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 .
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.
Applicant's response, filed on 09/08/2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Priority
As detailed on the 03/11/2021 filing receipt, this application does not claim priority. The effective filing date of this application is 03/01/2021.
Drawings
The drawings filed 03/01/2021 are accepted.
Withdrawn Rejections/Objections
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Balabin in view of Martinis, in the Office action mailed 06/04/2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 09/08/2025.
The rejection of claims 2-3, 5-7 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Balabin in view of Martinis and further in view of Matsuda, in the Office action mailed 06/04/2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 09/08/2025.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Balabin in view of Martinis and further in view of Kahl, in the Office action mailed 06/04/2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 09/08/2025.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Balabin in view of Martinis and further in view of Gothard, in the Office action mailed 06/04/2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 09/08/2025.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Balabin in view of Martinis and further in view of Ferris, in the Office action mailed 06/04/2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 09/08/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 (page 2, lines 11-12), 4 (page 5, lines 3-4) and 17 (page 8, lines 18-19) recite “…conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile.” The specification does not disclose conducting a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile. The specification discloses generating a test distillation profile. As disclose in the specification paragraph [0033] “A virtual distillation experiment is performed to generate 425 a test distillation profile (DPBASE-I) for the base fluid using the distillation model 125. The test distillation profile is then compared to the predetermined distillation profile 105 to determine if the distillation model 125 is calibrated 430 to the predetermined distillation profile 105 and, thereby, to the base fluid. In various embodiments the predetermined distillation profile 105 and the test distillation profile may, for example, be compared according to one or more predetermined tolerance thresholds (e.g., for pointwise error, summed (squared) error).”
Dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
This is a new matter rejection.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 (page 2, lines 11-12), 4 (page 5, lines 3-4) and 17 (page 8, lines 18-19) recite “…conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile,” which requires but lacks antecedent basis in the claims because there is no previous recitation of "second distillation model" in the claims.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Mental processes recited include:
Claim 1 recites: “...generate a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid..."; “…determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive, and, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components…” “generate a distillation model corresponding to the predetermined fuel distillation protocol and based on the first composition profile and predetermined distillation profile by determining at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model such that the distillation model is calibrated to the predetermined distillation profile to generate a first distillation profile of the base fluid as a function of the first composition profile and the calibrating parameter,” “…generate a second distillation profile as a function of the at least one calibrating parameter and the second composition profile,” and “…predict a test distillation profile.” The process of generating a composition profile, determining chemical components, determining amount of chemical components, calibrating parameter, generating a distillation model, generating a distillation profile and predicting are acts of evaluating, analyzing and organizing data that could be practically performed in the human mind and/or pen and paper.
Claims 2, 5 and 18 recite: wherein the at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model is a reflux ratio profile determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile. The process of determining whether the temperature-quantity points are within a predetermined threshold requires analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claims 3 and 7 recites: wherein the at least one parameter of the distillation model is a heat transfer coefficient determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile. The process of determining whether the temperature-quantity points are within a predetermined threshold requires analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claims 4 and 17 recite: generate a distillation model based on the first composition profile and predetermined distillation profile by determining at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model such that the distillation model is calibrated to the predetermined distillation profile to generate a first distillation profile of the base fluid as a function of the first composition profile and the calibrating parameter; and apply the calibrated distillation model to a second composition profile of pure chemical components representing a mixture of the base fluid and the at least one additive to generate a second distillation profile as a function of the at least one calibrating parameter and the second composition profile and …predict a test distillation profile. The process of generating a distillation profile,determining calibrating parameter and predicting are acts of evaluating, analyzing and organizing data that could be practically performed in the human mind and/or pen and paper.
Claim 8 recites: generate the first composition profile, comprising: determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive; and, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components. The process of determining chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters and the relative amounts require analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claim 11 recites: wherein generate a second distillation profile comprises, for a plurality of temperatures corresponding to the predetermined distillation profile, determining corresponding quantities of the mixture in a batch distillation process represented by the distillation model. The process of determining corresponding quantities of the mixture in a batch distillation process requires analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claim 12 recites: wherein generate a second distillation profile comprises, for a range of time in a distillation process represented by the distillation model, determining corresponding quantity and temperature relationships of the mixture in the distillation process. The process of determining corresponding quantity and temperature relationships require analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the at least one parameter of the distillation model is a heat transfer coefficient determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile. The process of determining whether the temperature-quantity points are within a predetermined threshold requires analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Claim 20 recites: generate the first composition profile, comprising: determine according to predetermined speciation rules a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive; and determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components. The process of determining requires analyzing and evaluating data that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The mental processes of claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12 and 18-20 include generating and determining that are involved with evaluating, analyzing and organizing data that could be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. Claims 1, 4 and 17 also recites “…predict a test distillation profile,” which are involved with evaluating and analyzing data to make a prediction. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims can be practically carried out in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed, which falls under the "Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Although, claims 1 and 4 recite computer program products with non-transitory computer readable medium and instructions executed on a processor and claim 17 recites performing the method of as part of a method executed on a computer, there are no additional imitations to indicate that anything other than a generic computer is required. However, merely requiring that the steps are carried out with a generic computer does not negate the mental nature of these steps and equates rather to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. As such, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or insignificant extra solution activity. Specifically, the instant claims recite the following additional elements:
claim 1: the recited " A computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation…,” “obtain a predetermined distillation profile corresponding to a predetermined fuel distillation protocol performed on the base fluid..." and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Non-transitory computer readable medium and processor equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile equates to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
claim 4: the recited “A computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation…,” “obtain a predetermined distillation profile of the base fluid; obtain a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid..." and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Non-transitory computer readable medium and processor equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile and composition profile equate to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
claim 17: the recited "A computer-implemented method," "obtain a predetermined distillation profile of the base fluid; obtain a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid" and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Computer-implemented equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile and composition profile equate to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These components equate to generic computer storage with stored instructions that are executed to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations equate to a generic computer environment. The limitations of claims 1, 4 and 17, as discussed above also equate to mere data gathering activities via generic computer components, such as receiving data at a computer or outputting data, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is similar to the case of Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2v)). As such, as currently recited, the claims do not appear to recite an improvement to technology or apply or use the recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to well-understood, routine and conventional activities, insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
claim 1: the recited " A computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation…,” “obtain a predetermined distillation profile corresponding to a predetermined fuel distillation protocol performed on the base fluid..." and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Non-transitory computer readable medium and processor equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile equates to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and is a well-known method as disclosed by Motard ("Steady state chemical process simulation." AIChE Journal 21.3 (1975): 417-436; as cited on the attached 892 form).
claim 4: the recited “A computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation…,” “obtain a predetermined distillation profile of the base fluid; obtain a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid..." and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Non-transitory computer readable medium and processor equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile and composition profile equate to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and is a well-known method as disclosed by Motard ("Steady state chemical process simulation." AIChE Journal 21.3 (1975): 417-436; as cited on the attached 892 form).
claim 17: the recited "A computer-implemented method," "obtain a predetermined distillation profile of the base fluid; obtain a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid" and “conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment…” step/element. Computer-implemented equate to a generic computer environment. The step of obtain a predetermined distillation profile and composition profile equate to data gathering. The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and is a well-known method as disclosed by Motard ("Steady state chemical process simulation." AIChE Journal 21.3 (1975): 417-436; as cited on the attached 892 form).
The limitations of claims 1, 4 and 17 equate to mere data gathering and outputting via generic computer components, such as receiving data at a computer or outputting data, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth by the courts in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 and OIP Techs., Inc, v, Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Also, the additional elements include storing and retrieving information in memory. Also, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more as identified by the courts in Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Overall, the additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Claims 2-3, 5-16 and 18-20 do not recite additional limitations. Additionally, the process of obtaining a distillation profile is a known method as taught by Ferris (as cited on the 06/04/2025 892 form). Ferris discloses that “ASTM D86 is the standard test method used to experimentally measure the batch distillation curve of a petroleum-derived fuel at atmospheric pressure [4]. A distillation curve obtained using the ASTM D86 method is commonly known as a D86 distillation curve.” (Page 468, col. 1, para. 2). The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is similar to the case of Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2v)). The process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment is also a well-known method as disclosed by Motard ("Steady state chemical process simulation." AIChE Journal 21.3 (1975): 417-436; as cited on the attached 892 form). Motard discloses “Several simulation programs are in routine use in service bureaus and largely within companies which have developed them. In the field of education they are used to teach process simulation, in support of teaching other sub-jects such as stoichiometry and unit operations, and in the preparation of design projects.” (section Scope, page 417, col. 2, para. 3). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to 35 USC §103 Remarks (09/08/2025, Pages 15-17 of remarks)
Applicant amended claims 1, 4 and 17.
Applicant’s arguments are based on amended claims. Applicant discusses Fig. 2 of Balabin. Applicant indicated that Balabin compares the results of pure gasoline with gasoline A + %5 v/v ethanol. Applicant states that Balabin does not teach the limitation of “…to predict a test distillation profile.” of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 15-17, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim amendments. As discussed above, Choudhury teaches the claim limitation of conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile with “Recent efforts have investigated the integration of model-based methodologies into a computer-aided framework as a chemical product design and evaluation software called the Virtual ProcessProduct Design Laboratory (VPPD-Lab) (Kalakul et al., 2015). VPPDLab allows users to; (1) analyze chemical-based products by performing virtual experiments (product property and performance calculations); (2) predict the properties of products; and (3) create new product property and product performance models when needed. However, unlike process simulators, VPPD-Lab can also be used directly for (4) design of chemicals based products using design templates for various types of products, such as single molecule products, formulations, blends, emulsions and devices; and, (5) to create new product design templates when the needed template for the desired product is not available. VPPD-Lab employs a suite of algorithms (such as database search, molecular and mixture blend design) and tool boxes (such as property calculations and property model consistency tests) for specific product property prediction, design, and/or analysis tasks. Within VPPD-Lab, the extended methodology of Yunus et al. (2014) has been implemented so that many blended chemical products can be designed and evaluated in terms of their target properties. The property models used for the design and evaluation of gasoline blends are given in Appendix. (page 586, col. 2, para. 2).
Response to 35 USC §101 Remarks (09/08/2025, Pages 10-15 of remarks)
Applicant amended claims 1, 4 and 17.
Applicant disagrees that claims 1, 4, and 17 recite an abstract idea of mental processes that could be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper under step 2A as discussed in the previous office action, page 6. Applicant discusses the McRO case where the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's finding of patent-ineligible subject matter. Applicant states that the claims are analogous to the rules-based claims found patent eligible in McRO. Applicant states that the claims recite highly specific rules and operations (in the form of "generate ... based on the first composition profile and predetermined distillation profile", "determining at least one calibrating parameter... such that the distillation model is calibrated to generate a first distillation profile ... as a function of ...,""apply the calibrated distillation model to a second composition profile," and "generate a second distillation profile as a function of ..." statements) that achieve an improved result in the technical field of "characterize[ing] distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent based fluid with at least one additive." Applicant further states that the claims are directed to enabling computers to produce the characterization of "distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent base fluid with at least one additive" using a method that would be highly impractical, if not practically impossible, to simulate by human means, and is not apparently currently practiced in any way. Applicant also states that the claims are directed to producing distillation characterization by "the use of rules, rather than" humans and cause a general purpose computer to be transformed into a distillation apparatus operable to determine a distillation profile of a mixture from (a) a base fluid composition profile, (b) a mixture composition profile, and (c) a predetermined distillation profile of the base fluid that is similar to McRO where the court emphasized that the computers were able to produce what previously could only be produced by human animators.
Applicant also disagrees that the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 17 equate to mere data gathering and outputting via generic computer components that do not comprise an inventive concept that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception as discussed in the previous office action, pages 9-10. Applicant discusses the EPG court case and states that it is in contrast to the recited operations of the claims. Applicant states that the claims change the character of the available information (from composition profiles and a predetermined distillation profile to a distillation model with calibrating parameter) that has utility in better "characteriz[ing] distillation attributes of a mixture." Applicant also states that the steps, when programmed onto a generic/conventional computer, transform the computer into a special purpose computer that provides functionality that no prior art reference is capable of achieving. Applicant disusses that the recited method is more than mere selection, collection, analysis, and display of information because the claims recite performing "operations ... to Automatically characterize distillation attributes of a mixture," the operations comprising:... (specific steps)" which generate and apply data, thereby transforming it into new data types (e.g., distillation models and distillation profiles). Applicant states that the steps of the claims amount to more than mere analysis, but "generate" and "apply" to transform any data gathered into highly valuable outputs that can be used in characterization of distillation attributes of a mixture. Applicant also argues that amended independent claims 1, 4, and 17 recite "conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile.,” further transforms the second distillation model by using it as a basis for a virtual distillation model to predict a test distillation
In response Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rules and operations indicated by Applicant equates to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").(See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In McRO, the court found that the claims use the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. As stated by the court “…the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which “any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119–20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177).”
In the case of the instant claims, it is not clear how the claimed invention improves over existing technology. Applicant states that the claimed invention provides an improved result in the technical field of "characterize[ing] distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent based fluid with at least one additive," which is a bare assertion of improvement because the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art are not provided. Also, it is not clear how one would gauge the improvement since there are no metrics for comparison between the claimed technology and previous technology. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot gauge whether the improvements asserted are delivered by the claims because the details provided in the specification do not provide sufficient details such that the improvement would be apparent, do not explain the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identify technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Furthermore, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Applicant mentions that claims recite limitations that transform the computer to into a distillation apparatus to obtain distillation profile. Applicant also mentions that the data is transformed into new data types. These arguments are not persuasive because the computer is used as a tool to perform an existing process via program instructions to analyze, evaluate and manipulate data to generate a distillation profile data as output, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). For data, mere 'manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic 'abstract idea',' has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
As discussed above in the 101 claims rejection section, the new claim limitation of "conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile” of independent claims 1, 4, and 17 amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer, which is similar to the case of Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2v)). Also, rhe process of conducting a virtual distillation experiment is a well-known method as disclosed by Motard ("Steady state chemical process simulation." AIChE Journal 21.3 (1975): 417-436; as cited on the attached 892 form). Motard discloses “Several simulation programs are in routine use in service bureaus and largely within companies which have developed them. In the field of education they are used to teach process simulation, in support of teaching other sub-jects such as stoichiometry and unit operations, and in the preparation of design projects.” (section Scope, page 417, col. 2, para. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balabin ("Quantitative measurement of ethanol distribution over Fractions of ethanol− gasoline fuel." Energy & fuels 21.4: 2460-2465, published 2007; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892), in view of Martinis (US 20190267116 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019; cited on the 03/01/2021 IDS Document) and Choudhury ("Integration of computational modeling and experimental techniques to design fuel surrogates." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55 (2018): 585-594; cited on the attached “Notice of References Cited” form 892).
Regarding independent claim 1, Balabin teaches the limitation of at least one additive comprising ethanol with Figure 2. Figure 2 depicts Distillation curves of pure gasoline A (black line) and gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol (gray line). (page 2462)
Balabin teaches the limitation of obtain a predetermined distillation profile corresponding to a predetermined fuel distillation protocol performed on the base fluid with “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria). These types of devices cannot be called the best for component separation, but their use is a standard in the petroleum and related industries. Their results are used for estimation of the quality of gasoline and other “light” petroleum products. So we have decided to use this type of device instead of any other (even more effective ones).” (Page 2461, col. 1, para. 4 to Page 2461, col. 2, para. 1) and “It was already found that the D-86 curve is similar to the TBP one, having a ‘plateau’ region in the ethanol-hydrocarbon azeotropes ‘region’. The ‘step change’ is now a ‘transition region’ due to the sloppy separation of the D-86. The D-86 for our gasoline-ethanol blends has three distinct regions: a plateau or azeotropic region, a transition region, and a dilution only region, as already observed by the authors of ref 1.” (Page 2463, col. 1, para. 2). The recited predetermined distillation profile corresponds to the D-86 curve of Balabin.
Balabin teaches the limitation of generate a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid with “Figure 5 gives a distribution of alcohol over different fractions of alcohol-gasoline composition.” (page 2463, col. 2, para. 3).
Balabin teaches the limitation of generate a distillation model corresponding to the predetermined fuel distillation protocol and based on the first composition profile and predetermined distillation profile by determining at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model such that the distillation model is calibrated to the predetermined distillation profile to generate a first distillation profile of the base fluid as a function of the first composition profile and the calibrating parameter with “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria). These types of devices cannot be called the best for component separation, but their use is a standard in the petroleum and related industries. Their results are used for estimation of the quality of gasoline and other “light” petroleum products. So we have decided to use this type of device instead of any other (even more effective ones).” (Page 2461, col. 1, para. 4 to Page 2461, col. 2, para. 1), “The unit was calibrated using model systems before actual fractions measurements. The following were used as such systems: two gasolines (Table 2) and three gasoline fractions with end point limits 37-50, 70-90, and 120-150 °C. Gasolines were provided by Astrakhangazprom (Russia) and the Yukos Oil Company (Russia).” (page 2462, col. 1, para. 5) and Figure 2. Distillation curve of pure gasoline A (black line) (Page 2462). The recited distillation model and protocol corresponds to ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria) as taught by Balabin. The recited first distillation profile corresponds to distillation curve of pure gasoline A of Fig. 2 as taught by Balabin.
Balabin teaches the limitation of apply the calibrated distillation model to a second composition profile of pure chemical components representing a mixture of the base fluid and the at least one additive to generate a second distillation profile as a function of the at least one calibrating parameter and the second composition profile with Figures 2-3 and 5. Figures 2-3 depict different distillation temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Figure 5 depicts different boiling point temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Figure 2. Distillation curve of gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol (gray line) (Page 2462) corresponds to the second distillation profile.
Balabin does not teach the claim limitation of A computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent hydrocarbon base fluid and determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components and conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile of claim 1. However, these limitations are taught by Martinis and Choudhury.
Martinis teaches the limitation a computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent hydrocarbon base fluid with “Disclosed are processes for improving the performance of a computer system operating a software program for calculating operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions.” (abstract) and “The first set of embodiments of the invention is a software system that improves the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system that is programmed to calculate, inter alia, operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing an additional program (herein termed Oil Speciation programs as described in paragraphs [0012] to [0051]) comprising a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions. Exemplary of the addition Oil Speciation program to the above described computer systems one that is capable of calculating a calculated hydrocarbon mixture obtained from predetermined analytical data” (Para. [0052]).
Martinis teaches the limitation of determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive, and, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components with “The first set of embodiments of the invention is a software system that improves the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system that is programmed to calculate, inter alia, operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing an additional program (herein termed Oil Speciation programs as described in paragraphs [0012] to [0051]) comprising a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions. Exemplary of the addition Oil Speciation program to the above described computer systems one that is capable of calculating a calculated hydrocarbon mixture obtained from predetermined analytical data comprising a) providing a compilation of identified chemical pure or compound species for which a Shannon entropy may be calculated marked with identifiers and including chemical and physical properties, wherein compound species comprise a compilation of related molecules in chemical equilibrium, wherein the compound species chemical and physical properties are computed by group contribution methods, and wherein the composition of each pure or compound species in the hydrocarbon mixture that maximizes a Shannon entropy of the compilation is calculated by determining the composition (Xi) of each compound or compound species that maximizes the Shannon entropy of the mixture, S, by a model that satisfies the equation and satisfies the constraints imposed by the application of mixing rules by the equation…” (Para. [0052]). The recited speciation rule corresponds to the Oil Speciation programs as taught by Martinis.
Choudhury teaches the claim limitation of conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile with “Recent efforts have investigated the integration of model-based methodologies into a computer-aided framework as a chemical product design and evaluation software called the Virtual ProcessProduct Design Laboratory (VPPD-Lab) (Kalakul et al., 2015). VPPDLab allows users to; (1) analyze chemical-based products by performing virtual experiments (product property and performance calculations); (2) predict the properties of products; and (3) create new product property and product performance models when needed. However, unlike process simulators, VPPD-Lab can also be used directly for (4) design of chemicals based products using design templates for various types of products, such as single molecule products, formulations, blends, emulsions and devices; and, (5) to create new product design templates when the needed template for the desired product is not available. VPPD-Lab employs a suite of algorithms (such as database search, molecular and mixture blend design) and tool boxes (such as property calculations and property model consistency tests) for specific product property prediction, design, and/or analysis tasks. Within VPPD-Lab, the extended methodology of Yunus et al. (2014) has been implemented so that many blended chemical products can be designed and evaluated in terms of their target properties. The property models used for the design and evaluation of gasoline blends are given in Appendix. (page 586, col. 2, para. 2).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Martinis. Martinis provides processes for improving the performance of a computer system operating a software program for calculating operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units system (Martinis, Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include a software program and a step for determining pure chemical components according to speciation rules as taught by Martinis to improve the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system for estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures (Martinis, para. [0052]). Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Martinis teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
It would have also been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Choudhury. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include performing virtual experiments and predicting the properties of products using VPPD-Lab as taught by Choudhury to efficiently verify the composition of gasoline and to evaluate the effectiveness of the model used. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Choudhury teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Regarding independent claims 4 and 17, Balabin teaches the limitation of at least one additive with Figure 2. Figure 2 depicts Distillation curves of pure gasoline A (black line) and gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol (gray line). (page 2462). The recited additive is ethanol as taught by Balabin.
Balabin teaches the limitation of obtain a predetermined distillation profile corresponding to a predetermined fuel distillation protocol performed on the base fluid with “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria). These types of devices cannot be called the best for component separation, but their use is a standard in the petroleum and related industries. Their results are used for estimation of the quality of gasoline and other “light” petroleum products. So we have decided to use this type of device instead of any other (even more effective ones).” (Page 2461, col. 1, para. 4 to Page 2461, col. 2, para. 1) and “It was already found that the D-86 curve is similar to the TBP one, having a ‘plateau’ region in the ethanol-hydrocarbon azeotropes ‘region’. The ‘step change’ is now a ‘transition region’ due to the sloppy separation of the D-86. The D-86 for our gasoline-ethanol blends has three distinct regions: a plateau or azeotropic region, a transition region, and a dilution only region, as already observed by the authors of ref 1.” (Page 2463, col. 1, para. 2). The recited predetermined distillation profile corresponds to the D-86 curve of Balabin.
Balabin teaches the limitation of obtain a first composition profile that defines pure chemical components representing the base fluid with “Figure 5 gives a distribution of alcohol over different fractions of alcohol-gasoline composition.” (page 2463, col. 2, para. 3) and Figure 5 gives a distribution of alcohol over different fractions of alcohol-gasoline composition. Black is gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol; gray is gasoline B + 5% v/v ethanol. (page 2464). Gasoline A of Balabin corresponds to the recited first composition profile.
Balabin teaches the limitation of generate a distillation model based on the first composition profile and predetermined distillation profile by determining at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model such that the distillation model is calibrated to the predetermined distillation profile to generate a first distillation profile of the base fluid as a function of the first composition profile and the calibrating parameter with “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria). These types of devices cannot be called the best for component separation, but their use is a standard in the petroleum and related industries. Their results are used for estimation of the quality of gasoline and other “light” petroleum products.” (Page 2461, col. 1, para. 4 to Page 2461, col. 2, para. 1), “The unit was calibrated using model systems before actual fractions measurements. The following were used as such systems: two gasolines (Table 2) and three gasoline fractions with end point limits 37-50, 70-90, and 120-150 °C. Gasolines were provided by Astrakhangazprom (Russia) and the Yukos Oil Company (Russia).” (page 2462, col. 1, para. 5) and Figure 2. Distillation curve of pure gasoline A (black line) (Page 2462). The recited distillation model and protocol corresponds to ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria) as taught by Balabin. The recited first distillation profile corresponds to distillation curve of pure gasoline A of Fig. 2 as taught by Balabin.
Balabin teaches the limitation of apply the calibrated distillation model to a second composition profile of pure chemical components representing a mixture of the base fluid and the at least one additive to generate a second distillation profile as a function of the at least one calibrating parameter and the second composition profile with Figures 2-3 and 5. Figures 2-3 depict different distillation temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Figure 5 depicts different boiling point temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Figure 2. Distillation curve of gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol (gray line) (Page 2462) corresponds to the second distillation profile.
Regarding claim 11, Balabin teaches the limitation of wherein generate a second distillation profile comprises, for a plurality of temperatures corresponding to the predetermined distillation profile, determining corresponding quantities of the mixture in a batch distillation process represented by the distillation model with Figures 2-3 and 5. Figures 2-3 depict different distillation temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Figure 5 depicts different boiling point temperatures for different ethanol-gasoline samples. Balabin teaches “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria).” (Page 2461, coil. 1, para. 4) that corresponds to the recited batch distillation process.
Regarding claim 13, Balabin teaches the limitation of the predetermined distillation profile corresponds to results of at least one experiment performed according to the ASTM D86 standard, and, the distillation model is configured to effect an electronically performed ASTM D86 experiment with “The distillation of alcohol-containing gasoline was performed in compliance with ASTM D 86 using manual distillation apparatus HDA 620 (HERZOR, Austria). These types of devices cannot be called the best for component separation, but their use is a standard in the petroleum and related industries. Their results are used for estimation of the quality of gasoline and other “light” petroleum products.” (Page 2461, col. 1, para. 4 to Page 2461, col. 2, para. 1) and “It was already found that the D-86 curve is similar to the TBP one, having a ‘plateau’ region in the ethanol-hydrocarbon azeotropes ‘region’. The ‘step change’ is now a ‘transition region’ due to the sloppy separation of the D-86. The D-86 for our gasoline-ethanol blends has three distinct regions: a plateau or azeotropic region, a transition region, and a dilution only region, as already observed by the authors of ref 1.” (Page 2463, col. 1, para. 2). The recited predetermined distillation profile corresponds to the D-86 curve of Balabin.
Regarding claim 14, Balabin teaches the limitation of wherein the first distillation profile and the second distillation profile represent results of the ASTM D86 experiment when electronically performed on the first composition profile and the second composition profile, respectively with Figure 2. Distillation curves of pure gasoline A (black line) and gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol (gray line). (Page 2462)
Regarding claim 15, Balabin teaches the limitation of wherein the first composition profile comprises hydrocarbon molecules with Figure 5 gives a distribution of alcohol over different fractions of alcohol-gasoline composition. Black is gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol; gray is gasoline B + 5% v/v ethanol. (page 2464). Gasoline A of Balabin corresponds to the recited first composition profile.
Regarding claim 16, Balabin teaches the limitation of wherein the second composition profile comprises alcohol molecules with Figure 5 gives a distribution of alcohol over different fractions of alcohol-gasoline composition. Black is gasoline A + 5% v/v ethanol; gray is gasoline B + 5% v/v ethanol. (page 2464). Gasoline B of Balabin corresponds to the recited second composition profile.
Balabin does not teach the limitation a computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent hydrocarbon base fluid of independent claim 4, a computer-implemented method of independent claim 17, conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile of both independent claims 4 and 17 and generate the first composition profile, comprising: determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive; and, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components of claims 8 and 20. However, Martinis and Choudhury teach these limitations.
Martinis teaches the limitation a computer program product comprising: a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically characterize distillation attributes of a mixture of a multicomponent hydrocarbon base fluid of claim 4 and a computer-implemented method of claim 17 with “Disclosed are processes for improving the performance of a computer system operating a software program for calculating operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions.” (abstract) and “The first set of embodiments of the invention is a software system that improves the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system that is programmed to calculate, inter alia, operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing an additional program (herein termed Oil Speciation programs as described in paragraphs [0012] to [0051]) comprising a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions. Exemplary of the addition Oil Speciation program to the above described computer systems one that is capable of calculating a calculated hydrocarbon mixture obtained from predetermined analytical data” (Para. [0052]).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Martinis teaches the limitation of generate the first composition profile, comprising: determine, according to predetermined speciation rules, a plurality of pure chemical components having predetermined thermodynamic interaction parameters with the at least one additive; and, determine a relative amount of each of the plurality of pure chemical components with “The first set of embodiments of the invention is a software system that improves the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system that is programmed to calculate, inter alia, operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units by providing an additional program (herein termed Oil Speciation programs as described in paragraphs [0012] to [0051]) comprising a method of estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures such as petroleum fractions. Exemplary of the addition Oil Speciation program to the above described computer systems one that is capable of calculating a calculated hydrocarbon mixture obtained from predetermined analytical data” (Para. [0052]). The recited speciation rule corresponds to the Oil Speciation programs as taught by Martinis.
Choudhury teaches the claim limitation of conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile with “Recent efforts have investigated the integration of model-based methodologies into a computer-aided framework as a chemical product design and evaluation software called the Virtual ProcessProduct Design Laboratory (VPPD-Lab) (Kalakul et al., 2015). VPPDLab allows users to; (1) analyze chemical-based products by performing virtual experiments (product property and performance calculations); (2) predict the properties of products; and (3) create new product property and product performance models when needed. However, unlike process simulators, VPPD-Lab can also be used directly for (4) design of chemicals based products using design templates for various types of products, such as single molecule products, formulations, blends, emulsions and devices; and, (5) to create new product design templates when the needed template for the desired product is not available. VPPD-Lab employs a suite of algorithms (such as database search, molecular and mixture blend design) and tool boxes (such as property calculations and property model consistency tests) for specific product property prediction, design, and/or analysis tasks. Within VPPD-Lab, the extended methodology of Yunus et al. (2014) has been implemented so that many blended chemical products can be designed and evaluated in terms of their target properties. The property models used for the design and evaluation of gasoline blends are given in Appendix. (page 586, col. 2, para. 2).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Martinis. Martinis provides processes for improving the performance of a computer system operating a software program for calculating operating parameters and results of hydrocarbon processing units system (Martinis, Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include a software program and a step for determining pure chemical components according to speciation rules as taught by Martinis to improve the operation, adequacy and efficiency of a computer system for estimating and consolidating molecular composition components and properties of hydrocarbon mixtures (Martinis, para. [0052]). Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Martinis teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
It would have also been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Choudhury. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include performing virtual experiments and predicting the properties of products using VPPD-Lab as taught by Choudhury to efficiently verify the composition of gasoline and to evaluate the effectiveness of the model used. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Choudhury teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balabin ("Quantitative measurement of ethanol distribution over Fractions of ethanol− gasoline fuel." Energy & fuels 21.4: 2460-2465, published 2007; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892), in view of Martinis (US 20190267116 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019; cited on the 03/01/2021 IDS Document) and Choudhury ("Integration of computational modeling and experimental techniques to design fuel surrogates." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55 (2018): 585-594; cited on the attached “Notice of References Cited” form 892) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 above and further in view of Matsuda ("Heat and mass transfer of internally heat integrated distillation column (HIDiC)." Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute 58.4: 189-196, published 2015; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892).
Balabin, Martinis and Choudhury are applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 as discussed above.
Balabin does not teach wherein the at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model is a reflux ratio profile determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile of claims 2, 5 and 18, wherein the at least one parameter of the distillation model is a heat transfer coefficient determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile of claims 3, 7 and 19 and wherein the reflux ratio profile comprises a plurality of reflux ratios and corresponding quantity metric values of claim 6. However, these limitations are taught by Matsuda.
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 18, Matsuda teaches the limitation of wherein the at least one calibrating parameter of the distillation model is a reflux ratio profile determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile with Figures 9 and 10 show the effects of the reflux ratio on the composition and the flow rate of the HIDiC, respectively and Figure 11 depicts the effect of the reflux ratio on the temperature difference between the rectifying and the stripping section. (Page 194).
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 19, Matsuda teaches the limitation of wherein the at least one parameter of the distillation model is a heat transfer coefficient determined from the predetermined distillation profile such that a plurality of temperature-quantity points in the first distillation profile are within a predetermined threshold of corresponding temperature- quantity points in the predetermined distillation profile with “To obtain the heat transfer coefficients for the internal heat exchange of the HIDiC, the Chilton-Colburn analogy was employed in the model.” (Page 191, col. 1, para. 4), “Figure 7 shows the profile of the heat transfer coefficient for the liquid phase.” (Page 191, col. 2, para. 4) and “According to the results, the overall heat transfer coefficient for the internal heat exchange of the HIDiC was calculated based on the temperature difference of the bulk liquid between the rectifying and stripping sections.” (Page 191, col. 2, para. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda teaches the limitation of wherein the reflux ratio profile comprises a plurality of reflux ratios and corresponding quantity metric values with Figures 9 and 10 show the effects of the reflux ratio on the composition and the flow rate of the HIDiC, respectively and Figure 11 depicts the effect of the reflux ratio on the temperature difference between the rectifying and the stripping section. (Page 194).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Matsuda. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include the distillation parameter of a heat transfer coefficient as taught by Matsuda to better analyze the separation process of hydrocarbon mixtures during distillation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to modify Balabin to include the distillation parameter of a reflux ratio as taught by Matsuda to better analyze the composition profile of the hydrocarbon mixture since the profile is influenced by the reflux ratio as seen in Fig. 9 (Matsuda, page 193). Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Matsuda teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balabin ("Quantitative measurement of ethanol distribution over Fractions of ethanol− gasoline fuel." Energy & fuels 21.4: 2460-2465, published 2007; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892), in view of Martinis (US 20190267116 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019; cited on the 03/01/2021 IDS Document) and Choudhury ("Integration of computational modeling and experimental techniques to design fuel surrogates." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55 (2018): 585-594; cited on the attached “Notice of References Cited” form 892) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 above and further in view of Kahl ("Interfacial properties of binary mixtures." Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 4.6: 931-936. published 2002; cited on the 06/04/2025 Notice of References Cited form 892).
Balabin, Martinis and Choudhury are applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 as discussed above.
Balabin does not teach wherein the thermodynamic interaction parameters comprise binary interaction parameters of claim 9. However, this limitation is taught by Kahl.
Regarding claim 9, Kahl teaches the limitation of wherein the thermodynamic interaction parameters comprise binary interaction parameters with “Using experimental VLE data given in the literature the binary interaction parameter, kAB, were estimated.” (Page 933, col. 2, para. 2).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Kahl. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include binary interaction parameters as taught by Kahl to better model the phase equilibrium of hydrocarbon mixtures during distillation. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Kahl teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balabin ("Quantitative measurement of ethanol distribution over Fractions of ethanol− gasoline fuel." Energy & fuels 21.4: 2460-2465, published 2007; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892), in view of Martinis (US 20190267116 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019; cited on the 03/01/2021 IDS Document) and Choudhury ("Integration of computational modeling and experimental techniques to design fuel surrogates." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55 (2018): 585-594; cited on the attached “Notice of References Cited” form 892) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 above and further in view of Gothard ("Predicting the parameters in the Wilson equations for activity coefficients in binary hydrocarbon systems." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 15.2: 333-337, published 1976; cited on the 06/04/2025 Notice of References Cited form 892).
Balabin, Martinis and Choudhury are applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 as discussed above.
Balabin does not teach wherein the thermodynamic interaction parameters correspond to parameters of an activity coefficient model of claim 10. However, this limitation is taught by Gothard.
Regarding claim 10, Gothard teaches the limitation of wherein the thermodynamic interaction parameters correspond to parameters of an activity coefficient model with “The interaction energy differences obtained by correlating 53 binary liquid-vapor equilibrium data sets for hydrocarbon systems by use of the Wilson equations for activity coefficients are related by a second-degree equation which leads to a new one-parameter form of the Wilson equations. Both interaction energy differences may be expressed in terms of the absolute values of the differences in the solubility parameters of the components, and thus a new way is proposed for predicting activity coefficients and liquid-vapor equilibria in binary and multicomponent systems by use of the properties (solubility parameters) of the pure components. The equilibrium constants predicted by the proposed correlations are in closer agreement with those obtained from experimental liquid-vapor equilibrium data in comparison with the constants predicted by the Chao-Seader or Grayson-Streed methods.” (abstract).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Gothard. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include the thermodynamic interaction parameter of an activity coefficient as taught by Gothard to better analyze the liquid-vapor equilibrium of hydrocarbon mixtures during distillation. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Gothard teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balabin ("Quantitative measurement of ethanol distribution over Fractions of ethanol− gasoline fuel." Energy & fuels 21.4: 2460-2465, published 2007; cited on the 06/04/2025 “Notice of References Cited” form 892), in view of Martinis (US 20190267116 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019; cited on the 03/01/2021 IDS Document) and Choudhury ("Integration of computational modeling and experimental techniques to design fuel surrogates." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55 (2018): 585-594; cited on the attached “Notice of References Cited” form 892) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 above and further in view of Ferris ("Methodology for the experimental measurement of vapor–liquid equilibrium distillation curves using a modified ASTM D86 setup." Fuel 182: 467-479, published 2016; cited on the 06/04/2025 Notice of References Cited form 892).
Balabin, Martinis and Choudhury are applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13-17 and 20 as discussed above.
Balabin does not teach wherein generate a second distillation profile comprises, for a range of time in a distillation process represented by the distillation model, determining corresponding quantity and temperature relationships of the mixture in the distillation processof claim 12. However, this limitation is taught by Ferris.
Regarding claim 12, Ferris teaches the limitation of wherein generate a second distillation profile comprises, for a range of time in a distillation process represented by the distillation model, determining corresponding quantity and temperature relationships of the mixture in the distillation process with Figures 3 and 4. Fig. 3 depicts Time-resolved vapor and liquid temperature with D86 distillation curve and vapor rise indicators (50/50 n-decane/n-tetradecane mixture) (Page 471) and Fig. 4. depicts Subset of time-resolved liquid temperature data showing location of calculated IBP and observed vapor rise out of flask bulb (50/50 n-decane/n-tetradecane mixture). Line thickness for liquid temperature indicates approximate temperature uncertainty (Page 472).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balabin and Ferris. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Balabin to include a range of time for distillation profiles as taught by Ferris to better analyze the distillation of hydrocarbon mixtures and to identify the true initial boiling point. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since Balabin and Ferris teach methods that pertain to the analysis of hydrocarbon properties.
Response to 35 USC §103 Remarks (09/08/2025, Pages 15-17 of remarks)
Applicant amended claims 1, 4 and 17.
Applicant’s arguments are based on amended claims. Applicant discusses Fig. 2 of Balabin. Applicant indicated that Balabin compares the results of pure gasoline with gasoline A + %5 v/v ethanol. Applicant states that Balabin does not teach the limitation of “…to predict a test distillation profile.” of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 15-17, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim amendments. As discussed above, Choudhury teaches the claim limitation of conduct, using the second distillation model, a virtual distillation experiment to predict a test distillation profile with “Recent efforts have investigated the integration of model-based methodologies into a computer-aided framework as a chemical product design and evaluation software called the Virtual ProcessProduct Design Laboratory (VPPD-Lab) (Kalakul et al., 2015). VPPDLab allows users to; (1) analyze chemical-based products by performing virtual experiments (product property and performance calculations); (2) predict the properties of products; and (3) create new product property and product performance models when needed. However, unlike process simulators, VPPD-Lab can also be used directly for (4) design of chemicals based products using design templates for various types of products, such as single molecule products, formulations, blends, emulsions and devices; and, (5) to create new product design templates when the needed template for the desired product is not available. VPPD-Lab employs a suite of algorithms (such as database search, molecular and mixture blend design) and tool boxes (such as property calculations and property model consistency tests) for specific product property prediction, design, and/or analysis tasks. Within VPPD-Lab, the extended methodology of Yunus et al. (2014) has been implemented so that many blended chemical products can be designed and evaluated in terms of their target properties. The property models used for the design and evaluation of gasoline blends are given in Appendix. (page 586, col. 2, para. 2).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KETTIP KRIANGCHAIVECH whose telephone number is (571)272-1735. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm EDT.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights