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 Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “adapted arrangement in between plant topology” is confusingly worded and it is difficult to determine what is meant by this language; and
Claim 11, “the process parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis since claim 1 introduces an input parameter, and output parameter, and process data.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 14 uses the term “computer readable medium” but that term is not limited to non-transitory storage mediums and therefore is non statutory since the scope of the term can encompass signals, per se.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Windmeier, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0048801 A1 (hereinafter: ‘801).
As per claim 1, ‘801 discloses a computer implemented method for determining a design parameter of a plant (e.g., See ‘801; [0001] and [0007], which discloses a computer implemented method for sizing a process plant by determining values for process plant variables and process parameters), comprising:
receiving a plant topology of the plant, wherein the plant topology comprises a plurality of process equipment (e.g., See ‘801; [0056], which discloses obtaining a fundamental topology for the process plant and using a flowchart that models the process plant and its individual components);
receiving a process model for the respective process equipment for a respective process step, wherein the process model describes a dependency between an input parameter and an output parameter (e.g., See ‘801; [0019] – [0020], which discloses modeling the individual components and their subprocesses with equations that describe relationships between process parameters);
receiving process data for the respective process step for producing a product with the respective process equipment (e.g., See ‘801; [0066] – [0067], which disclose using the process parameters in process simulations, including an educt quantity, a temperature of input air, and product quantities);
determining the design parameter for the plant based on the plant topology, the process model and the process data (e.g., See ‘801; [0074] – [0076], which disclose determining optimal values for the process plant variables and the process parameters by simulating different process topologies and process variants using a common equation system); and
providing the determined design parameter for further processing (e.g., See ‘801; [0078], which discloses finding a sizing from the determined optimal values according to which the plant can be built and operated).
As per claim 2, ‘801 further discloses that the input parameter comprises at least one of the following: input energy, educt, amount of educt, process temperature, amount of water, and amount of CO2 (e.g., See ‘801; [0066], which discloses an educt quantity as a process parameter).
As per claim 3, ‘801 further discloses that the output parameter comprises at least one of the following: output energy, product, amount product, amount of produced water, amount of produced CO2, and duration of process step (e.g., See ‘801; [0067], which discloses a product quantity as a process parameter).
As per claim 4, ‘801 further discloses that the design parameter comprises at least one of the following: plant topology, additional process equipment, adapted process equipment size, adapted arrangement in between plant topology, and adapted process data (e.g., See ‘801; [0028], which discloses determining an optimal topology for the process plant).
As per claim 5, ‘801 further discloses that the process data comprises at least one of the following: temperature, temperature range, amount of educt and/or product (e.g., See ‘801; [0066], which discloses an educt quantity as process parameter).
As per claim 6, ‘801 further discloses that the determining of the design parameters comprises determining at least two different solutions for the design parameter, assessing the at least two solutions, and selecting one of the at least two solutions based on the assessment (e.g., See ‘801; [0025], and [0027] – [0028], which disclose examining plural different process topologies, assessing the process simulations using a predefined condition, and determining an optimal topology for the process plant).
As per claim 7, ‘801 further discloses that the assessment is based on a profitability assessment (e.g., See ‘801; [0027], which discloses that the predefined condition depends on economic viability of the process plant).
As per claim 9, ‘801 further discloses that the determining of the design parameter is based on an optimization algorithm (e.g. See ‘801; [0014], which discloses using a gradient based optimization method to select the optimal values).
As per claim 11, ‘801 further discloses that the determining of the design parameter comprises inputting the process parameter into the respective process model for the respective process step (e.g., See ‘801; [0023], which discloses using a specific process simulation or flowchart with different values of the process parameters).
As per claim 13, ‘801 further discloses that the processing further comprises using the determined design parameter for at least one of the following: building the plant, operating the plant, and retrofitting the plant (e.g., See ‘801; [0078], which discloses that the sizing is based on the determined optimal values and is used to build and operate the process plant).
As per claim 14, the rejection rational applied to claim 1, form above, is applied herein.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmeier, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0048801 A1 (hereinafter: ‘801), as applied to claim 1, from above, in view of Bleackley, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0264415 A1 (hereinafter: ‘415).
As per claim 8, ‘801 does not specifically disclose utilizing a human-machine interface (HMI) for at least one of the following: plant topology, process model, process data, and cost data.
‘415 discloses this missing by disclosing a GUI that guides a user through input fields and receives project oil and ga prices (e.g., See ‘415; [0076] – [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘415 into ‘801 for the purpose of allowing users the enter design and cost information through a guided GUI, thereby simplifying simulation setup and reducing manual input effort.
As per claim 12, ‘801 does not specifically disclose that the determining the design parameter comprises considering a time behavior of the respective process step.
‘415 discloses this missing by disclosing a detailed production profile containing flow, pressure, and composition data at different time periods, from which a scenario is selected as a design case (e.g., See ‘415; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘415 into ‘801 for the purpose of evaluating plant designs under changing production conditions over time, thereby selecting a design suited to expected operation throughout the plant life.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmeier, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0048801 A1 (hereinafter: ‘801), as applied to claim 1, from above, in view of Boys U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0171130 A1 (hereinafter: ‘130).
As per claim 10, ‘801 does not specifically disclose that the determining of the design parameter is based on a comparing of the output parameter of one of the plurality of process equipment with the input parameter of another one of the plurality of process equipment.
‘130 discloses this missing feature by disclosing a first model and a second model representing process equipment, with an output of the first model being input to the second model, and detecting compatibility between the connected variables (e.g., See ‘130; [0019] – [0020] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘130 into ‘801 for the purpose of validating connected process parameters before simulation, thereby improving model consistency and reducing invalid equipment connections.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2010/0088075 A1, which discloses optimizing chemical process flowsheets by choosing equipment, interconnections, sizes, and process parameters from a plant model;
(2) US 6,041,263 A, which discloses using equipment and property models to optimize a processing plant from supplied plant values;
(3) US 2023/0213922 A1, which discloses building plant models from equipment, topology, connectivity, and operating data to simulate and optimize plant performance;
(4) US 6,442,515 B1, which discloses modeling connected process equipment with equations and variables for plant simulation, design evaluation, retrofit, and optimization; and
(5) US 2006/0178782 A1, which discloses simulating interconnected plants and equipment, then optimizing plant parameters to improve overall process efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 September 18, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights