Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 4/3/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-11 are pending with claims 9-11 withdrawn from consideration.
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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-8, drawn to a method and an apparatus for controlling a pulp/paper mill with feed forward and feedback controls.
Group II, claim 9, drawn to a controller system.
Group III, claim 10, software for a controller system.
Group IV, claim 11, software on a non-transitory medium for a controller system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a control unit and software for executing feedforward and feedback controls this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of WO 2004/016850 MCKENZIE et al., hereinafter MCKENZIE. MCKENZIE discloses a DCS controller (18) it is capable of operating different process units using feedback and feedforward controls [Figure 1 and 4].
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Nagae on 10/28/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the subsequent process stage" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also unclear whether “the subsequent process stage” refers to two process stages. The first set of data collects data for a first process stage and a second process stage. It is not clear from the language whether “subsequent process stage” only requires one stage after the first process stage or second process stage or the controlling must be done on a subsequent process stage to the first process stage and a subsequent process stage to the second process stage.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preceding process stage" in lines 19 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also unclear whether “the preceding process stage” refers to two preceding process stages. The second set of data collects data for a second process stage and a third process stage. It is not clear from the language whether “preceding process stage” only requires one stage before the second process stage or third process stage or the controlling must be done on a preceding process stage to the second process stage and a preceding process stage to the third process stage.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the subsequent process stage" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also unclear whether “the subsequent process stage” refers to two process stages. The first set of data collects data for a first process stage and a second process stage. It is not clear from the language whether “subsequent process stage” only requires one stage after the first process stage or second process stage or the controlling must be done on a subsequent process stage to the first process stage and a subsequent process stage to the second process stage.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the preceding process stage" in lines 22 and 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also unclear whether “the preceding process stage” refers to two preceding process stages. The second set of data collects data for a second process stage and a third process stage. It is not clear from the language whether “preceding process stage” only requires one stage before the second process stage or third process stage or the controlling must be done on a preceding process stage to the second process stage and a preceding process stage to the third process stage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2004/016850 MCKENZIE et al., hereinafter MCKENZIE, in view of U.S. 2006/0196622 TRUNG et al., hereinafter TRUNG and Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 1-3 and 8, MCKENZIE discloses a first process stage with a wood yard with chip silo (2) (comprising a woodyard comprising steps such as debarking, chipping, pile storage and/or reclaim; [Figure 1]).
MCKENZIE discloses a second process stage comprising a fiberline with a digester (12) (a second process stage, comprising a fiberline comprising steps such as cooking and/or bleaching; [Figure 1]).
MCKENZIE does not explicitly disclose a third process stage other than claiming further processing [pg. 9 lines 4-5]. However, the Examiner notes that a pulp mill will either be integrated with a paper mill or non-integrated and therefore have a third process stage (and at least a third process stage wherein). The Examiner will further support this with references below.
MCKENZIE collects a first set of data in the wood yard including moisture, species, and wet wood feed rate [Figure 1 and Figure 4]. MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26]. The first set of data is sent to a distributed control system (18) (a first set of data is gathered at least at the first and at the second process stage, wherein the first set of data for each process stage comprises measurement results and/or parameters calculated based on measurement results, wherein the measurements and/or parameters are related to raw material, equipment, process measurements and/or product properties; [Figure 1]).
The data from the first set of data including the wood yard is sent to the DCS which is used in a feed-forward manner to control the continuous digester (12) (the first set of data is sent to the subsequent process stage, wherein the process steps of the subsequent process stage are adjusted based on the first set of data received; [Figure 1, Figure 4, pg. 10 lines 11-16 and pg. 11 lines 30-31]) .
As per the 112(b) rejection above it is not clear if the applicant means that both the data collected from the first process stage and second process stage. In the case of the digester (second process) MCKENZIE does not use the data collected from the digester in a subsequent process. MCKENZIE discloses that a specific amount of delignification should occur but does not disclose how it is measured [pg. 9 lines 4-5]. MCKENZIE also does not disclose subsequent process steps [pg. 9 lines 5-6] but discloses they are present.
TRUNG discloses measuring the kappa number from a digester (12) before bleaching (18) and after bleaching (18) and before paper making (22). A papermaking machine dries and dewaters pulp into paper sheets.
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to combine the bleaching stage of TRUNG (18) and the paper machine (22) of TRUNG with the digester (12) and woodyard 2() of MCKENZIE. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to increase the brightness of the pulp by bleaching and to convert the pulp into a final product by papermaking. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MCKENZIE states that there further process stages. TRUNG shows that a digester (12) and wood yard (10) can be combined with bleaching (18) and papermaking (22) [Figure 1]. Furthermore, the combination of bleaching and papermaking stages perform the same functions as they did separately prior to combining with the wood yard and digester.
TRUNG further discloses kappa measuring devices with the kappa measurements sent to a DCS. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to measure the kappa of the pulp after the digester and after the bleaching stage. TRUNG discloses that this kappa can be used for feed forward control of a subsequent stage including bleaching and the paper machine [abstract].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the kappa sensors of TRUNG to measure the kappa of the pulp of MCKENZIE for process control. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by TRUNG to provide both feedback and feedforward control of kappa numbers while overcoming the shortcomings of prior art lignin measurements [abstract, 0046, 0049]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MCKENZIE discloses that a specific amount of delignification should occur but does not disclose how it is measured [pg. 9 lines 4-5] . The person of ordinary skill in the art would further expect success as both have control systems capable of feedback and feed forward control.
TRUNG discloses measuring kappa number after digesting and after bleaching [Figure 1] which is a quality . TRUNG additionally teaches a paper machine (22) but does not explicitly disclose that it measures data (a second set of data is gathered at least at the second and at the third process stage, wherein the second set of data for each process stage comprises information related to availability of processing capacity, predicted availability of processing capacity and/or required material flow or quality; [Figure 1).
TRUNG discloses that the kappa measured after digesting and bleaching can be used for feedback control (the second set of data is sent to the preceding process stage, wherein the process steps of the preceding process stage are adjusted based on the second set of data received [Figure 1, abstract, 0046]).
As stated above although a modern paper machine clearly measures data about its operation TRUNG does not disclose any specific measurements. SMOOK discloses that a paper machine measures the speed of each of the portions of the machine so as to control the speed [pg. 278-279, Figure 17-37 though 17-39]. The measurement of speed is a measurement to availability (o speed means the paper machine is not operating). SMOOK further discloses that when there are operational problems in one area that another area upstream or downstream thereof must shut down eventually [pg. 188 col. 1 section 12.3]. Therefore if the paper machine is off or running slow the upstream pulping must slow down or stop (wherein the process steps of the preceding process stage are adjusted based on the second set of data received).
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the paper machine control system of SMOOK with the pulp mill/paper machine of MCKANZIE/TRUNG. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to control the operation of the paper machine and prevent overflowing of storage tanks when the paper machine is off as suggests by SMOOK [pg. 188 col. 1 section 12.3 “no more storage space”]
As for claim 4, MCKENZIE collects a first set of data in the wood yard including moisture, species, and wet wood feed rate [Figure 1 and Figure 4].
As for claim 5, MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26].
As for claim 6, MCKENZIE also collects a first set data in the digester including digester (12) temperature (22) [Figure 1]. Valve openings (16, (28), and (14) are also measured [Figure 1, pg. 9 lines 19-26]. TRUNG discloses measuring kappa number [Figure 1]
As for claim 7, SMOOK discloses measuring paper machine roll speeds [pg. 278-279, Figure 17-37 though 17-39] which indicate that the paper machine is operating or not operating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748