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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the phrases "for a carbon dioxide capturing apparatus" in line 1 of the preamble that is intended use and "configured to create a model for predicting a deterioration state of an absorbing solvent in the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus through learning, based on data regarding the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus" in line 4 [emphasis added]. While the preamble provides the antecedent for the recitations "the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus," the language in the claim raises the following question—is "carbon dioxide capturing apparatus" positively recited as part of the claimed invention or merely an intended setting for the control apparatus?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“model creator” in claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15, see par [0058] “Representative examples of techniques of modeling include HBOD (Histogram-Based Outlier Detection), PCA (Principal Component Analysis), and KNN (K-Nearest Neighbors Detector)”;
“deterioration time determiner” in claims 1-4, 14, and 15, see pars [0059]-[0060], Fig. 4 “The deterioration time determiner 26 calculates an abnormality determination score indicating the deterioration state of the absorbing solvent using the CCS model. For example, the abnormality determination score is a numerical value indicating the measurement in displacement of the current plant data from the plant data in the normal state. In the present embodiment, the deterioration state of the absorbing solvent is converted into a numerical value as the abnormality determination score. This processing is shown in step S1 of FIG. 4”;
“controller” in claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 15, see pars [0075], [0080] “…the controller 28 drives a device (for example, pump) for replacing the absorbing solvent provided in the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus such that the replacement of the absorbing solvent…” and “…the control performed by the controller 28 may be performed by a human…”;
“data fetcher” in claims 9-13, pars [0031]-[0052];
“data preprocessor” in claims 9-12, pars [0031]-[0054]; and
“measurer” in claims 8-9, pars [0031]-[0053], [0062], [0084].
Lastly, claim 15 is not a conventional step-plus-function claim (see in section 112 below).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a model creator configured to create a model for predicting a deterioration state of an absorbing solvent in the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus through learning, based on data regarding the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus" in line 2. The term “model creator” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation fails to recite structural specific elements to define a model creator. Although the specification discloses examples of techniques of modeling, HBOD (Histogram-Based Outlier Detection), PCA (Principal Component Analysis), and KNN (K-Nearest Neighbors Detector), the examples are disclosed without statements to how the model creator constructs the model—what structure is involved? The algorithms HBOD, PCA and KNN are apparently known techniques that are disclosed without stating which of the three?, how the which one of the three?, and/or which structural elements of the which one of the three? With these questions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be made aware of the boundaries. Also, see the limitation “model creator” in claims 2, 8, 9, and 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "deterioration state" in line 4. The term “deterioration state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation "deterioration state" is vague, and the claim language fails to define a measurable parameter for the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a deterioration time determiner" in line 7. The definition for this limitation is ambiguous and is not defined in the claim language. An amendment with a specific metes and bounds for this limitation is suggested.
Claim limitation "controller" has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification discloses that the controller function “the control performed by the controller 28 may be performed by a human instead” (see par [0080] at page 22 of the originally filed specification). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Also, see the limitation "controller" recited in claims 6, 7, 14, and 15.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an abnormality determination score" in line 2. The claim language fails to recite explicit bounds to define this variable. The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. An amendment with a specific threshold or definition for an abnormality score is suggested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the controller controls the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus such that the entirety or the part of the absorbing solvent is replaced with the new absorbing solvent by the replacement amount, or such that the new absorbing solvent is added to the absorbing solvent by the addition amount, or such that the absorbing solvent is replenished with the absorbing solvent component by the replenishment amount.” Claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller configured to control the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus, based on the replacement amount, the addition amount or the replenishment amount computed by the computer” in line 17. The correlation between these limitations is unclear and raises the question—what is the relationship among the limitations “replacement amount” and “addition amount” recited in claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “creating…”, “determining…”, “computing…”, and “controlling…” without previously stating explicitly “the control method comprising steps for,” resulting in the metes and bounds of claim 15 being imprecise. An amendment to claim 15 is required to obviate indefiniteness.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Panaccione (US 20200009499 A1) and Irvin (US 20230166212 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Panaccione (US 20200009499 A1) discloses a carbon dioxide capture apparatus and method. The invention to Panaccione teaches the carbon dioxide capture apparatus and method has an amine scrubbing solution (Fig. 3; par [0073]); trained models (Fig. 4; pars [0095]-[0100] ); a machine learning spectral data analyzer with spectral data measurements (Fig. 3; pars [0093]-[0100]); a processor with memory executing ML algorithms (pars [0095]-[0100]); a process controller with control signals (Fig. 3; par [0093]), automated control for valves, heaters, and pumps, and operations for the bleed valve and fresh solvent addition and operating parameters changes based on solvent conditions (pars [0070]-[0071], [0085]-[0093]); monitors for degradation products, composition of solvents, and deterioration time (pars [0093]-[0100]), but does not explicitly disclose a deterioration time determiner.
Regarding claim 1, Irvin (US 20230166212 A1) teaches a carbon dioxide capture apparatus and method (Fig. 1B) with solvent property predictions. The invention of Irvin discloses a carbon capture apparatus (Fig. 1B); amine solvent (par [0050]); a plurality of sensors (Figs. 6, 9; pars [0057], [0071]); heuristic model (“model creation”; pars [0065], [0070]) and neural network model (“learning”; Figs. 2B, 9; pars [0065], [0070]); carbon loading (Fig. 2A), alkalinity, degradation prediction (Fig. 6; par [0068]); solvent degradation determination (Fig. 6; par [0007]); a process controller (Figs. 1, 9; pars [0059]-[0064]); solvent make-up and replacement (par [0023]); automatic process optimization (Fig. 6), but does not explicitly predict deterioration time.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the control apparatus of Panaccione using the historical solvent composition and spectroscopic data obtained to predict and model when solvent deterioration will occur and utilizing the prediction and model developed from the collected information to maintain the operation of the apparatus to replace or replenish the solvent based on the predicted model since Panaccione teaches that these features that are currently available to maintain current operation with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding Irvin, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the teaching of Irvin that discloses current degraded to predict later solvent requirement and replacement by utilizing the controller that has predictive models, heuristic models and neural networks, to estimate carbon loading, alkalinity, and solvent degradation from real-time operational data and to automatically control solvent make-up, solvent replacement, and process operating variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, with regard to claim 15, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention would obviously recognize control apparatus disclosed by the prior art as set forth above in its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the control method of a carbon dioxide capturing apparatus with the method steps of creating a model, determining a deterioration time of the absorbing solvent with the deterioration time determiner, computing an amount of the absorbing solvent for replacement with a computer, and controlling the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus as claimed (see claim 15) according to the previously stated teaching in the prior art references, regarding claim 1, with a reasonable expectation for success.
For claims 4-7, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above and indicates a prima facie case of obviousness for the deterioration time for future maintenance of the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus. The phrases “wherein the computer computes the replacement amount, the addition amount or the replenishment amount,” “wherein the computer sets the replacement amount, the addition amount or the replenishment amount to zero when the deterioration time is after the scheduled maintenance time, and sets the replacement amount, the addition amount or the replenishment amount to a positive value when the deterioration time is before the scheduled maintenance time,” “wherein the controller does not perform the replacement, the addition or the replenishment before the scheduled maintenance time when the deterioration time is after the scheduled maintenance time, and performs the replacement, the addition or the replenishment before the scheduled maintenance time when the deterioration time is before the scheduled maintenance time,” and “wherein the controller controls the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus such that the entirety or the part of the absorbing solvent is replaced with the new absorbing solvent by the replacement amount, or such that the new absorbing solvent is added to the absorbing solvent by the addition amount, or such that the absorbing solvent is replenished with the absorbing solvent component by the replenishment amount” are interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use/result or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claims 9-13, the limitations “data fetcher,” “data processor,” and “operation condition” are inherent limitations for the control apparatus disclosed in the prior art references that permit the proper execution of the model creator, computer, and controller to perform the algorithms for the control apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, the teaching of the prior art is indicated above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that the computer and controller of the prior art would function as recited in the claim to recompute absorbing solvent amounts based on the deterioration time with a change of operation conditions since operations condition changes would affect the degradation of the solvent.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panaccione (US 20200009499 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the teaching of the prior art to Panaccione is relied upon as indicated above and further discloses a measurer (a spectroscopic measurer) configured to measure data regarding the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus; and a storage configured to store data regarding the carbon dioxide capturing apparatus, wherein the model creator creates the model based on the data measured by the measurer and the data stored in the storage (ANN and SVM; pars [0095]-[0100]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should consider prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. See the following:
US 20250161861 A1: teach a control module for CCS recovery system based on thermal degradation of the absorbing solvent.
JP 2013208531 A (IDS): control unit determine amounts of absorbing solvent to added and removal timing is predicted; computer computes amount of absorbing solvent (a portion, addition, etc.); controller.
“Hybrid Smart Strategies to Predict…CO2 Capture Processes” (IDS): discloses using hybrid smart models, including ANN-PSO, CSA-LSSVM, and ANFIS, to analyze degradation phenomenon; correlation introduced to maximum fitness and optimal evolution; determined that time and CO2 loading have a relatively equal impact on the degradation of the absorbing solvent; teaches thermal degradation of any solvent in a solvent-based PCC process.
US 20110245937 A1: systems and methods include a carbon emission, capture, transport, and usage model; controller to control processor; data measurements and analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 July 8, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights