DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04 January 2024, 10 January 2024, 12 February 2024, 28 March 2025, and 22 September 2025 are acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings (fig. 3, specifically) should be provided with descriptive text labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-26 of copending Application No. 18/686096 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the heat transfer fluid channel of a heat transferring reactor system and the heat transfer fluid flow rate of the reference application read on the water-steam circuit of a combustion boiler and the main steam flow of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 14 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
A method of determining a tube leakage in a water-steam circuit of a combustion boiler system, the method comprising the steps of:
A method of determining a leakage in a heat transfer fluid channel of a heat transferring reactor system, 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;
measuring the heat transfer fluid flow rate (qMS,M) prevailing in the heat transfer heat transfer fluid channel of the reactor system during operation;
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data 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;
modelling heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow rate (qMS,C) in the heat transfer heat transfer fluid channel during operation by utilizing process data in a numerical model of the heat transferring reactor system giving the heat transfer fluid (qMS,C) flow rate of the heat transferring reactor system under substantially leak-free conditions;
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (DMS) for main steam flow that is included in an error measure set;
comparing the measured heat transfer fluid flow rate in the heat transfer fluid channel and modelled heat transfer fluid flow rate with each other to obtain an error measure (DMS) for heat transfer fluid flow rate that is included in an error measure set;
monitoring the error measure set and a number of occurrences in the error measure set during operation; and
monitoring the error measure set and a number of occurrences in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case error measures (ΔMS) exceed a pre-defined threshold, or a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
determining the presence of a heat transfer fluid channel leakage in case the error measures (DMS) exceed a pre-defined threshold, or a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Claim 16 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 15 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 15, further comprising the steps of:
The method according to claim 14, further comprising the steps of:
measuring at least one process parameter prevailing in at least one location of the fireside of the combustion boiler system;
measuring at least one process parameter prevailing in at least one location inside a reaction chamber of the reactor system;
modelling at least one of corresponding process parameters during operation of the combustion boiler system by utilizing process data in a numerical model, giving the corresponding process parameter of the combustion boiler system under substantially leak-free conditions; and
modelling at least one of corresponding process parameters during operation of the heat transferring reactor system by utilizing process data in a numerical model, giving the corresponding process parameter of the heat transferring reactor system under substantially leak-free conditions; and
comparing the at least one measured process parameter and the corresponding 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.
comparing the at least one measured process parameter and the corresponding 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.
Claim 17 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 16 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the process parameters comprise at least one of temperature or pressure.
The method according to claim 15, wherein the at least one process parameter comprises at least one of temperature and pressure.
Claim 18 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 17 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the combustion boiler system is a circulating fluidized bed boiler system.
The method according to claim 15, wherein the heat transferring reactor system is a fluidized bed reactor system.
Claim 19 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 18 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the process parameters include 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.
The method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one process parameter includes 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 the reaction chamber.
Claim 20 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 19 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 19, further comprising:
The method according to claim 18, further comprising:
monitoring a number of occurrences of an error measure for main steam flow exceeding a predetermined threshold, wherein a number of occurrences in the exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure; and
monitoring a number of occurrences of error measure for the heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow rate exceeds predetermined threshold, wherein the number of occurrences in exceedances is included in the characteristics of error measure;
monitoring a number of occurrences of error measure for pressure (pw,i) in the loop seal exceeding a predetermined threshold, which number of occurrences in exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure,
monitoring a number of occurrences of error measure for pressure (pw,i) in the loop seal (200) exceeds a predetermined threshold, which the number of occurrences in exceedances is included in the characteristics of error measure; and
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.
determining a heat transfer heat transfer fluid channel leakage is determined to be in the loop seal if the error measure for main heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow and the number of occurrences of error measure for main heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow rate 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.
Claim 21 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 20 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the process parameters include a flue gas temperature (Tse,i) at an exit of a particle separator.
The method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one process parameter includes a product gas temperature (Tse,i) at an exit of a particle separator.
Claim 22 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 21 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 21, wherein a leakage is determined 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.
The method according to claim 20, wherein a leakage is determined to be in the particle separator if the error measure for main heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow and the number of occurrences of error measure for main heat transfer heat transfer fluid flow both exceed, respectively, the predetermined threshold for corresponding error measures and, further, if an error measure related to product gas temperature at the exit of the particle separator and the number of occurrences of product gas temperature at the exit of particle separator both exceed, respectively, a predetermined threshold for the product gas temperature error measures.
Claim 23 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 22 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the process parameters include bed temperature in a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises reheater tubes, the reheater tubes being located after the water-steam circuit.
A method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one process parameter includes bed temperature in a heat transfer fluidized bed heat exchanger.
Claim 24 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 22 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 16, wherein the process parameters include bed temperature in a fluidized bed heat exchanger that comprises superheater tubes.
A method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one process parameter includes bed temperature in a heat transfer fluidized bed heat exchanger.
Claim 25 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 23 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 24, wherein 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.
The method according to claim 22, wherein a heat transfer fluid channel leakage is determined at the heat transfer fluidized bed heat exchanger if an error measure of bed temperature of the heat transfer fluidized bed heat exchanger and the number of occurrences of error measure both exceed, respectively, a predetermined threshold.
Claim 26 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 24 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
The method according to claim 15, wherein the characteristics of error measure include the number of respective occurrences exceeding a predetermined threshold.
The method according to claim 14, wherein the characteristics of error measure include the number of respective occurrences exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Claim 27 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 25 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
A combustion boiler system comprising:
a control system that is configured to carry out a method of determining a tube leakage in a water-steam circuit of a combustion boiler system, the method comprising the steps of:
A heat transferring reactor system comprising: a heat transferring reactor system comprising a control system, which is configured to carry out the method according to claim 14.
measuring a main steam flow (QMS,M) prevailing in the water-steam circuit of the combustion boiler system during operation;
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data 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;
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (DMS) for main steam flow that is included in an error measure set;
monitoring the error measure set and a number of occurrences in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case error measures (ΔMS) exceed a pre-defined threshold, or a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Claim 28 - 18/576482 (Instant application)
Claim 26 - 18/686096 (Copending application)
A combustion boiler system, according to claim 27, further comprising a display for displaying to a boiler operator the presence of detected tube leakage detected using the method.
A heat transferring reactor system according to claim 25, wherein the heat transferring reactor system comprises a display/monitor for displaying, to an operator, the presence of flow channel leakage detected using the method.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 16, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15 and 27 inconsistently use variables in parenthesis after "error measure." These claims use both (DMS) and (ΔMS). Only one should be used.
Claim 16 alternatively recites "at least one process parameter" and "at least one process parameters." These should be made consistent.
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 15-28 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.
Independent claims 15 and 27 both recite the limitation "a number of occurrences in the error measure set." This element is recited twice in each claim, and was introduced in the most recent claim amendments. However, the language of the claim does not specify what is occurring. In other words, although the claim requires monitoring a number of times some "thing" occurs, the claim does not state what that "thing" is, and the claimed subject matter is thus unclear. Even referring to the specification, it is not clear what the intended meaning of this limitation is. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted this as referring to a number of times that a given error measure occurs.
Claims 16-26 and 28 depend from these claims, and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites "the process parameters" in line 1. There are multiple instances of process parameters in claim 16, and it is not clear which of these is being referred to. Some moreover use "at least one" and others do not. It is suggested that these be unified for clarity. For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of at least one process parameter is read to involve temperature or pressure.
Claim 19 recites "the process parameters" in line 1. There are multiple instances of process parameters in claim 16, and it is not clear which of these is being referred to. Some moreover use "at least one" and others do not. It is suggested that these be unified for clarity. For the purpose of examination, For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of at least one process parameter is read to involve pressure in a loop seal.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "wherein a number of occurrences in the exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure" and "which number of occurrences in exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure" in the monitoring clauses. In both phrases, "in (the) exceeding" is not clearly understood. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the two "the characteristics of error measure" in these two clauses. 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 21 recites "the process parameters" in line 1. There are multiple instances of process parameters in claim 16, and it is not clear which of these is being referred to. Some moreover use "at least one" and others do not. It is suggested that these be unified for clarity. For the purpose of examination, For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of at least one process parameter is read to involve a flue gas temperature.
Claim 22 recites "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." However, the threshold for the error measure for main steam flow in claim 15 is a pre-defined threshold (not predetermined). For the purpose of examination, pre-defined is read as predetermined.
Claim 23 recites "the process parameters" in line 1. There are multiple instances of process parameters in claim 16, and it is not clear which of these is being referred to. Some moreover use "at least one" and others do not. It is suggested that these be unified for clarity. For the purpose of examination, For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of at least one process parameter is read to involve a bed temperature.
Claim 24 recites "the process parameters" in line 1. There are multiple instances of process parameters in claim 16, and it is not clear which of these is being referred to. Some moreover use "at least one" and others do not. It is suggested that these be unified for clarity. For the purpose of examination, For the purpose of examination, the first recitation of at least one process parameter is read to involve a bed temperature.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the characteristics of error measure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedence for this was removed in the most recent claim amendments. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be disregarded.
Claim 26 further recites the limitation "the number of respective occurrences." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is also not clear what "respective" could be in reference to. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as "the number of occurrences in the error measure set" in the last two lines of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 26 requires that the characteristics of error measure include the number of respective occurrences exceeding a predetermined threshold. However, according to the 112(b) interpretation of this claim, the characteristics of error measure is being disregarded, and the number of respective occurrences exceeding a predetermined threshold is already a feature of the final determining step of claim 15. Accordingly, claim 26 is not seen to further limit claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,275,577 to Herzog and US 11,029,196 to Forster-Knight et al. (hereinafter referred to as Forster-Knight).
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. 29-34);
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data 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 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. 35-43);
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (DMS) 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. 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 the case error measures (ΔMS) exceed a pre-defined threshold (col. 12, ll. 46-47, specified in more detail, including talk of residual thresholds, in at least col. 5, ll. 10-21).
Herzog does not teach:
monitoring a number of occurrences in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Forster-Knight teaches the feature of counting a number of times an abnormal/alarm condition is met, and determining there to be an abnormal/alarm condition (leakage, specifically) when the number of times a counter for the condition is greater than a threshold level. In other words, Forster-Knight teaches ensuring that an abnormal/alarm condition has presented at least a certain number of times, in order to reduce the chance of false alarms. See col. 29, ll. 17-30 and col. 31, ll. 13-27. 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 in the error measure set during operation (i.e., count the number of times residual value indicative of a leak presents itself); and determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold (the number of times the residual for the steam flow exceeds the corresponding residual threshold) during a predetermined time period (the period over which the system is monitored). Doing so would enable false alarms to be reduced as per Forster-Knight.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight 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 (e.g., by the first set of sensors 510, see col. 12, ll. 28-29);
modelling at least one of corresponding process parameters during operation of the combustion boiler system by utilizing process data in a numerical model, giving the corresponding process parameter of the combustion boiler system under substantially leak-free conditions (normal operating condition process data 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. 35-43); and
comparing the at least one measured process parameter and the corresponding 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. 12, ll. 43-47).
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 16. Herzog further teaches the process parameters comprising at least one of temperature or pressure (col. 12, ll. 29-34).
With regards to claim 26, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 15. According to the applied combination, the characteristics of error measure include the number of respective occurrences exceeding a predetermined threshold (as per Forster-Knight, which teaches determining there to be an abnormal/alarm condition (leakage, specifically) when the number of times a counter for the condition is greater than a threshold level at stated above).
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 515 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. 29-34);
modelling the main steam flow (QMS,C) in the water-steam circuit during operation by utilizing process data 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 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. 35-43);
comparing the measured water-steam flow and the modelled water-steam flow with each other to obtain an error measure (DMS) 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. 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 the case error measures (ΔMS) exceed a pre-defined threshold (col. 12, ll. 46-47, specified in more detail, including talk of residual thresholds, in at least col. 5, ll. 10-21).
Herzog does not teach:
monitoring a number of occurrences in the error measure set during operation; and
determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold during a predetermined time period.
Forster-Knight teaches the feature of counting a number of times an abnormal/alarm condition is met, and determining there to be an abnormal/alarm condition (leakage, specifically) when the number of times a counter for the condition is greater than a threshold level. In other words, Forster-Knight teaches ensuring that an abnormal/alarm condition has presented at least a certain number of times, in order to reduce the chance of false alarms. See col. 29, ll. 17-30 and col. 31, ll. 13-27. 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 in the error measure set during operation (i.e., count the number of times residual value indicative of a leak presents itself); and determining the presence of a water-steam circuit tube leakage in the case a number of occurrences in the error measure set exceed a predetermined threshold (the number of times the residual for the steam flow exceeds the corresponding residual threshold) during a predetermined time period (the period over which the system is monitored). Doing so would enable false alarms to be reduced as per Forster-Knight.
With regards to claim 28, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight teaches a 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the process parameters 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight, 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, Forster-Knight, 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 a number of occurrences in the exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure (using the sensors 515 as above to generate data, which is then analyzed to detect leaks/abnormalities); and
monitoring a number of occurrences of error measure for pressure (pw,i) in the loop seal exceeding a predetermined threshold, which number of occurrences in exceeding is included in the characteristics of error measure (using the sensors 510 as above, with at least one sensor being located in the loop seal, the data then being analyzed to detect leaks/abnormalities),
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 (leakage would generally be detected using the sensors 515, and leakage could be specifically located using a sensor 510 in the loop seal; note this would be using the technique of Forster-Knight to minimize false alarms) .
With regards to claim 21, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the process parameters 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight 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, Forster-Knight, 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 (leakage would generally be detected using the sensors 515, and leakage could be specifically located using a sensor 510 in the at the exit of the particle separator; note this would be using the technique of Forster-Knight to minimize false alarms).
With regards to claim 23, the combination of Herzog and Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the process parameters 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight teaches the method according to claim 16. However, this combination does not expressly teach the process parameters 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 Forster-Knight, 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 Forster-Knight 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 Forster-Knight, 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, Forster-Knight, 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 (leakage would be located using a sensor 510 in the at the fluidized bed; note this would be using the technique of Forster-Knight to minimize false alarms).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0243636 to Hasiewicz et al. discloses a related technique for monitoring equipment involving building an empirical equipment model, grabbing a current snapshot of equipment conditions, then comparing the snapshot to estimated equipment conditions.
US 6,484,108 to Burgmayer et al. discloses a related technique for detecting leaks in a boiler.
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
Prosecution Insights