Col.1 P.1]); d) while evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters using the desalting subsystem model, determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems using the energy subsystem model based on the energy requirements of the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the energy subset input parameters (“The work being conducted currently considers many sizing options such as that the user sets the size of the RO (i.e. reverse osmosis) and then the model tries to match the size of the PV (i.e. photo voltaic) plant according the nominal RO consumption (i.e. energy requirements), or the user sizes the PV plant, and then the model tries to match the size of the RO plant accordingly, or the user sets the size of PV and the size of RO independently. ” Doufene [Pg.5 Col.2 P.4]. RO consumption is interpreted as energy requirements due to Doufene’s disclosure “Selecting the best solar desalination system for specific conditions requires a good understanding of the energy requirements associated with desalination. Energy requirements vary from one desalination process to another based on the desalination technique (e.g., membrane filtration or thermal distillation) as well as other desalination-related systems such as seawater intake pumping, pretreatment, and post treatment. Table 1 shows typical energy requirements for industrial desalination techniques.” Doufene [Pg.2 B. Energy requirements for solar desalinations systems]); f) if the objective function of the desalination architecture comprising the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and the optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems is not minimized, repeating steps d) and e) with a different one of the plurality of desalting subsystems; and g) when the objective function of the desalination architecture is minimized, selecting the desalination architecture wherein the desalination architecture comprises one of the plurality of desalting subsystems and one of the plurality of energy subsystems (“the optimizer is another important component of the framework that iteratively simulates design performance to meet the multiple objectives of minimizing water cost, water shortages, and environmental impacts, and maximizing economic asset value of the single solar desalination plant.” Doufene [Pg.4 Col.1 P.1]).
Fthenakis and Doufene are analogous art as they relate to desalination and energy subsystem design. Fthenakis discloses “an open-source solar energy desalination analysis tool, sedat, for techno-economical evaluation of desalination technologies and selection of regions with the highest potential for using solar energy to power desalination plants” [Abstract]. And Doufene discloses “[a]s various types of desalination processes and solar technologies have been developed, the selection of the best combination requires several design criteria [ ] We use a design framework, completed by multi-objective, multidisciplinary optimization models in order to manage variability (space - different locations then different natural environment characteristics mainly sea water quality, solar radiation and dust) and flexibility (time- increase of demand overtime)” [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fthenakis desalination analysis tool with Doufene’s desalination/energy optimization design framework in order “reduce the cost of engineering studies and the time to market” Doufene [Pg.1 Col.1 P.1].
Doufene also fails to specifically disclose a superstructure representation.
However, Skiboroski discloses a superstructure representation (“A generalized superstructure for the hybrid desalination plant is constructed and conceptual design considerations are used to reduce its complexity. A mathematical model for the whole plant and an economical objective function are provided.” Skiboroski [Abstract].
Skiboroski is analogous art as it relates to model-based structural optimization of desalination plants. Skiboroski discloses a “superstructure formulation for a hybrid RO-MED plant is presented based on a parallel arrangement and a successive model
reduction” [Pg.42 6.Conclusions]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fthenakis/Doufene to include a desalination plant superstructure representation, as Skiboroski discloses, since the superstructure representation leads “to an improved mathematical programming formulation” and facilitates “the robust computation of good local solutions at low computational effort” Skiboroski [Pg.42 6.Conclusions].
Regarding claim 2, Fthenakis further discloses wherein plurality of desalting subsystems are selected from the group consisting of reverse osmosis desalting systems, multi-effective distillation desalting systems, thermal vapor compression desalting systems, and multi-stage flash desalting systems (“The desalination techno-economic models include: Low-temperature multi-effect distillation (LT-MED), multi-effect distillation with thermal vapor compression (MED-TVC), multi-effect distillation with absorption heat pumps (MED-ABS); vacuum air gap membrane distillation (VAGMD) in continuous and batch operation modes, reverse osmosis (RO) with multiple passes, osmotically assisted reverse osmosis (OARO), forward osmosis (FO), and RO-VAGMD, and RO-FO hybridizations.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.6]. Multi-stage flash desalting systems are interpreted to be included in the desalination techno-economic models because “The Texas plants included in sedat are shown in Fig. 15 (see below)” Fthenakis [Pg.12 P.3]).
PNG
media_image2.png
405
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Fthenakis discloses wherein the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters comprises an operating environment for each of the plurality of desalting subsystem (“We have assembled a collection of integrated spatial data inputs and implemented a map-based data exploration interface with the ability to choose a location, solar technology model, and cost model to produce a report and charts of system inputs and outputs to evaluate and compare different options for technology and site selection. [ ] The software also allows the user to enter data and parametric inputs on geospatial, economic, and technical
variables.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.1, P.3]).
Regarding claim 4, Fthenakis discloses wherein the plurality of energy subsystems are selected from the group consisting of photovoltaic cells, wind energy convertors, concentrated solar power, battery storage, and grid electricity (“As shown in Fig. 2 (see snip below), the user can select from nine solar energy generation, nine desalination and four cost models.” Fthenakis [Pg.4 P.2], “We added the latest US database of power plant locations and capacities available from the
Energy Information Agency (EIA) so that the user can examine the possibility of co-locating a desalination plant with a power plant, thereby sharing real estate and grid connectivity.” Fthenakis [Pg.12 P.4], “Another example is to assess the solar and wind complementarity at high temporal resolution to examine the extent that VRE alone can power desalination plants.” Fthenakis [Pg.17 P.3]).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, Fthenakis discloses wherein the objective function is configured to at least reduce a cost parameter, to reduce a greenhouse gas emissions parameter, or to increase a water recovery parameter (“Development of software modules to display desalination model outputs and locations where the estimated cost of water from desalination is lower than that of local municipal and industrial water tariffs.” Fthenakis [Pg.11 P.1]).
Regarding claim 6, Fthenakis discloses further comprising identifying a subset of the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters and the plurality of energy subsystem input parameters that contribute a greater amount to the objective function (“Figure 6 (see below) shows a parametric analysis on the integration of thermal energy storage (TES) at different sizes” Fthenakis [Pg.4 P.3]),
PNG
media_image4.png
501
827
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and in step d) evaluating one of the plurality of desalting subsystems with subset of the plurality of desalting subsystem input parameters and determining an optimal one of the plurality of energy subsystems using the energy subsystem model based on the energy requirements of the evaluated one of the plurality of desalting subsystems (“Sedat uses geospatial analysis in combination with an energy and desalination technology modeling framework that describes current and emerging desalination processes on industrial scales. Its use enables: (i) streamlined identification of locations where solar thermal desalination can be most competitive and (ii) system-level simulation & optimization of solar energy and desalination system integration.” Fthenakis [Pg.1 P.2]. Fthenakis’ optimization is interpreted as based on energy requirements due to the following disclosure, “[i]nput water temperature impacts the energy requirements of the system and thus the cost of producing fresh water.” Fthenakis [Pg.12 P.2] ).
Regarding claim 7, Fthenakis discloses wherein the desalination architecture selected in step g) comprises one or more of a location, a desalting subsystem, and an energy subsystem (“the user selects a supported combination of solar thermal model (i.e. energy subsystem), desalination model (i.e. desalting subsystem), and financial model. The site (i.e. location) selection and parameter review workflows can be iterative: in site selection, multiple sites can be reviewed before proceeding to model selection” Fthenakis [Pg.17 P.2]).
Regarding claim 8, Fthenakis discloses wherein the plurality of energy subsystems comprise renewable energy sources (“The software can be expanded to include synergistic renewable energy sources that could be used to meet the energy demand for any proposed water treatment infrastructure. One example is considering
solar thermal, geothermal, and waste heat resources to collectively drive thermal desalination plants.” Fthenakis [Pg.17 P.3]).
Regarding claim 9, Fthenakis discloses wherein the objective function comprises a plurality of objective functions (“The user interface goes over the subsequent steps of selecting a site of interest, selecting the technical and financial technology models, running desalination plant design and performance simulation, and showing results in terms of plant specifications and performance time-series. Figure 2 (see below) gives an overview of this architecture. The left columns list the inputs and the right one lists the outputs.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.1]).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Fthenakis discloses further comprising generating plans for building the desalination architecture and/or building the desalination architecture (“The techno-economic modules deliver an analytical workflow for planning and designing solar thermal desalination systems in optimal locations via a user-friendly GUI.” Fthenakis [Pg.2 P.5]).
Claims 11-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-10, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hosseini, Seyed Reza, Majid Amidpour, and Seyed Ehsan Shakib. "Cost optimization of a combined power and water desalination plant with exergetic, environment and reliability consideration." Desalination 285 (2012): 123-130. “By applying the optimization approach, this objective function is minimized, whereas system exergy efficiency is maximized.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Tues - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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 CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights