Detailed Action
The communications received 12/12/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 § 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 10-11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “at least 0.5”, and the claim also recites at least 1, 2, 5, 10, or 15 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation at most 20, and the claim also recites at most 1, 2, 5, or 10 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, both claims are understood to correspond to the broader of the ranges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piironen et al (US 2008/0046127 A1) hereinafter PII.
As for claim 1, PII a method for controlling a process in making pulp, paper, or board (automatic dose control of chemicals) [Abstract; 0065], comprising:
automatically controlling by a rules engine (parameters and model selection, the parameter values and model selection are substantially rules that the controller is required to adapt and operate by) [0020-21; 0079; 0084] a dosing of a chemical agent in the process into a fibrous suspension (a pulp suspension) [0020-21; 0065; 0079; 0094];
receiving by the rules engine a plurality of measurements relating to the process (as the ruleset defines which models it is understood that in this manner only the measurements relating to the models would be received by the control aspects) [0085; 0092; 0111];
maintaining by the rules engine a plurality of rules sets, including an active rules set, each rules set defining how the dosing depends on the measurements (membership definitions) [0085];
performing the controlling by the rules engine of the dosing of the chemical agent based on the measurements and the active rules set [0065; 0079; 0085; 0094];
logging by the rules engine at least some of the measurements and actualized dosing of the chemical agent [0021];
receiving at least one rules set candidate (via adaptive control of membership definitions) [0085];
simulating the dosing of the chemical agent with the received at least one rules set candidate based on the earlier measurements [0117-119];
outputting simulation results for optimizing performance of the chemical agent in the process [0097; 0117-119];
obtaining a selection of a new rules set based on the simulating (as the parameters) [0097; 0117-119]; and
causing adapting of the controlling of the dosing by activating the selected new rules set by the rules engine (tuning of parameters) [0097; 0117-119].
As for claim 2, PII teaches claim 1, wherein the rules set used to control the dosing and the earlier measurements are transported to a twin model (to the simulator) [0097].
As for claim 3, PII teaches claim 1 and wherein the rules set is configured to derive one or more parameters from one or more measurements and optionally from time [0107; 0097; 0117-119].
As for claim 4, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising controlling handling of errors in the measurements by one or more rules of the active rules set [0107; 0110].
As for claim 5, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising performing the simulating by the rules engine (via the models) [0107; 0117-119].
As for claim 6, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising defining by the rules set one or more chemical agent dosing start triggers (as dosing would be done in response to the set point value which would include going from a zero dosing point to a higher point) [0107-108; 0133].
As for claim 7, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising defining by the rules set one or more chemical agent dosing end triggers (as dosing would be done in response to the set point value which would include going from a higher dosing point to a zero point) [0107-108; 0133].
As for claim 9, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising outputting a graphical representation of a control sequence of an adapted rule engine when applied to logged previous measurements (as graphs can generally be made) [Fig. 2].
As for claim 12, PII teaches claim 1 and wherein the chemical agent comprises a biocidal chemical, a defoamer, a retention chemical, a retention polymer, a strength chemical, a fixing agent, a dye, a hydrophobization agent, a dispersion agent, a bleaching agent, and / or a pH control agent [0022; 0073; 0075; claim 12].
As for claim 14, PII teaches claim 1 and the device for its performance [Abstract].
As for claim 15, PII teaches claim 1 and that it is performed on a computer which is understood to be composed of a non-transitory computer readable medium with stored computer programs capable of performing the method [0020-21].
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kristensen et al (US 2022/0243575) hereinafter KRI.
As for claim 8, PII teaches claim 1 and further teaches employing the method on an online basis (connected to a data network) [0021] but does not teach a computer cloud entity.
KRI teaches that one manner of operating models is via cloud computing which allows for greater access to historical and relevant contextual data with little to no delay in time [0170].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added performing the simulating in a computer cloud entity in order to allow for allows for greater access to historical and relevant contextual data with little to no delay in time.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Franks (US 2001/0047852 A1) hereinafter FRA.
As for claim 10, PII teaches claim 1 and further teaches treating a suspension which comprises cellulose and hemicellulose (as a pulp suspension) and adding dosing chemicals which coagulate, flocculate, disperse, and react with components [0024; 0064-65; 0101],
PII does not teach that the suspension has at least 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 or 15 weight percent of dry matter.
FRA teaches that when repulping waste paper that contains elements that need to be treated (ink and/or toner particles) that one dry matter content known is 6-20% (consistency) which falls within the claimed range [0006]. This allows for the recycling of waste paper into new recycled paper [Abstract]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the waste paper pulp suspension of FRA as the pulp suspension treated in PII in order to allow for the recycling of waste paper into new recycled paper. As both PII and FRA pertain to treating pulp suspensions they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 11, PII teaches claim 1 and PII/FRA as applied to claim 10 teach a dry matter content of 6-20% which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PII as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kreivi et al (EP 989476 A2) hereinafter KRE.
As for claim 13, PII teaches claim 1 and further comprising monitoring efficiency of the active rules set [0022-23; 0062];
PII does not teach determining triggering of fallback criteria; and
taking a fallback action on determining the triggering of the fallback criteria, instead of continuing to control the process according to the active rules set.
KRE teaches that in pulp based control of dosing (by combining one stream with another such as dilution water flow, essentially the water flow is dosed) determining triggering of fallback criteria (when there are measurement malfunctions); and
taking a fallback action on determining the triggering of the fallback criteria, instead of continuing to control the process according to the active rules set (switching to alternative control strategies which do not depend on the failed measurements as fallback structures) which improves the redundancy of the system in case of a malfunction [Abstract; 0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the fallback action, trigger, criteria, and switching to a fallback control strategy in the control strategy of PII as KRE teaches that this can improve the redundancy of the system in case there is a malfunction. As both PII and KRE pertain to dosing of a pulp suspension they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
