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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 31, 33, 34, 35 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31: in the limitation “the one or more…unit materials comprising one or more of unit product materials,” of should be deleted, as there are no other options from which to select.
Claim 31: in the limitation “via one or more of spectroscopic analyzers”, of should be deleted, as there are no other options from which to select.
Claim 33: in the limitation “the one or more of the spectroscopic analyzers”, of should be deleted.
Claim 34: “one or more of the spectroscopic analyzer” should be –the one or more spectroscopic analyzers—.
Claim 35: a comma should be inserted between “a reactor” and “a reforming reactor”.
Claim 35: “the one or more spectroscopic analyzers is” should be –the one or more spectroscopic analyzers are—.
Claim 44: in each of the limitations “one or more of unit materials” and “one or more of downstream materials”, of should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 32 and 46 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 claim 32, it is unclear how the conditioning limitations introduced therein relate to those introduced in claim 31. Are (i)-(iv) of claim 32 intending to provide further details to the conditioning limitations of claim 31, or are they intended to be in addition to those of claim 31? It is unclear, as written, what the relationship is between the conditioning options of claim 32 and those set forth in claim 31.
Regarding claim 46, the scope of step (c) encompasses (i) or (ii) in the alternative, i.e., step (c) encompasses an embodiment wherein only the conditions of (i) are met. However, subsequent steps (d) and (e) require that condition (ii) is met in step (c). Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
Claims 35 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites “the refinery processing unit…positioned to receive one of the hydrocarbon feedstock, one or more intermediate materials, or one or more unit product materials.” However, claim 31 requires the refinery processing unit receive the hydrocarbon feedstock. Thus, recitation of the materials in the alternative in claim 35 fails to include all limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 42, the claim, as written, encompasses an embodiment wherein neither analyzer is an NMR analyzer, which is at odds with claim 31, requiring an analyzer comprise an NMR analyzer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 31-45, 47, 48 and 50-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karg et al (WO 01/51588) in view of Gao et al (“Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of crude oil as proxies for oil source and thermal maturity based on 1H and 13C spectra”).
Regarding claims 31, 32, 35, 37 and 42, Karg discloses a method to enhance control of a refining process associated with a refining operation (distillation), comprising (see Abstract; Figs. 1-2):
operating a distillation unit (a refinery processing unit) to produce one or more corresponding unit materials, the one or more corresponding unit materials comprising one or more unit product materials (distillates) (see p. 2, lines 23-26; p. 6, lines 1-14);
analyzing a unit material sample via one or more spectroscopic analyzers to provide unit material sample spectra, the one or more spectroscopic analyzers comprising a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic analyzer (see p. 2, line 31 – p. 3, line 3; p. 3, lines 21-27; p. 6, lines 21-30);
predicting one or more sample properties associated with the sample based at least in part on the sample spectra (see p. 3, lines 27-29; p. 6, lines 30-32; p. 8, lines 17-28); and
prescriptively controlling, during the refining process, via one or more refinery process controllers based at least in part on the sample properties, one or more of (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 4 p. 3, lines 29-31):
(i) one or more hydrocarbon feedstock properties associated with a hydrocarbon feedstock supplied to the processing unit;
(iii) operation of the processing unit;
(iv) one or more unit materials properties associated with the unit materials;
so that the prescriptively controlling causing the refining process to produce:
(ii) one or more unit materials each having one or more properties within a selected range of one or more target properties of the unit materials (see p. 3, lines 29-31; p. 5, lines 5-26).
Karg does not explicitly disclose a step entailing conditioning the sample, as claimed.
However, in the field of NMR, in particular with respect to use in crude oil analysis, it is known to remove water and solid impurities prior to analysis because their presence suppresses the signal of organic functional groups and lowers the SNR (signal to noise ratio). Solids are removed by filtration. Additionally, after impurities are removed, a solvent may be added prior to conducting NMR analysis (Gao: see 3.2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Karg by conditioning the samples by filtration, for example, in order to remove any solid impurities therefrom and/or by addition of solvent in order to prepare the solvent for NMR analysis, as suggested by Gao, in order to ensure accurate analysis of the samples.
Regarding claim 33, Karg discloses wherein the analyzer(s) are calibrated to generate standardized spectral responses (see p. 6, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 34, Karg discloses analyzing samples via a first analyzer and a second analyzer (see Fig. 2, wherein samples are analyzed via NMR 24 and NMR 28). The analyzers are calibrated to generate standardized spectral responses, such that each outputs a respective corrected material spectrum, including a plurality of material properties of an analyzed material based on the corrected material spectrum. It is implied that these outputted properties are consistent (see p. 6, lines 21-32).
Regarding claim 36, Karg discloses wherein prescriptively controlling operating of the processing unit comprises controlling one or more operating parameters of the processing unit via control of the operating paraments of the processing units against operating constraints associated therewith (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 1; p. 8, line 29 – p. 9, line 21).
Regarding claim 38, Karg discloses wherein prescriptively controlling comprises controlling one or more process parameters, including (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 1; p. 8, line 29 – p. 9, line 21):
(i) a rate of supply of a hydrocarbon feedstock to the processing unit;
(iii) a preheating temperature of a hydrocarbon feedstock supplied to the processing unit;
(iv) a temperature in the processing unit; and
(v) a pressure associated with the processing unit.
Regarding claim 39, Karg discloses wherein the feedstock properties comprise API gravity and distillation points (see p. 1, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 40, Karg discloses wherein unit material sample properties comprise a content ratio indicative of relative amounts of one or more hydrocarbon classes present in the sample (e.g., aromaticity) (see p. 1, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 41, Karg discloses wherein the unit materials properties comprise an octane rating (see p. 1, lines 24-26).
Regarding 43, Karg discloses wherein the prescriptively controlling comprises operating an analytical refining model configured to improve accuracy of (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 4l p. 3, lines 29-30):
(i) predicting hydrocarbon feedstock properties associated with a hydrocarbon feedstock supplied to the refining operation;
(iii) controlling operating parameters of the processing unit;
(v) target properties of the unit materials produced by the processing unit;
wherein the analytical refining model comprises a machine-learning-trained model and the method further comprises (see . 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 1; p. 5, lines 5-26; p. 6, line 21 – p. 7, line 22; p. 8, line 29 – p. 9, line 21):
(i) supplying, to the analytical refining model, refinery processing data related to:
(a) material data comprising:
(aa) feedstock data indicative of hydrocarbon feedstock properties;
(bb) unit material data indicative of unit material properties;
(b) processing assembly data comprising:
(aa) processing unit data indicative of operating parameters associated with the operating of the processing unit;
(ii) prescriptively controlling, based at least in part on the refinery process data:
(a) feedstock parameters;
(b) operating parameters associated with the processing unit; and
(c) unit material properties.
Regarding claim 44, Karg discloses updating the analytical refinery model based at least in part on the refinery processing data, wherein the analytical refinery model comprises refining algorithms configured to (see p. 5, lines 5-26):
determine, based at least in part on the refinery processing data, the target properties of a hydrocarbon feedstock supplied to the refining operating or target parties of one or more unit materials;
prescriptively control operation of the processing unit to produce one or more unit materials having properties within a first predetermine range;
determine one or more actual unit material properties for the unit materials produced by the processing unit;
determine unit material differences between the actual unit material properties and target unit material properties; and
change, based at least in part on the differences, the refining algorithms to reduce the differences.
Regarding claim 45, Karg discloses wherein the predicting the one or more unit material sample properties comprises mathematically manipulating a unit material spectra signal indicative of the sample spectra to provide a manipulated signal and communicating the manipulated signal to an analytical property model configured to predict, based on the manipulated signal, the unit material sample properties,
wherein the prescriptively controlling comprises generating, based on the material sample properties, processing unit control signals configured to control one or more processing parameters related to operation of the processing unit (see p. 3, lines 27-29; p. 5, lines 5-26; p. 6, lines 30-32; p. 8, lines 17-28).
Regarding claims 47, 51, 53, 58 and 59, Karg discloses a refinery control assembly to enhance a refining process associated with a refining operating, comprising (see Fig. 2):
(i) a first refinery processing unit associated with the refinery operation (distillation tower 15);
(ii) a first spectroscopic (NMR) analyzer 51 positioned to:
(a) receive a material sample 52 of a material 14 positioned to be supplied to the first processing unit, the material having material properties (see p. 6, lines 24-26);
(b) analyze the material sample to provide material sample spectra (see p. 2, line 31 – p. 3, line 3; p. 3, lines 21-27; p. 6, lines 21-30);
(iii) a second spectroscopic (NMR) analyzer 24 positioned to:
(a) receive a unit material sample 26 of one or more unit materials produced by the first processing unit (distillate), the unit materials comprising unit product materials (see p. 6, lines 21-22); and
(b) analyze the unit material sample to provide unit material sample spectra (see p. 2, line 31 – p. 3, line 3; p. 3, lines 21-27; p. 6, lines 21-30); and
(v) a refinery process controller 12 in communication with the first spectroscopic analyzer and the second spectroscopic analyzer, configured to (see p. 5, lines 5-26):
(a) predict material properties associated with the material sample based on material sample spectra and unit material sample properties associated with the unit material sample based on the unit material sample spectra (p. 3, lines 27-29; p. 6, lines 30-32; p. 8, lines 17-28); and
(b) prescriptively control, during the refining process, based on the material sample properties and the unit material sample properties (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 4 p. 3, lines 29-30):
(aa) operation of the first processing unit;
(cc) unit materials properties associated with the unit materials;
so that the prescriptively controlling during the refining process causes the refining process to produce:
(bb) unit materials having properties within a selected range of target properties of the unit materials (see p. 3, lines 29-31; p. 5, lines 5-26).
Karg does not explicitly disclose a sample conditioning assembly, as claimed.
However, in the field of NMR, in particular with respect to use in crude oil analysis, it is known to remove water and solid impurities prior to analysis because their presence suppresses the signal of organic functional groups and lowers the SNR (signal to noise ratio). Solids are removed by filtration. Additionally, after impurities are removed, a solvent may be added prior to conducting NMR analysis (Gao: see 3.2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the refining control assembly of Karg to include a conditioning assembly positioned to condition the material sample(s) prior to supply to the analyzer, such that the samples may be conditioned by filtration, for example, in order to remove any solid impurities therefrom and/or by addition of solvent in order to prepare the solvent for NMR analysis, as suggested by Gao, in order to ensure accurate analysis of the samples.
Regarding claims 48, 54 and 60, Karg discloses wherein the analyzers are calibrated to generate standardized spectral responses, to enhance physical property analysis or chemical property analysis (see p. 6, lines 29-32).
Regarding claims 50 and 55, Karg discloses wherein the process controller is configured to prescriptively control operation of the processing unit via control of operating paraments of the processing units against operating constraints associated therewith (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 1; p. 8, line 29 – p. 9, line 21).
Regarding claim 52, Karg discloses wherein prescriptively controlling comprises controlling one or more process paraments, including (see p. 1, line 30 – p. 2, line 1; p. 8, line 29 – p. 9, line 21):
(i) a rate of supply of a hydrocarbon feedstock to the processing unit;
(iii) a preheating temperature of a hydrocarbon feedstock supplied to the processing unit;
(iv) a temperature in the processing unit; and
(v) a pressure associated with the processing unit.
Regarding claim 56, Karg discloses wherein the feedstock properties comprise API gravity and distillation points (see p. 1, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 57, Karg discloses wherein the unit materials properties comprise an octane rating (see p. 1, lines 24-26).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karg in view of Gao, as applied to claim 47, in further view of Karg et al (WO 01/51589).
Regarding claim 49, Karg does not disclose wherein the refinery processing unit comprises a reactor positioned to receive a hydrocarbon feedstock and promote a conversion of the feedstock into a reactor product, and the second spectroscopic analyzer is configured to analyze the reactor product.
Karg ‘589 is similarly directed to control of refinery operations using NMR analyzers (see Abstract). In addition to a distillation tower, Karg ‘589 discloses an upstream fluid catalytic cracker which receives a hydrocarbon feed and converts it to reactor product. The feed is analyzed by NMR as well as reactor products (see Figs. 1-3). A controller determines values of manipulated variables for controlling the catalytic cracker to produce products of desired qualities and maximized unit economic return (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the refinery control assembly of Karg to be applied to a refinery operation comprising a catalytic cracker, as suggested by Karg ‘589, wherein feed and product streams are analyzed by NMR as a means to control the refinery process, in order to implement the control mechanism in a system aimed at conversion of a hydrocarbon feedstock to desired products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 46 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 46 recites additional steps of the method, entailing use of refinery simulation software to model refinery processing unit material yields or material characteristics based on hydrocarbon feedstock sample properties and determining, via the refinery simulation software, processing unit control parameters to achieve processing unit material yields and/or characteristics. These additional features, considered as a whole with the entirety of the method encompassed by claims 31 and 46 together, are considered to define a patentable feature over the cited prior art. Karg, the closest prior art reference, discloses use of NMR to control refinery operations (distillation). Karg does not disclose the additional features of claim 46, entailing use of refinery simulation software, to determine process unit control parameters to achieve processing unit material yields and/or characteristics based on feedstock sample properties. Nor does there appear to be sufficient teachings and/or suggestions in the prior art which would motivate a person of ordinary skill to modify Karg in such a way as to arrive at the claimed invention encompassed by the additional features of claim 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights