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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US PGPub 2021/0132596) in view of Patel (US PGPub 2008/0147225).
As to claim 1
Lu discloses a method of enhancing an operation of a process plant (plant 101a, see Fig. 1), comprising:
configuring a primary controller (machine controller 114, see Fig. 1/master MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 10) in the process plant to be connected to one or more secondary controllers (controllers 106, see Fig. 1/slave MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 11) in the process plant via conjoint variables (conjoint variables; see paragraph 0120, line 13), wherein the conjoint variables in the primary controller has a plant-wide optimizer (PWO) limit (MV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 10) (see paragraph 0059, lines 7-10) and the conjoint variables in the one or more secondary controllers has an advanced process control (APC) limit (CV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 12) (see paragraph 0130, lines 10-13);
sending, by the primary controller, at least one optimization call (inquiry optimization calls; see paragraph 0127, line 2) to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-3);
receiving a proxy limit (proxy limit; see paragraph 0127, line 8) from the one or more secondary controllers in response to the at least one optimization call (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-9), wherein the proxy limit is determined based on the APC limit and configured to notify the primary controller of a constraint (constraints; see paragraph 0127, line 9) and optimal operating condition available (optimization and control functions; see paragraph 0128, lines 13-14) by the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-14);
determining an optimal target (new optimal production targets; see paragraph 0076, lines 19-20), wherein the optimal target is based on current operating conditions of the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 14-22 and paragraph 0142, lines 1-9); and
sending the optimal target to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 19-21).
Though Lu discloses the method of enhancing an operation of the process plant (plant 101a, see Fig. 1); Lu fails to specifically disclose the method, comprising:
analyzing the APC limit and the received proxy limit from the one or more secondary controllers to determine an optimal target; and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target.
Patel discloses a method of enhancing operations, comprising:
analyzing an APC limit (APC settings; see paragraph 0020, line 9) from one or more secondary controllers (APC state-based database module 250, see Fig. 2) to determine an optimal target (new settings to apply to incoming lots at the process tool; see paragraph 0028, lines 8-9) (see paragraph 0028, lines 1-9); and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target (see paragraph 0028, lines 2-3).
Lu and Patel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is process control in manufacturing processes. At the time of invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lu’s invention with Patel’s in order to allow Lu’s master MPC controller to analyze the CV limits to determine new optimal production target, since doing so would result in the reduction of process variability in the manufacturing process (see Patel paragraph 0002, lines 1-3).
As to claim 2
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the PWO limit and the APC limit are entered by an operator (see paragraph 0098, lines 1-8).
As to claim 3
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more secondary controllers manage individual APC units of the process plant (see paragraph 0043, lines 15-18).
As to claim 4
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the individual APC units of the process plant are connected to the primary controller using the proxy limit, the conjoint variables, and the optimal target (see paragraph 0120).
As to claim 5
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the proxy limit of the one or more secondary controllers is obtained based on an ideal limit entered by an operator indicative of a preference for operation of the process plant (see paragraph 0076, lines 17-22).
As to claim 6
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the proxy limit identifies operational constraints of the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0167, lines 25-32).
As to claim 7
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the conjoint variables, the APC limit, the PWO limit, the proxy limit, and an ideal proxy limit are utilized to compute the process plant wide lost opportunity (see paragraph 0059).
As to claim 8
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising obtaining a planning model for the process plant at the primary controller (see paragraph 0059, lines 1-7).
As to claim 9
Lu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the proxy limit identifies an extent to which one or more process variables controlled by the one or more secondary controllers are adjustable without violating a process variable constraint (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-7).
As to claim 10
Lu discloses a system (system 100, see Fig. 1), comprising:
a primary controller (machine controller 114, see Fig. 1/master MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 10) in operative communication with one or more secondary controllers (controllers 106, see Fig. 1/slave MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 11) via conjoint variables (conjoint variables; see paragraph 0120, line 13), wherein the conjoint variables in the primary controller has a plant-wide optimizer (PWO) limit (MV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 10) (see paragraph 0059, lines 7-10) and the conjoint variables in the one or more secondary controllers has an advanced process control (APC) limit (CV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 12) (see paragraph 0130, lines 10-13);
the primary controller comprising:
a memory (non-transient computer readable medium; see paragraph 0006, lines 1-2); and
a processor (one or more processors; see paragraph 0006, lines 3-4) configured to:
send at least one optimization call (inquiry optimization calls; see paragraph 0127, line 2) to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-3);
receive a proxy limit (proxy limit; see paragraph 0127, line 8) from the one or more secondary controllers in response to the at least one optimization call (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-9), wherein the proxy limit is determined based on the APC limit and configured to notify the primary controller of a constraint (constraints; see paragraph 0127, line 9) and optimal operating condition available (optimization and control functions; see paragraph 0128, lines 13-14) by the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-14);
determine an optimal target (new optimal production targets; see paragraph 0076, lines 19-20), wherein the optimal target is based on current operating conditions of the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 14-22 and paragraph 0142, lines 1-9); and
send the optimal target to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 19-21).
Though Lu discloses the system for enhancing an operation of the process plant (plant 101a, see Fig. 1); Lu fails to specifically disclose the system, comprising:
analyzing the APC limit and the received proxy limit from the one or more secondary controllers to determine an optimal target; and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target.
Patel discloses a system, comprising:
analyzing an APC limit (APC settings; see paragraph 0020, line 9) from one or more secondary controllers (APC state-based database module 250, see Fig. 2) to determine an optimal target (new settings to apply to incoming lots at the process tool; see paragraph 0028, lines 8-9) (see paragraph 0028, lines 1-9); and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target (see paragraph 0028, lines 2-3).
Lu and Patel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is process control in manufacturing processes. At the time of invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lu’s invention with Patel’s in order to allow Lu’s master MPC controller to analyze the CV limits to determine new optimal production target, since doing so would result in the reduction of process variability in the manufacturing process (see Patel paragraph 0002, lines 1-3).
As to claim 11
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the PWO limit and the APC limit are entered by an operator (see paragraph 0098, lines 1-8).
As to claim 12
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the one or more secondary controllers manage individual APC units of the process plant (see paragraph 0043, lines 15-18).
As to claim 13
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the individual APC units of the process plant are connected to the primary controller using the proxy limit, the conjoint variables, and the optimal target (see paragraph 0120).
As to claim 14
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the proxy limit of the one or more secondary controllers is obtained based on an ideal limit entered by an operator indicative of a preference for operation of the process plant (see paragraph 0076, lines 17-22).
As to claim 15
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the proxy limit identifies operational constraints of the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0167, lines 25-32).
As to claim 16
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the conjoint variables, the APC limit, the PWO limit, the proxy limit, and an ideal proxy limit are utilized to compute the process plant wide lost opportunity (see paragraph 0059).
As to claim 17
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the primary controller configured to obtain a planning model for the process plant (see paragraph 0059, lines 1-7).
As to claim 18
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 17, wherein the memory configured to store the planning model of the process plant (see paragraph 0059, lines 1-7).
As to claim 19
Lu discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the proxy limit identifies an extent to which one or more process variables controlled by the one or more secondary controllers are adjustable without violating a process variable constraint (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-7).
As to claim 20
Lu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (non-transient computer readable medium; see paragraph 0006, lines 1-2) having stored thereon computer-readable instructions (instructions) that, when executed by a processor (one or more processors; see paragraph 0006, lines 3-4), cause the processor to execute a method of enhancing an operation of a process plant (plant 101a, see Fig. 1), comprising:
configuring a primary controller (machine controller 114, see Fig. 1/master MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 10) in the process plant to be connected to one or more secondary controllers (controllers 106, see Fig. 1/slave MPC controller; see paragraph 0120, line 11) in the process plant via conjoint variables (conjoint variables; see paragraph 0120, line 13), wherein the conjoint variables in the primary controller has a plant-wide optimizer (PWO) limit (MV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 10) (see paragraph 0059, lines 7-10) and the conjoint variables in the one or more secondary controllers has an advanced process control (APC) limit (CV limits; see paragraph 0130, line 12) (see paragraph 0130, lines 10-13);
sending, by the primary controller, at least one optimization call (inquiry optimization calls; see paragraph 0127, line 2) to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-3);
receiving a proxy limit (proxy limit; see paragraph 0127, line 8) from the one or more secondary controllers in response to the at least one optimization call (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-9), wherein the proxy limit is determined based on the APC limit and configured to notify the primary controller of a constraint (constraints; see paragraph 0127, line 9) and optimal operating condition available (optimization and control functions; see paragraph 0128, lines 13-14) by the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0127, lines 7-14);
determining an optimal target (new optimal production targets; see paragraph 0076, lines 19-20), wherein the optimal target is based on current operating conditions of the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 14-22 and paragraph 0142, lines 1-9); and
sending the optimal target to the one or more secondary controllers (see paragraph 0076, lines 19-21).
Though Lu discloses the method of enhancing an operation of the process plant (plant 101a, see Fig. 1); Lu fails to specifically disclose the method, comprising:
analyzing the APC limit and the received proxy limit from the one or more secondary controllers to determine an optimal target; and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target.
Patel discloses a method of enhancing operations, comprising:
analyzing an APC limit (APC settings; see paragraph 0020, line 9) from one or more secondary controllers (APC state-based database module 250, see Fig. 2) to determine an optimal target (new settings to apply to incoming lots at the process tool; see paragraph 0028, lines 8-9) (see paragraph 0028, lines 1-9); and
instructing the one or more secondary controllers to adjust the APC limit to the optimal target (see paragraph 0028, lines 2-3).
Lu and Patel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is process control in manufacturing processes. At the time of invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lu’s invention with Patel’s in order to allow Lu’s master MPC controller to analyze the CV limits to determine new optimal production target, since doing so would result in the reduction of process variability in the manufacturing process (see Patel paragraph 0002, lines 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights