The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-2, 5, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical concept for determining the ratio of particulates in the atmosphere from a high temperature combustion origin and low-temperature combustion origin using logical equations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional steps are directed to quantifying the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmosphere using a detector which are known data gathering techniques as evidenced by the Tang paper (Atmospheric Environment 2005). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the end result of the process is a number that represents the ratio between particulates that are derived from a high temperature combustion source and a low temperature combustion source. However, nothing is done with the number after it is obtained. The additional steps are simply those needed to obtain the data to input into the abstract idea. As indicated above they are known and routinely used by those of skill in the art.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 requires that the ratio of combustion derived particulates in the air is identified using logical equations derived in advance which uses the amount one or more types of first and second polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons corresponding to all types of the first and second polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons respectively contained in pre-quantified particulates derived from a high temperature combustion facility and a low temperature combustion facility and the amount of one or more types of third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons corresponding to all types of said third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the particulates in the atmosphere obtained in a quantifying step. In other words, the claim appears to identify a source for atmospheric particulates based on ratios between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons quantified in particulates from different combustion sources. In particular the sources are placed in two groupings: high temperature combustion sources and low temperature combustion sources. Paragraphs [0022] and [0023] identify the high temperature sources as diesel and gasoline engines with combustion temperatures above 2000 °C and the low temperature sources as stoves and fires with combustion temperatures below 2000 °C.
In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
With respect to the breadth of the claims Wands factor, claim 1 uses one or more types of first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that correspond to the respective first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the quantifying step. The claim does not set any restrictions on the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons so that the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with their respective nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can be the same or different. In other words, the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could all be a single polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (e.g. pyrene as in the instant examples) or the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could each be one or more types in which at least one of the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons includes a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon type that is different to each of the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons having different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. each of the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including pyrene with the first polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons also including fluorene). While there might be some expectation that using the same one or more types of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for each of the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could produce a reasonable/useable result/calculation any difference polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that make up the first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons would be seen as introducing error into any calculation and/or reducing the accuracy of the calculation.
With respect to the nature of the invention wands factor, the accuracy of this method is based on two fundamental assumptions. First, the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in pre-quantified particulates derived from different combustion sources are representative of the sources they were intended to represent. Second, there is a consistent distinguishable/measurable difference between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the different sources that is not dependent on other factors such as fuel type. For example, with respect to the first assumption, for applicant’s high temperature sources, applicant is using a diesel engine as the source to derive the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in pre-quantified particulates. Since there are alternative sources, the assumption is that particulates from the diesel data will contain similar relative amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons so that there will not be a significant difference in the values determined using from a sample that is made up of mostly particulates from a diesel engine source and a sample made mostly from particulates from a gasoline engine source. If that is the case, then the distribution of gasoline engines and diesel engines producing particulates won’t matter. If, on the other hand, the particulates produced by a gasoline engine and a diesel engine differ significantly, then using pre-quantified diesel particulate data to represent both diesel and gasoline engine produced particulates will lead to errors. In this respect, examiner points to the previously cited Liu paper (Science of the Total Environment 2017). In the paper, the authors looked at sources and spatial distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Shanghai, China. In their study, they modeled their data using five different recognized combustion particulate sources: biomass burning (e.g., crop straw and wood), gasoline engine emission, Coking & Petrogenic (industrial combustion and process, e.g., coke oven emission), diesel engine emission and coal combustion. The fact that they separated gasoline engine sources from diesel engine sources is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered a diesel emission source as a valid representation of all significant emission sources covered by the high temperature emission source as defined by the instant disclosure. Figure 6 of the Liu paper gives a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon profile for each of the different sources. Relative to the instant issue, a look at the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon profiles of gasoline engine emissions and diesel engine emissions clearly shows that there are significant differences between the particulate composition profiles. The differences are so large that using most of the measured compounds alone or in combination with other measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the equations described in the instant disclosure would not be expected to produce accurate/valid results.
With respect to the second assumption, this method has several problems with enablement. The first problem is that the type of fuel being burned can have an effect on the ratios between individual components within the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well as the total amounts. For example, tables 3 and 4 of the cited Yang paper (Environmental Pollution 2017) show that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons vary significantly when different fuel types are combusted in a stove. Table 3 in the cited Oanh paper (Environmental Science and Technology 1999) shows a similar result for different PAHs. In other words, the type of fuel being burned would have been expected to alter ratios between the nitro-PAH and the PAH. This points to a lack of an expectation of obtaining an accurate/valid response when one uses diesel engine particulate data to model gasoline engine particulate data and/or a mixture of gasoline and diesel engine particulates.
An additional problem with the second assumption is that the type and/or amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons change over time. The cited Kim paper (Chemosphere 2009) investigated the disappearance rates under environmental (simulated sunlight) aging conditions and to examine the robustness of diagnostic ratios for PAH source apportionment. They determined that due to differences in disappearance rates of individual PAHs under illumination over extended times, prolonged exposure to sunlight could change the interpretation of some diagnostic ratios used previously for PAH source identification. This result indicates that more consistent and accurate methods that take into consideration the longevity of particulate PAHs are needed for reliable source apportionment. Also see the newly cited Li paper (Atmospheric Environment. Part A. General Topics 1993) which included a factor for such a change into the calculations they performed.
Along the same lines, the cited Katsoyiannis paper (Environmental Pollution 2014) looked at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecular diagnostic ratios (MDRs). These are unitless concentration ratios of pair-PAHs with the same molecular weight (MW); MDRs have long been used as a tool for PAHs source identification purposes. The efficiency of the MDR methodology was evaluated through the use of a multimedia fate model, the calculation of characteristic travel distances (CTD) and the estimation of air concentrations for individual PAHs as a function of distance from an initial point source. The results show that PAHs with the same MW are sometimes characterized by substantially different CTDs and therefore their air concentrations and hence MDRs are predicted to change as the distance from the original source increases. From the assessed pair-PAHs, the biggest CTD difference is seen for Fluoranthene (107 km) vs. Pyrene (26 km). This study provides a strong indication that MDRs are of limited use as a source identification tool.
The cited Fan paper (Environmental Science and Technology 1996) investigated the photostability of particle-associated nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (NPAH) under natural sunlight. Deuterated and native NPAH along with diesel exhaust or wood smoke particles were added to a 190-m3 outdoor smog chamber and permitted to age under sunlight in cold and warm temperatures. Ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile hydrocarbons in the gas phase were monitored. A sampling train consisting of an annular denuder filter plus another denuder was used for the collection of gas- and particle-phase PAH and NPAH. Rapid degradation of deuterated and native NPAH was observed in sunlight, over a temperature range of -19 to +38 °C. Deuterated 1-nitropyrene (d9-1NP) displayed the same behavior as native 1-nitropyrene (1NP), which indicated that it was reasonable to use deuterated NPAH as substitutes for native NPAH. The photolysis rate of NPAH was referenced to the NO2 photolysis rate in order to relate the observed decay of NPAH to the changing solar radiation. To model the decay of NPAH on diesel particles, an average rate constant of kNPAH = (0.04 ± 0.01) X kNO2 was used for nitropyrenes (NPs), and an average rate of kNPAH = (0.025 ± 0.005) X kNO2 was needed to model the behavior of nitrofluoranthenes (NFs). A higher rate, kNPAH = (0.050 ± 0.005) X kNO2, was needed to model the decay of NFs and NPs decay on wood smoke. A photolysis rate of NO2 (kNO2 = 8.3 X 10-3s-1) at noon on June 15, 1994, gave half-lives of 0.8 h for 1NP and 2-nitropyrene (2NP) and 1.2 h for 2-nitrofluoranthene (2NF), d9-3-, and d9-8-nitrofluoranthene (d9-3NF and d9-8NF) on diesel soot particles. The half-life was 0.5 h for d9-1NP, d9-3NF, and d9-8NF on wood soot particles. These results showed that photodecay was the main loss pathway for NPAH on diesel soot and wood smoke and that photodecomposition of NPAH was dependent on the solar radiation and the chemical and physical properties of the substrates. Thus sunlight and the particulate composition variably affect the photodecay of nitro-PAH. This photodecay rate appears to be different from the PAH photodecay reported by cited Kim as discussed above. Thus similar to the finding of Katsoyiannis this study in combination with the cited Kim paper provides a strong indication that PAH/nitro-PAH ratios are of limited use as a source identification tool.
As an additional factor for the second assumption, the Watanabe paper (Environmental Science and Technology 2009) investigated the influence of combustion temperature on the formation of nitro-PAHs and decomposition and removal behavior in a pilot scale waste incinerator. Table 1 of the paper shows the results for different temperatures that are solidly within the low temperature combustion range. When looking at the table, it is clear that the two nitronaphthalenes behave differently as they proceed through the incinerator. While at the kiln exit, the respective concentrations at the three temperatures are similar, at each subsequent measurement location the concentration of 2-nitronaphthalene is at least a factor of 2 smaller than the concentration of 1-nitronaphthalene. This would clearly affect any ratio between these two compounds and the PAH naphthalene. Looking at the amounts of pyrene and 1-nitropyrene at the kiln exit, the following pyrene/1-nitropyrene ratios were obtained respectively at combustion temperatures of 690 °C, 790 °C and 890 °C: 64000/21 (3048); 8400/33 (254.5) and 5200/19 (273.7). If one looks at the biphenyl/3-nitro-PAH ratio at the kiln exit for the same three temperatures, one gets ratios of 72000/10 (7200); 8400/2.3 (3652) and 4200/1.1 (3818) respectively. If one looks at the total PAH/total nitrobiphenyl ratio at the kiln exit for the same three temperatures, one gets ratios of 1300000/360 (3611); 200000/140 (1429) and 93000/51 (1824) respectively. When one looks at the total PAH/total nitrobiphenyl ratio at the final exit for the same three temperatures, one gets ratios of 83/0.032 (2594); 72/0.024 (3000) and 37/0.026 (1423) respectively. From this it is clearly evident that combustion temperature in this low temperature combustion system and how the particulates and/or gas is treated after combustion can significantly affect the measured ratio even though the fuel input did not change.
The cited Hu (Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2013) and Mitchell (SAE Transactions 1994) papers looked at diesel engine emissions and in particular those emissions with after treatments. Of note is the fact that the aftertreatment in Mitchell increased the amount of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons while reducing the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Of note in the Hu reference is that the different aftertreatments significantly reduced the amount of particulate emissions. In other words, if the diesel engine has some form of emission aftertreatment there can be a significant shift in the relative amounts of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or in the actual amount of particulate emissions. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art may not expect the composition of particulate nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from an untreated diesel engine to be a sufficient model for the composition of particulate of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a treated diesel engine based on the shift on emission concentrations as taught by Mitchell. Thus if the area being sampled includes a significant number of treated diesel engine sources the use of an untreated diesel engine source would not have been expected to produce reliable results.
The above cited references give a fair example of the state of the prior art and the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Wands factors.
With respect to the predictability level of predictability in the art Wands factor, the variability of the combustion process to factors such as fuel type, combustion temperature and/or exhaust aftertreatment in combination with the variable photodecay of both PAH and nitro-PAH would lead one to question the validity of any ratio between the total PAH and the total nitro-PAH or any of the respective components as a means of identifying a source of the particles.
With respect to the amount of direction provided by the inventor and the existence of a working example, it is true that the instant disclosure provides a working example and the logical equations that were used by the inventor. However the claims are not limited to the specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in the provided example as noted above or the specific equations used in the quantifying step. Furthermore, the example given is uses an actual real world atmospheric sample with no information/knowledge of the actual ratio of the particulates from the two sources. Thus, there is no ability to test the actual accuracy of the result. In order to test the accuracy of the claimed invention, one would need to set up a system in which exhaust/emissions from different sources can be sample under controlled conditions and see how well the instantly claimed/exemplified method can predict the actual ratio of particulates when variables such as the fuel type and/or engine type changes. For example, one would need a system in which exhaust from one and preferably 2 sources from each of the high and low temperature combustion sources can be mixed under controlled conditions and samples of both the individual and mixed exhaust sampled to check the accuracy of the claimed/exemplified invention. Thus there is a significant amount of experimentation needed to verify that the claimed/exemplified invention is actually reliable/usable for its intended purpose.
This evidence clearly show that the currently claimed invention is not enabled.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, the relationship between the one or more types of first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is not clear. At this point the claim covers a scope that includes each of them being the same polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon(s), each of them being a combination of different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and any combination between the two extremes. For examination purposes examiner will not place any limitation on the relationship between the one or more types of first, second and third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Additionally, with respect to claim 1, the newly cited Guidi (polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2012) and Wang (Journal of Hazardous Materials 2016) papers looked at and found differences in the polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons depending on the size of the particulates being sampled. Examiner calculated/checked the pyrene/nitropyrene ratio from the data in Table S1 of the Wang paper and found differences in those ratios that also were present in the different sized particulates. Based on that, it is not clear if there is a needed to specify either the particulate size and/or the collection process to not incorporate errors based on the use of different ratios based on collecting different particles for the data used for the first, second and/or third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Claims 8-9 are dependent from canceled claims 3-4 respectively. Since antecedent basis is available in claim 1, they will be treated as dependent from claim 1 for examination purposes. With respect to claim 16, perylene does not have antecedent basis in the Markush group of claim 14. Since the pyrene/nitropyrene combination rather than the perylene/nitroperylene combination is exemplified in the working example of the instant specification, it is not clear if applicant actually intended to claim the pyrene/nitropyrene combination and the perylene/nitroperylene combination is a typographical error or if the perylene/nitroperylene combination was the intended combination. Due to the above question, examiner will treat claim 16 as possibly claiming either combination. Examiner notes that instant paragraph [0063] which forms the antecedent for claim 16, appears to be an incorrect translation of paragraph [0063] of the PCT publication (WO 2020/217543). Examiner further notes that claim 16 in the PCT publication also appears to claim the pyrene/nitropyrene combination rather than the perylene/nitroperylene combination. All other claims are dependent from at least one of the above claims and include at least one of the issues of the claim(s) from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (Atmospheric Environment 2005) in view of Li (Atmospheric Environment 1993, newly cited and applied). In the paper Tang studied polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban air particulates and their relationship to emission sources in the Pan–Japan Sea countries. Airborne particulates were collected in seven cities in the Pan–Japan Sea countries, Shenyang (China), Vladivostok (Russia), Seoul (South Korea), Kitakyushu, Kanazawa, Tokyo and Sapporo (Japan), in winter and summer from 1997 to 2002. In addition, particulates from domestic coal-burning heaters and diesel engine automobiles were collected in Shenyang and Kanazawa, respectively. Nine polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and four nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (NPAHs) in the extracts from the particulates were analysed by HPLC with fluorescence and chemiluminescence detections, respectively. The PAHs were fluoranthene, pyrene (Pyr), benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and NPAHs were 1,3-, 1,6-, 1,8-dinitropyrenes, and 1-nitropyrene (1-NP). Mean atmospheric concentrations of PAHs in Shenyang and Vladivostok were substantially higher than those in Seoul, Tokyo, Sapporo, Kitakyushu and Kanazawa. However, the mean atmospheric concentrations of NPAHs were at the same levels in all cities except Kitakyushu. The expected seasonal variations (greater PAH and NPAH concentrations in winter than in summer) were observed in all cities. In order to study the major contributors of atmospheric PAHs and NPAHs, both cluster analysis and factor analysis were used and three large clusters were identified. Furthermore, the concentration ratios of 1-NP to Pyr were significantly smaller in Shenyang, Vladivostok and Kitakyushu and the values were close to those observed in particulates from coal stove exhaust. By contrast, in Seoul, Kanazawa, Tokyo and Sapporo the [1-NP]/[Pyr] ratio reached values similar to those of particulates released from diesel-engine automobiles. The [1-NP]/[Pyr] concentration ratio seemed to be a suitable indicator of the contribution made by diesel-engine vehicles and coal combustion to urban air particulates. With respect to claim 1, Tang teaches a method of identifying the ratio of high-temperature combustion origin and low-temperature combustion origin for the generation sources of particulates in the atmosphere (see at least the abstract, the concentration ratios of 1-NP to Pyr were significantly smaller in Shenyang, Vladivostok and Kitakyushu and the values were close to those observed in particulates from coal stove exhaust . . . in Seoul, Kanazawa, Tokyo and Sapporo the [1-NP]/[Pyr] ratio reached values similar to those of particulates released from diesel-engine automobiles), comprising the steps of: quantifying using a detector the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in particulates in the atmosphere (see at least table 2 and the experimental section of the paper); and identifying and outputting the ratio of combustion-derived particulates in the atmosphere using logical equations derived in advance, which use the amount of one or more types of first polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons corresponding to all types of said first polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in pre-quantified particulates derived from a high-temperature combustion facility (see at least the abstract and table 3); the amount of one or more types of second polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons corresponding to all types of said second polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in pre-quantified particulates derived from a low-temperature combustion facility (see at least the abstract and table 3); and the amount of one or more types of third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons corresponding to all types of said third polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the particulates in the atmosphere obtained in the step of quantifying (see at least the abstract, tables 5-6 and section 3.4 of the paper). With respect to claim 1, Tang does not teach what logical equations derived in advance to come to the conclusions they made using the [1-NP]/[Pyr] ratio.
In the paper Li teaches using polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as source signatures in receptor modeling, The purpose of their study was to explore the use of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) as organic tracers and to demonstrate how their atmospheric chemical reactivity can be incorporated into a chemical mass balance (CMB) model. PAH signatures were characterized for three combustion sources; residential wood combustion, gasoline spark ignition emissions and diesel engine emissions. The ability to source-differentiate using PAH signatures was tested with a numerical simulation program. Signatures with nine different PAH ranging from benzanthracene to coronene and two smaller groups with four PAH were used. Normalized PAH signatures gave better results than un-normalized signatures. It was possible to distinguish between three sources when a minor source contributed more than 10% of the total. The resulting CMB model was evaluated with ambient data from three different studies for which PAH data existed, and receptor modeling had been undertaken using other tracers. Very reasonable results were obtained. PAH reactivity can strongly influence predicted source contributions under warm daytime conditions. The second full paragraph on page 524 describes their approach as using a standard CMB model, using the "effective variance weighted" regression method as recommended by the U.S. EPA to compute the relative contributions of different combustion sources to a receptor site. Chemical mass balance methods identify aerosol sources by comparing ambient chemical patterns, or fingerprints, with the source chemical patterns. From the viewpoint of the receptor model, conservation of mass between sources and receptors is assumed, and the total mass of a given element, like ammonium, sulfate or nitrate, is the linear sum of the masses of that individual specie which arrive at the receptor from each source. The total mass concentration of specie i measured on a filter sample at a receptor site is expressed mathematically as equation/formula (1) (a set of logical equations derived in advance) in which Ci is the mass concentration of specie i. Sj is the particulate mass contributed by source j at a receptor site, Fij is the fraction of specie i from source j observed at receptor Ci and Ei represents random errors in the measurement of Ci and Fij, or unaccounted-for sources. The following paragraph on page 524 describes the modification to the mass balance equation (equation/formula (1)) to include concentration degradation a in which aij is the decay factor of compound i for source j. Table 1 gives source PAH signatures for the three sources being modeled. Table 3 presents normalized signature from the three sources based on three different groupings of at least some of the measured PAH. Table 10 give percentages of the three sources for some literature data using the signatures of the three sources. The paragraph bridging pages 531-532 teaches that the results from three case studies indicate that the method of using normalized PAH source signatures provided a reasonable source pattern for differentiation of combustion sources. The characterized source patterns and PAH atmospheric reactivities are two essential parameters. The observed model performance, suggests that reasonable predictions can be made, even when specific PAH regional source signatures are not available. PAH reactivity can influence predicted source contributions under certain conditions. For example, under conditions of good sunlight, including PAH reactivity gave a much higher contribution of gasoline emissions to the observed particulate concentration (11.1 vs 6.8 µgm-3), compared to not using PAH reactivity. Reactivity was not as important under cold wintertime conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use logical equations such as the CMB equations of Li in the Tang process because of their ability to provide reliable results based on source fingerprints for significant contributors of environmental particulates.
With respect to claim 5, Tang recommends that the concentration of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, concentration of the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, and quantitative ratio of the concentrations as an appropriate indicator of the contribution made by diesel-engine vehicles and coal combustion to urban air particulates. Thus modification of Tang by Li would have used these same concentrations and/or concentration ratios to produce the chemical mass balance based logical equations. With respect to claim 8 both Tang and Li teach that the high-temperature combustion facility is a gasoline engine or a diesel engine. With respect to claim 9, Tang teaches that the low-temperature combustion facility is a coal boiler or a coal stove. With respect to claims 10 and 11, Tang teaches that the one or more types of third polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is the same as the one or more first polvcyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons derived from a high-temperature combustion facility or said one or more second polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons derived from a low-temperature combustion facility. With respect to claims 14-16, Tang teaches that the [1-NP]/[Pyr] concentration ratio seemed to be a suitable indicator of the contribution made by diesel-engine vehicles and coal combustion to urban air particulates. With respect to claim 17, section 2.4 of Tang teaches that quantifying the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the particulates in the atmosphere is carried out through fluorescence analysis and chemiluminescence analysis.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed July 21, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 7-11 and 14-18 based upon 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the last Office action because of the following reasons. As an initial observation, the declaration did not provide and/or point to evidence in the instant disclosure to support the statements being made. Relative to the fuel type effects, the instant claims cover determining the ratio of particulates from high temperature and low temperature sources based on data from a single polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and a single nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in which the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is required to be derived from the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon being used. The polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could be pyrene and a nitropyrene as in the instant examples. Alternatively, the polycyclic hydrocarbon for the high temperature combustion source could be pyrene, the polycyclic aromatic carbon for the low temperature combustion source could be fluorene or another of the claimed polycyclic aromatic carbons other than pyrene and the polycyclic aromatic carbon being measured in the teste environment could be pyrene, fluorene or any of the other claimed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The instant claims also cover using a combination/plurality of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and/or nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The combination/plurality could be as simple as 2 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their related/respective nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons up to the total amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with their related/respective nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or any combination in between. Since the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon from the high temperature combustion source does not need to be the same as from the low temperature combustion source or the tested environment there is no restriction on the number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used from either of the sources or in the measured/tested environment. Thus one could use many different combinations such as a first polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon from the high temperature combustion source, a second different polycyclic aromatic carbon from the low temperature combustionsource and a plurality of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the measured/tested environment that are different and/or include one or both of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the high and low temperature combustion sources. Thus the disclosure must provide enablement for all of those possibilities. Looking at Table 3 of the Tang paper 1-nitropyrene is a nitration product of pyrene and has the highest measured concentration of the nitration products of pyrene in the Table (1-nitropyrene has a concentration that is over 20 to 100 times greater than the concentration any of the dinitropyrenes from the same source). Additionally working examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification used the same 2 compounds in the measured sample. Due to the significant differences in concentration between pyrene and the most of the other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and between 1-nitropyrene and the dinitropyrenes, there is little if any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the pre-quantified pyrene/1-nitropyrene data to be representative of measured data from anything other than the same polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon/nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon combination.
Additionally, looking at the cited Liu paper mentioned above, the fact that the authors separated the gasoline and diesel engine particulate data shows an expectation that the difference in the composition of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the different sources was significant enough that the diesel engine particulates did not accurately/properly represent the gasoline engine particulates. This is borne out in the data of figure 6 in that paper. Figure 6 of the Liu paper gives a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon profile for each of the different sources. Relative to the instant issue, a look at the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon profiles of gasoline engine emissions and diesel engine emissions clearly shows that there are significant differences between the particulate composition profiles. The differences are so large that, similar to the data presented in the Tang paper discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that the diesel engine particulate data could be used to accurately represent the gasoline engine particulate data.
Even when looking at diesel engines, there is a clear difference between engines with and without an aftertreatment device. As noted above, the cited Mitchell and Hu papers investigated the differences between these two types of diesel engines. In particular the Mitchell paper found a decrease in the number of particulates and an increase in the amount of nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons when an aftertreatment device was present. Looking at Table 7 in the Mitchell paper it is clear that there was a difference in the decrease in the amount of particulates produced based on the fuel type as well as the catalyst aftertreatment device. Looking at table 18, of the Mitchell paper it is also clear that there is a difference in the increase in the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that is also dependent on the fuel type and the catalyst aftertreatment device. As a check to see how much change would be introduced by the addition of an after device to the diesel data of the Tang paper examiner performed calculations using equations (1) and (2) and the winter data of working example 1 with the following changes. First, the Tang data was modified by the fuel B (8.5L catalyst) changes in number of particulates from Table 7 (30 % reduction) and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from Table 18 (118% increase). These numbers were chosen because they were in between the smallest and greatest changes. Second, the winter pyrene/1-nitropyrene data was increased by a factor of 10 to simulate a situation in which a larger portion of the sampled particulates came from the high and low temperature particulate sources.
In the first case, [Ph] was reduced by 30% or [Ph] = 180 pmol/mg X 0.7 = 126 pmol/mg and
[NPh] was reduced by 30% and increased by 118% or [NPh] = 65.5 pmol/mg X 0.7 X 2.18 = 100.0 pmol/mg
Rearranging equation 1
[NP] {[Ph] x + [Pl] (1-x)} = [P] {[NPh] x + [NPl] (1-x)}
Putting the appropriate values into the rearranged equation
0.44 X {126x + 3500 - 3500x} = 290 X {100.0x + 1.43 - 1.43x}
0.44 X {3500 – 3374x} = 290 X {98.57x + 1.43}
1540 – 1484.56x = 28585.3x + 414.7
1125.3 = 27100.74x
x = 0.042
This value of x represents the following change from the value given in Table 1 of the instant disclosure. (0.056 – 0.042)/0.056 = 0.25 or this represents a 25% change in the value of x.
Substituting these values into equation 2 one gets the following.
0.44 = {(100.0 X 0.042) + (1.43 X 0.958)}y
0.44 = {4.2 + 1.36994}y
0.44 = 5.56994y
y = 0.079
This value of y represents the following change from the value given in Table 1 of the instant disclosure. (0.088 – 0.079)/0.088 = .102 or this represents a 10.2% change in the value of y.
In the second case two sets of calculations will be performed. In both sets of calculations [P] = 2900 and [NP] = 4.4. For the first set of calculations, [Ph] and [NPh] are the Tang paper values reported in the instant specification. For the second set of calculations, [Ph] and [NPh] will be the values used in the above calculations.
Substituting the Tang values into the rearranged equation above one gets the following
4.4 X {180x + 3500 - 3500x} = 2900 X {65.5x + 1.43 - 1.43x}
4.4 X {3500 – 3320x} = 2900 X {64.07x + 1.43}
15400 – 14608x = 185803x + 4147
11253 = 200411x
x = 0.056
Substituting these values into equation 2 one gets the following.
4.4 = {(180 X 0.056) + (1.43 X 0.944)}y
4.4 = {10.08 + 1.34992}y
4.4 = 11.42992y
y = 0.385
Substituting the modified values for [P], [NP], [Ph] and [NPh] into the rearranged equation above one gets the following
4.4 X {126x + 3500 - 3500x} = 2900 X {100.0x + 1.43 - 1.43x}
4.4 X {3500 – 3374x} = 2900 X {98.57x + 1.43}
15400 – 14845.6x = 285853x + 4147
11253 = 300698.3x
X = 0.37
This value of x represents the following change from the value calculated above. (0.056 – 0.037)/0.056 = 0.34 or this represents a 34% change in the value of x compared to the calculation above using the Tang values.
Substituting these values into equation 2 one gets the following.
4.4 = {(100.0 X 0.037) + (1.43 X 0.963)}y
4.4 = {3.7 + 1.37709}y
4.4 = 5.07709y
y = 0.867
This value of y represents the following change from the value given in Table 1 of the instant disclosure. (0.867 – 0.385)/0.385 = 1.25 or this represents a 125% change in the value of y compared to the calculation above using the Tang values.
Examiner notes that these calculations and those in the instant disclosure were performed using potentially the preferred set of compounds in which the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon used in the calculations is derived from the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon used in the calculations and the compounds are present at or near the highest concentrations measured. For that reason, use of other nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon combinations would not be expected by those of ordinary skill in the art to have any better error than the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon combination used in the instant disclosure and the above calculation. Thus the argument directed toward the fuel type is not persuasive.
Examiner observes that each of the above calculations is within the scope of claim 1 and even the scope of claim 6. In this respect, since claim 1 is not restricted in the logical equations used, it covers equations such as those derived/used in the Liu paper or other papers of record in which the sources of combustion particulates are determined. Whether those equations would perform any better than equations 1 and 2, is not clear. Thus there is a low level of expectation of success. The low level of expectation for a successful result combined with the myriad number of possible compound combinations points to the amount of experimentation being an undue burden contrary to the urging of Dr. Hayakawa.
What this shows is that contrary to the urging of Dr. Hayakawa in the declaration, differences in fuel and/or source emission treatments such as a catalyst to reduce particulate emissions have a considerable effect on the values one can expect when it comes to determining both the combustion particulate source (the value of x in equations 1 and 2) as well as the ratio of the particulates derived from combustion sources in the atmosphere to the total particulate amount in the atmosphere (the value of y in equation 2).
With respect to the time-dependent effects, examiner notes that the claims do require particulates in the atmosphere. However, there are no restrictions placed on what constitutes the atmosphere and/or the density of particulates in the atmosphere. For that reason the arguments/statements are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Thus the argument/statements are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed January 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the changes and/or after further consideration, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more has been applied against the claims, the enablement rejection has been modified, a new clarity rejection has been applied against the claims and a new obviousness rejection has been applied against certain claims. The arguments are moot with respect to the new rejections. With respect to the enablement rejection, the changes to the claims corrected some of the previous issues related to the relationship between the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons but introduced new issues related to the relationship between the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used from the two sources and measured in the environment being tested. As it currently stands the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used to calculate the ratio of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used to calculate the ratio between the particulates from high and low temperature combustion sources do not need to be the same. As noted above, this creates issues because the different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons tha could be used do not have the same relative relationships so that there is probably no expectation that a process using different polycyclic hydrocarbons from the two reference sources and the measured environment will produce usable results.
With respect to the data provided in the table on page 12 of the January 19, 2026 response, examiner appreciates the effort of applicant to provide the data. Using the data from the working example 1 /summer row of the table on page 12 of the January 19, 2026 response examiner calculated the ratio between the pyrene concentration and the 1-nitropyrene concentration and found that Ph/NPh = 2.748 (2.75) and Pl/NPl = 2448. Examiner checked and found that the Ph/NPh value was maintained in the calculation examples shown in that table. One thing that is clear from the data presented by the emphasized data in the table: as long as the ratio between the NPh and the Ph is maintained or substantially similar, there is little if any change in the values of a and b although the actual concentrations change by over an order of magnitude. Examiner expects that the same would be true if both values of NPl and Pl were changed to keep that ratio the same. On the other hand, it is also clear that changing the ratio between the NPl and the Pl caused the value of at least one of a and b to change. To check how this would be affected by using different sets of data for the NPl and the Pl, examiner converted the pyrene and 1-nitropyrene particulate concentration data in tables 3 and 4 of the above mentioned Yang paper (Environmental Pollution 2017, the mg/kg data from the tables of Yang are in parentheses below) into pmol/mg concentrations consistent with the Tang concentration values and applied equations (5) and (6) on page 11 of the January 19, 2026 response to calculate a and b. The concentration data for pyrene (Pyr) was converted using the following equation.
Yang Pyr mg X 1 kg X 1 mmol Pyr X 1000000 pmol
kg 1000000 mg 202.26 mg Pyr mmol
A similar equation was used for the concentration data of 1-nitropyrene (1-NP).
Fuel sample ZJ YC DT peanut hull
Pyr 0.0084 (1.7) 0.0124 (2.5) 0.0006 (0.13) 0.0361 (7.3)
1-NP 0.00069 (0.17) 0.00048 (0.12) 0.00142 (0.35) 0.02305 (5.7)
Pyr/1-NP 12.17 25.83 0.4225 1.566
a -4.234 -1.137 0.042 42.196
b -0.223 -0.051 1.172 2.255
Examiner notes that the Pyr/1-NP values of the Yang data are relatively close to the Ph/NPh value derived from Tang rather than the Pl/NPl value for which they were used as a replacement. Since they are actually measured values, they show possible limitations of the instant method. The above calculated numbers for a and b show a few things. The equations used by applicant produced at least one unrealistic value for a and/or b for each of the different fuels tested and measured by Yang when examiner used values derived from the data of Yang as the data for the low temperature combustion source. There is much more variability in the calculated values than was shown in the table on page 12 of the response. It is possible that the reason for the unrealistic values calculated utilizing the Yang data are a result of the similarity between the Ph/NPh value derived from Tang and the Pl/NPl values derived from Yang. If so, it shows that the logical equations described and claimed by applicant are not valid for the scope being claimed. These are things one of ordinary skill in the art would need to overcome through experimentation to apply the claimed invention within the scope being claimed. Since the particulates of Yang were produced and collected in a manner that was different from that used by Tang, the above calculations may also show that all of the data used in the calculations needs to come from the same type of sample collection and/or measurement methods. References such as the newly cited Guidi (polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2012) and Wang (Journal of Hazardous Materials 2016) papers looked at and found differences in the polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons depending on the size of the particulates being sampled. A factor such as this could be important or critical if one is using a sample collection process in which the amount of smaller particles collected changes over time as the pores of a filter or fiber mat become smaller and/or clogged by larger particles being captured. This data may also show what would be expected if one does not use the same set of polycyclic and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the data used from each of the high temperature combustion source, the low temperature combustion source and the measured/tested environment. Since instant claim 7 requires that 0 < a < 1 and 0 < b < 1, the above evidence clearly shows that the fuels tested by Yang are not a good source to collect and measure samples as a representative source for the Pl and NPl reference data. Also based on the above data, the full scope of the instant claims are not enabled contrary to the explanation and urging of applicant. At least a significant portion of the scope being claimed is not within the claim limits that applicant has set for calculating a and b.
As a further point, applicant’s disclosure has not presented experimental data to show that the theory used to obtain the logical equations is actually representative of what happens when gases from two or more sources representative of the types of combustion sources that applicant desires to distinguish between are mixed in known ratios and sampled. What is the error when the actual mixing ratio is 25%, 50% or 75%? While it is true that the instant method may be able to show trends in the data, does the instant method show an actual 20% change as a 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 75% change or some other range of change? Will something be triggered such as a ban on outdoor fires or limits on the types of vehicles that can be operated in a certain region if a 20% change occurs? How important is it that a 20% change is not represented as a 5% change or a 50% change? However, more relevant to the claimed invention is the fact that all that is being claimed is the method of determining the ratio of the particulates between the two combustion sources. What the data gets used for is not part of the claim so the argument is at least in part not commensurate in scope with the claim.
For the above reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
As a side note, examiner performed four more calculations in which Yang’s data for the peanut hull sample was modified ([Pyr] = 3.61 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.02305 pmol/mg) and data for the YC sample was modified ([Pyr] = 0.0372 pmol/mg, 0.124 pmol/mg or 1.24 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.00048 pmol/mg) so that Pyr/1-NP = 77.49, 156.6, 258.3 or 2583 to see what would happen as the ratio became closer to the ratio in the Tang data. When the calculations using equations (5) and (6) were performed for [Pyr] = 0.0372 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.00048 pmol/mg, a = 0.340 and b = 0.018. When the calculations using equations (5) and (6) were performed for [Pyr] = 3.61 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.02305 pmol/mg, a = 0.635 and b = 0.038. When the calculations using equations (5) and (6) were performed for [Pyr] = 0.124 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.00048 pmol/mg, a = 0.807 and b = 0.043. When the calculations using equations (5) and (6) were performed for [Pyr] = 0.124 pmol/mg and [1-NP] = 0.00048 pmol/mg, a = 0.981 and b = 0.052. It is interesting to note that this data shows that it appears that differences in the Pyr/1-NP value is critical to the values of a and b that are obtained from the logical equations developed by applicant being within the boundaries of claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited art is related to PAH and/or nitro-PAH from different sources and how various combustion fuels and/or aftertreatments affect the concentration of these compounds in an exhaust.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is (571)272-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571)272-1254. 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.
/ARLEN SODERQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797ffrf