DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the drawing objection has been fully considered and is accepted. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been fully considered and is accepted. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the objections to claims 15, 16, and 27 has been fully considered and is accepted. The objections to claims 15, 16, and 27 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 15-28 has been fully considered and is accepted, with the exception of the rejection of claim 20, which was not completely addressed as noted below. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 15-28 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 26 has been fully considered and is accepted. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claim 26 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07 July 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., modeling a variable while explicitly excluding that variable from the input set) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant has amended the independent claims to involve “modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data other than the main steam flow in a numerical model,” but that is very different to the point argued (modeling a variable while explicitly excluding that variable from the input set). The plain reading of the claim language does not require main steam flow process data be excluded from the employed process data, merely, as best understood in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue (see below) with this language, that the generated model of the main steam flow be based at least in part on process data other than that for the main steam flow. Herzog is still understood to read on this language because the model generated in Herzog is also based on sensor data from outside the water-steam circuit.
As for the applicant’s arguments about the applicability of Forster-Knight to the teachings of Herzog, these shall not be specifically rebutted as Forster-Knight is no longer being relied upon. It is generally noted, however, that Herzog teaches that residuals are tested against pattern matching rules to detect leakage (col. 3, ll. 24-30). All pattern matching techniques are not discussed in detail. The precise choice of pattern matching technique would be made as appropriate by one of ordinary skill in the art. The description of a particular pattern matching technique by Herzog also does not preclude other techniques from being employed. One of ordinary skill in the art would choose an appropriate pattern matching technique according to their requirements. The newly relied upon reference to Frerich expressly discloses the use of such a persistence based counting technique that operates on residual values generated in a boiler system for detecting faults. Nothing precludes the adoption of this technique in the system of Herzog.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 24 April 2026 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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 15-25 and 27-28 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 15 and 27 recite “utilizing process data other than the main steam flow.” The main steam flow is not data, it is a physical flow of steam. It is not clear what the applicant is trying to say here, because process data is necessarily separate from flow. For the purpose of examination, this is read as if saying “utilizing process data other than process data for the main steam flow.” Claims 16-25 and 28 depend from these claims and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 20 recites “the characteristics of error measure” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Further, it is not clear “characteristics of error measure” is referencing in both appearances of this language in the claim. This language appears nowhere else in the claims. For the purpose of examination, these are interpreted as meaning that the respective number of occurrences of an error measure for either the main steam flow or the pressure in the loop seal are included in the error measure set.
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.
Claims 15-17 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,275,577 to Herzog and US 7,113,890 to Frerichs et al. (hereinafter referred to as Frerichs).
With regards to claim 15, Herzog teaches a method of determining a tube leakage (see the title, etc.) in a water-steam circuit of a combustion boiler system (the system of the interface of fig. 2), the method comprising the steps of:
measuring a main steam flow (QMS,M) prevailing in the water-steam circuit of the combustion boiler system during operation (sensors are used to measure conditions of the water/steam mixture of a boiler, and conditions being monitored include pressures, temperatures, and flow rates; see col. 12, ll. 27-34);
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data other than (process data for) the main steam flow in a numerical model of the combustion boiler system giving the main steam (QMS,C) flow of the combustion boiler system under substantially tube-leak-free conditions (normal operating condition process data, including that measured by sensors 510 relating to conditions on the fuel side of the boiler in addition to conditions on the water-steam side of the boiler by sensors 515 is acquired to model the system, see the overview of col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 3 described in detail thereafter; and this is used to generate an estimate of the current state of the system according to at least col 12, ll. 27-43);
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (ΔMS) for main steam flow that is included in an error measure set (measured and estimated sensor readings are compared and differenced to provide residual values according to at least col. 3, ll. 24-30 & col. 12, ll. 43-47, the residual for the steam flow corresponds to the claimed error measure, and all residual values make up the claimed error measure set);
monitoring the error measure set during operation (the residual values are analyzed; col. 12, ll. 45-46); and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the error measure (ΔMS) exceeds a predetermined threshold (col. 3, ll. 24-30, col. 12, ll. 46-47, specified in more detail, including talk of residual thresholds, in at least col. 5, ll. 10-21).
While Herzog teaches that residuals are tested against pattern matching rules to detect leakage (col. 3, ll. 24-30), Herzog not expressly teach a pattern matching technique involving:
monitoring a number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Frerichs, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a pattern test for detecting faults in a steam generator system, the test being a persistence test that involves determining whether ‘n’ out of ‘m’ sample points exceed a statistical limit (a threshold criteria). See col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 7. In practice, this technique monitors a number of occurrences of an error measure in an error measure set during operation (delta values (i.e., residuals) between expected and measured data), and determines the presence of a fault in a case when the number of occurrences of a given error measure (delta) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold (when n out of m deltas exceed the statistical limit) during a predetermined time period (the time corresponding to the window for m samples). This pattern test and others like it are for minimizing false alarms, transient effects, etc. (col. 5, ll. 38-49). In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly count occurrences of potential abnormal/alarm conditions in the method of Herzog, and specifically modify the method of Herzog such that it comprises monitoring a number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set during operation, and determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period (i.e., make such determination when n residuals out of m exceed a threshold level). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly lessen the impact of transient events and reduce false alarms.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 15. Herzog further teaches:
measuring at least one process parameter prevailing in at least one location of the fireside (as best understood, this refers to boiler locations not in the water-steam circuit) of the combustion boiler system to obtain at least one measured process parameter (e.g., by the first set of sensors 510, see col. 12, ll. 28-29);
generating at least one modelled process parameter corresponding to the at least one measured process parameter during operation of the combustion boiler system by utilizing process data in a numerical model, giving the at least one process parameter of the combustion boiler system under substantially leak-free conditions (normal operating condition process data, including that measured by sensors 510 relating to conditions on the fuel side of the boiler in addition to conditions on the water-steam side of the boiler by sensors 515 is acquired to model the system, see the overview of col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 3 described in detail thereafter; and this is used to generate an estimate of the current state of the system according to at least col 12, ll. 27-43); and
comparing the at least one measured process parameter and the at least one modelled process parameter with each other to obtain an error measure for the at least one process parameters also included in the error measure set (measured and estimated sensor readings are compared and differenced to provide residual values according to at least col. 3, ll. 24-30 & col. 12, ll. 43-47, the residual for the steam flow corresponds to the claimed error measure, and all residual values make up the claimed error measure set).
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. Herzog further teaches the at least one process parameter including at least one of temperature or pressure (col. 12, ll. 29-34).
With regards to claim 27, Herzog teaches a combustion boiler system (the system of the interface of fig. 2, also shown in fig. 5, etc.) comprising:
a control system (monitoring apparatus 500) that is configured to carry out a method of determining a tube leakage (see the title, etc.) in a water-steam circuit of a combustion boiler system (the system of the interface of fig. 2), the method comprising the steps of:
measuring a main steam flow (QMS,M) prevailing in the water-steam circuit of the combustion boiler system during operation (sensors are used to measure conditions of the water/steam mixture of a boiler, and conditions being monitored include pressures, temperatures, and flow rates; see col. 12, ll. 27-34);
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data other than the main steam flow in a numerical model of the combustion boiler system giving the main steam (QMS,C) flow of the combustion boiler system under substantially tube-leak-free conditions (normal operating condition process data, including that measured by sensors 510 relating to conditions on the fuel side of the boiler in addition to conditions on the water-steam side of the boiler by sensors 515 is acquired to model the system, see the overview of col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 3 described in detail thereafter; and this is used to generate an estimate of the current state of the system according to at least col 12, ll. 27-43);
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (ΔMS) for main steam flow that is included in an error measure set (measured and estimated sensor readings are compared and differenced to provide residual values according to at least col. 3, ll. 24-30 & col. 12, ll. 43-47, the residual for the steam flow corresponds to the claimed error measure, and all residual values make up the claimed error measure set);
monitoring the error measure set during operation (the residual values are analyzed; col. 12, ll. 45-46); and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the error measure (ΔMS) exceeds a predetermined threshold (col. 3, ll. 24-30, col. 12, ll. 46-47, specified in more detail, including talk of residual thresholds, in at least col. 5, ll. 10-21).
While Herzog teaches that residuals are tested against pattern matching rules to detect leakage (col. 3, ll. 24-30), Herzog not expressly teach a pattern matching technique involving:
monitoring a number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Frerichs, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a pattern test for detecting faults in a steam generator system, the test being a persistence test that involves determining whether ‘n’ out of ‘m’ sample points exceed a statistical limit (a threshold criteria). See col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 7. In practice, this technique monitors a number of occurrences of an error measure in an error measure set during operation (delta values (i.e., residuals) between expected and measured data), and determines the presence of a fault in a case when the number of occurrences of a given error measure (delta) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold (when n out of m deltas exceed the statistical limit) during a predetermined time period (the time corresponding to the window for m samples). This pattern test and others like it are for minimizing false alarms, transient effects, etc. (col. 5, ll. 38-49). In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly count occurrences of potential abnormal/alarm conditions in the method of Herzog, and specifically modify the method of Herzog such that it comprises monitoring a number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set during operation, and determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in a case when the number of occurrences of the error measure (ΔMS) in the error measure set exceeds a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period (i.e., make such determination when n residuals out of m exceed a threshold level). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly lessen the impact of transient events and reduce false alarms.
With regards to claim 28, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the combustion boiler system according to claim 27. Herzog further teaches a display for displaying to a boiler operator the presence of detected tube leakage detected using the method (visual interface 200 of fig. 2, which is displayed on a monitor to indicate leaks as per col. 9, l. 27 to col. 10, l. 37).
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog and Frerichs as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 5,341,766 to Hyppanen.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the combustion boiler system being a circulating fluidized bed boiler system.
Hyppanen teaches a circulating fluidized bed boiler system (see fig. 1). The leak detection technique of Herzog, as modified by Frerichs, is not limited to any particular kind of boiler system, and It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Herzog and Frerichs to a circulating fluidized bed boiler system like that of Hyppanen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly detect leaks or abnormal conditions in such systems.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the at least one process parameter including a pressure in a loop seal arranged downstream of a particle separator in a return leg, which return leg is arranged for returning separated particles into a furnace.
Hyppanen teaches a boiler system (see fig. 1) comprising a loop seal (col. 8, l. 65 to col. 9, l. 7) arranged downstream of a particle separator (14) in a return leg (between elements 21 and 60 in fig. 1), which return leg is arranged for returning separated particles into a furnace (col. 8, ll. 33-35).
The leak detection technique of Herzog, as modified by Frerichs, is not limited to any particular kind of boiler system, and It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Herzog and Frerichs to a system as in Hyppanen comprising a loop seal arranged downstream of a particle separator in a return leg, which return leg is arranged for returning separated particles into a furnace. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly detect leaks or abnormal conditions in such systems.
As for sensor location, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate sensors in the loop seal and measure pressure in said loop seal for the method of Herzog and Frerichs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the loop seal for abnormal conditions.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Herzog, Frerichs, and Hyppanen teaches the method according to claim 19. In this combination, the method would involve
monitoring a number of occurrences of an error measure for main steam flow exceeding a predetermined threshold, wherein the number of occurrences exceeding the predetermined threshold is included in the characteristics of error measure (using the sensors as above to generate data, which is then analyzed to detect leaks/abnormalities using the pattern matching of Frerichs); and
monitoring a number of occurrences of error measure for pressure (pw,i) in the loop seal exceeding a predetermined threshold, wherein the number of occurrences exceeding the predetermined threshold is included in characteristics of error measure (using the sensors as above, with at least one sensor being located in the loop seal, the data then being analyzed to detect leaks/abnormalities using the pattern matching in Frerichs),
wherein a water-steam circuit leakage is determined to be in the loop seal if the error measure for main steam flow and the number of occurrences of error measure for main steam flow exceed the predetermined threshold, and, further, if an error measure related to pressure in the loop seal and the number of occurrences of pressure in the loop seal parameters in the loop seal exceed the predetermined threshold (using the pattern matching/persistence technique of Frerichs, leakage would generally be detected using the sensors and the residuals generated thereby, and leakage could be specifically located using a sensor in the loop seal based on pattern matching output from that sensor if it exceeds a threshold).
With regards to claim 21, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the at least one process parameter including a flue gas temperature (Tse,i) at an exit of a particle separator
Hyppanen teaches a boiler system (see fig. 1) comprising a particle separator (14) having an exit (20).
The leak detection technique of Herzog, as modified by Frerichs, is not limited to any particular kind of boiler system, and It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Herzog and Frerichs to a system as in Hyppanen comprising a particle separator (14) having an exit (20). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly detect leaks or abnormal conditions in such systems.
As for sensor location, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate sensors at an exit of a particle separator and accordingly measure a flue gas temperature at said location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the exit of the particle separator for abnormal conditions.
With regards to claim 22, the combination of Herzog, Frerichs, and Hyppanen teaches the method according to claim 21. In this combination, the method would involve determining a leakage to be in the particle separator if the error measure for main steam flow and the number of occurrences of error measure for main steam flow both exceed, respectively, the predetermined threshold for corresponding error measures, and, further, if an error measure related to flue gas temperature at the exit of the particle separator and the number of occurrences of flue gas temperature at the exit of particle separator both exceed, respectively, a predetermined threshold for the flue gas temperature error measures (using the pattern matching/persistence technique of Frerichs, leakage would generally be detected using the sensors and the residuals generated thereby, and leakage could be specifically located using a sensor at the exit of the particle separator based on pattern matching output from that sensor if it exceeds a threshold).
With regards to claim 23, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the at least one process parameter including bed temperature in a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises reheater tubes, the reheater tubes being located after the water-steam circuit.
Hyppanen teaches a boiler system (see fig. 1) comprising a fluidized bed heat exchanger (col. 8, ll. 27-29) that comprises reheater tubes (reheater 12), the reheater tubes being located after the water-steam circuit (see fig. 1).
The leak detection technique of Herzog, as modified by Frerichs, is not limited to any particular kind of boiler system, and It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Herzog and Frerichs to a system as in Hyppanen comprising a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises reheater tubes, the reheater tubes being located after the water-steam circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly detect leaks or abnormal conditions in such systems.
As for sensor location, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate sensors in the fluidized bed and measure temperature therein for the method of Herzog and Frerichs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the fluidized bed area for abnormal conditions.
With regards to claim 24, the combination of Herzog and Frerichs teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the at least one process parameter including bed temperature in a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises superheater tubes.
Hyppanen teaches a boiler system (see fig. 1) comprising a fluidized bed heat exchanger (col. 8, ll. 27-29) that comprises superheater tubes (superheater 38 or 40).
The leak detection technique of Herzog, as modified by Frerichs, is not limited to any particular kind of boiler system, and It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Herzog and Frerichs to a system as in Hyppanen comprising a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises superheater tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly detect leaks or abnormal conditions in such systems.
As for sensor location, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate sensors in the fluidized bed and measure temperature therein for the method of Herzog and Frerichs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the fluidized bed area for abnormal conditions.
With regards to claim 25, the combination of Herzog, Frerichs, and Hyppanen teaches the method according to claim 24. In this combination, a tube leakage is determined at the fluidized bed heat exchanger if an error measure of bed temperature of the fluidized bed heat exchanger and the number of occurrences of error measure both exceed, respectively, a predetermined threshold (using the pattern matching/persistence technique of Frerichs, leakage would generally be detected using the sensors and the residuals generated thereby, and leakage could be specifically located using a sensor at the fluidized bed heat exchanger based on pattern matching output from that sensor if it exceeds a threshold).
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 James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
