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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a method, classified in B01D 2257/404.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in B01D 53/8631.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed could be performed by hand.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have separate classifications.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 in a telephone call made to Katherine Taconi on 8/7/2026 is acknowledged. This election must be confirmed in writing in applicant’s response to this Office Action. The non-elected claims, Claims 11-20, are hereby withdrawn from further consideration per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “extracting first measurements of a furnace catalyst bed … determining a catalyst activity … generating a first linear regression of the catalyst activity … and generating a health score of the furnace catalyst bed”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the method generates a health score there is no requirement that said health score is actually used for the benefit of the overall furnace bed. This is understood as suggesting the equivalent of a generic “apply it” step, which has been held by the courts to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no steps beyond taking measurements and generating the health score are claimed. To the extent that claims 2-10 recite similar non-statutory matter/steps, said claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as well. Additionally and/or alternatively, claims 2-10 are likewise rejected because they depend from and thus include claim 1’s above-detailed deficiencies vis-à-vis 35 U.S.C. 101. See 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th par.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th par. 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 6 requires “a change in a NOx concentration”, Claim 7 depends upon Claim 6 and recites “the change in NOx concentration after the furnace catalyst bed is determined based on one minus a ratio of NOx output over NOx input associated with the furnace catalyst bed”. It is noted that the formula in Claim 7 (1 – (NOx output/NOx inlet)) is mathematically equivalent to NOx inlet – NOx outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the only reasonable mathematical way to express “a change in a NOx concentration” would be NOx inlet – NOx outlet or any other equivalent formula (such as the one explicitly expressed in Claim 7). Therefore Claim 7 merely explicitly discloses a formula used in Claim 6 which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be inherently required by Claim 6 and cannot be said to further limiting to Claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by CN109364753A Yu et al. Claim 1 requires “A method for estimating the end-of-life of a furnace catalyst bed, the method comprising: extracting first measurements of a furnace catalyst bed”. Yu et al. discloses “The method includes: S10: Collect operating condition information, including flue gas flow rate, actual ammonia injection rate, ammonia slip, inlet NOx concentration, and outlet NOx concentration” [0015-0016].
Claim 1 further requires “determining time-period averages of the extracted first measurements of the furnace catalyst bed over multiple time periods”. Yu et al. discloses “Due to measurement errors, this application calculates the weekly average as the weekly relative activity coefficient” [0025].
Claim 1 further requires “determining a catalyst activity indicative of an efficiency of a selective reduction catalyst in reducing NOx concentrations for the furnace catalyst bed at a first time”. Yu et al. discloses “S30: Calculate the relative activity coefficient of the catalyst” [0021]. It is noted that Yu et al. further defines the activity coefficient as “Relative activity coefficient = 1 - (ammonia slip / ammonia injection rate) * inlet NO_NER1 concentration/ (inlet NO_NER2 concentration - outlet NO_NER3 concentration)” [0024]. The term 1 - (ammonia slip / ammonia injection rate) is directly related to catalyst efficiency because it is 100% when ammonia slip is 0 and 0% when ammonia slip is equal to ammonia injection rate (no ammonia is converted).
Claim 1 further requires “generating a first linear regression of the catalyst activity based on averages of the multiple time periods”. Yu et al. discloses “S42: Based on the weekly relative activity coefficient sequence, the time point of the weekly relative activity coefficient at the end of life is predicted by the linear regression algorithm, thereby obtaining the remaining lifespan” [0032].
Claim 1 further requires “and generating a health score of the furnace catalyst bed at a second time based on the first linear regression, the health score indicative of an estimated end-of-life of the furnace catalyst bed.”. Yu et al. is silent towards a “health score”, however they do generate an estimated end-of-life of the furnace catalyst bed (see above). It is understood by the examiner that the difference in an estimate of the end-of-life of a catalyst and a health score that is indicative of an estimate of the end-of-life of a catalyst are merely nomenclature, which alone cannot support patentability. See Ex parte Stanley, 121 USPQ 621, 625 (BPAI 1958) (holding that mere nomenclature differences do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art), and Sellers v. Cofrode 35 F. 131 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1888) (per curiam) (stating that a difference in naming “does not tend to distinguish”). See also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (reaching conclusion so as to prevent “the allowance of claims drawn to unpatentable subject matter merely through the employment of descriptive language not chosen by the prior art”).
Claim 3 requires “the time periods are about 0.1 days, 0.2 days, 0.5 days, 1 day, 2 days, 5 days, or 10 days.”. Yu et al. discloses a time period of a week (7 days) (“Due to measurement errors, this application calculates the weekly average as the weekly relative activity coefficient” [0025]). This is understood to be about 5 days and/or about 10 days.
Claim 4 requires “wherein the first measurements comprise an NOx concentration upstream of the furnace catalyst bed, an NOx concentration after the furnace catalyst bed at a furnace stack, an NH3 feed rate to the furnace catalyst bed, an NH3 concentration after the furnace catalyst bed at the furnace stack, a furnace catalyst bed temperature, a furnace catalyst bed inlet temperature, a furnace catalyst bed inlet O2 concentration, an O2 concentration after the furnace catalyst bed at the furnace stack, a firing rate of fuel gas burners in the furnace, a specific gravity of fuel gas to the furnace burners, a time of operation of the furnace catalyst bed, or any combinations thereof.” Yu et al. discloses “The method includes: S10: Collect operating condition information, including flue gas flow rate, actual ammonia injection rate, ammonia slip, inlet NOx concentration, and outlet NOx concentration” [0015-0016].
Claim 8 requires “further comprising: extracting second measurements of the furnace catalyst bed; determining second time period averages of the extracted second measurements of the furnace catalyst bed during a time period of multiple days; and generating a second linear regression of the catalyst activity based on the time period averages, wherein the health score is further based on the second linear regression.”. This is understood as performing the method of Claim 1 for at least two different points in time. Yu et al. discloses “this application calculates the weekly average as the weekly relative activity coefficient” [0024]. Combined with the stated outcome “Based on the best operating plan, continuously update the best operating plan” [0092], it is understood that Yu et al. discloses measuring the weekly average continuously (every week).
Claim 9 requires “identifying an intersection between the first linear regression and a critical health score threshold, wherein the intersection is indicative of the estimated end-of-life of the furnace catalyst bed.”. Yu et al. is silent towards a “health score” (see Claim 1, above) however they do generate an end-of-life estimate. Since both the health score and the intersection similarly indicate the end-of-life estimate it is understood that the only difference between the disclosed end-of-life estimate of the prior art and the intersection which indicates an end-of-life estimate is nomenclature/units used.
Claim Objections/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and in such a way as to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections thereof. The closest prior art to the above claims is given by CN 109364753 A Yu et al., in view of WO 03105997 A1 Schuh et al.
Claim 2 requires “inputting to a machine learning model comprising the first linear regression a cleaned feature indicating that the furnace catalyst bed has been cleaned”. Yu et al. is silent towards a machine learning model. Schuh et al. discloses using artificial neural networks to assist in converting measurements of a flue gas conversion catalyst activity into end-of-life data (“The measurement data acquired by the measuring device 4 are fed to the computer 5, which is connected to the measuring device 4. The deactivation a of catalyst 3K is determined from these measurement data … The computer 6 is used to determine the parametric behavioral changes such as dead time and amplification of the flue gas denitrification system 3. … The identification of certain relationships can be determined. This also includes the use of artificial neural networks, … Since this information is used for operational management and/or control” [Desc/Clms Page number 6]). It is understood that artificial neural networks and machine learning models are synonymous within the art. Schuh et al. lacks any indication that the machine learning model is used to input a cleaning of the catalyst.
Claim 5 requires “the first linear regression is based on a relative catalyst activity of a first-order reaction of NO, 4NO + 4NH3 + O2→ 4N2 + 6H2O, associated with the furnace catalyst bed and a zero-order reaction of ammonia associated with the furnace catalyst bed compared to the catalyst activity.”. Yu et al. discloses the first equation (does not appear in English translation, see original patent document at [0006]) and it can be reasonably assumed that they use this equation for their linear regression model, however they are silent towards an additional reaction used which is 0th order with respect to NH3.
Claim 6 requires “the catalyst activity is based on a flue gas flow rate associated with the furnace catalyst bed, a total catalyst surface area, and a NOx reduction when a NH3 concentration at an inlet of the furnace catalyst bed divided by a change in a NOx concentration at the inlet is greater than 1.”. Yu et al. discloses catalyst activity based on “Relative activity coefficient = 1 - (ammonia slip / ammonia injection rate) * inlet NO_NER1 concentration/ (inlet NO_NER2 concentration - outlet NO_NER3 concentration)” [0024]. In other words they disclose the catalyst activity is based on a NOx reduction but not based on flue gas flow rate or catalyst surface area (which presumably remains constant for their model).
Claim 10 requires “the first linear regression is based on an equation in which ten multiplied by the natural log of a sum of one and a ratio of the catalyst activity equals ten multiplied by a difference between one and a ratio of time over the health score.”. Yu et al. does not disclose generating a health score but rather generates a direct end-of-life estimate (see Claim 1). They do not disclose calculating the end-of-life using natural logs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights