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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim recites evaluating a concentration of the pentavalent antimony ions in the first analysis solution from color of the fifth analysis solution.
The limitation of evaluating a color as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no reference to an external system or imaging platform, and is all therefore performed in the mind. Further, the invention seems to focus on mathematical concepts and the visual comparison of an expected vs. actual color change displayed by the solutions of the instant invention, therefore constituting an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic chemical methods, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claim recites the additional steps of using solutions to precipitate and quantify antimony from a sample, but these method steps are not sufficient to amount to significantly more as the steps appear to be routine and would not amount to significantly more. The reference of Yamamoto et al., “Flow chemiluminescence determination of antimony(III,V)…,” cited on the IDS dated 10/29/2024, teaches the steps of mixing a sample with an acid, organic solvent, and dye compound to determine the concentration of antimony within said sample.
Claims 2-11 do not clarify the abstract idea and instead refer to the known method steps used to separate antimony from within a sample and are not particular. Further, each additional step of the claim is considered extra-solution activity as they are used to test and determine the concentration of an analyte within a sample, which is considered mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12 recites the step of using a color chart to compare colors of analysis solutions to determine a concentration. The use of a color chart is well known and conventional in the art of determining a color change (and can also be done in the mind). Therefore, the limitation is not significant to impose a limit on the invention, and the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering as information regarding a color change is obtained and no further action is taken by the invention. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al., “Flow chemiluminescence determination of antimony(III,V)…,” cited on the IDS dated 10/29/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto et al. teaches a method of analyzing an antimony ion (see Abstract), the method comprising:
using a first analysis solution or a second analysis solution (two solutions of Sb(III) and Sb(V) are created, see Chemicals and reagents),
the first analysis solution containing trivalent antimony ions and pentavalent antimony ions (standard solutions of Sb(III) and Sb(V), see Chemicals and reagents),
the second analysis solution being a solution obtained by mixing a first acid and the first analysis solution (mixed sample solution containing Sb(III) and Sb(V) in 6.0 mol dm-3 HCl),
and mixing the first analysis solution or the second analysis solution with a second acid to obtain a third analysis solution in which the pentavalent antimony ions are chlorinated and which contains [SbCl6]- ions (3.0M HCl is added to the mixed solution to obtain SbCl6 ions, see Page 75, Col. 1 and Effect of the HCl concentration);
mixing the third analysis solution and a first organic solvent and phase-separating the mixture into a fourth analysis solution as an organic phase and an aqueous phase to obtain the fourth analysis solution (the chlorinated Sb ions are mixed with toluene and separated to create another solution, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure);
mixing the fourth analysis solution and a coloring liquid containing rhodamine B to obtain a fifth analysis solution (Rhodamine B is added to extracted solution, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure); and
evaluating a concentration of the pentavalent antimony ions in the first analysis solution from color of the fifth analysis solution (the measured intensity, or color, of the analyte solution is correlated to a calibration curve to determine an Sb(V) concentration, see Analytical performance and Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V))
wherein a total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the first analysis solution is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less (there is no oxidant in the acid solution, so the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate equals 0.00M, see Chemicals and reagents, Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V, Fig. 4),
the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the first acid is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less, and the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the second acid is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less (there is no oxidant in the acid solution, so the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate equals 0.00M, see Chemicals and reagents, Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V), and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein a pH of the first analysis solution is -1 or more and 3 or less (the pH of the standard solution is -log(H+), or -log10(2.0)=-0.301029995663981 , see Chemicals and reagents), and a pH of the second analysis solution is -1 or more and 3 or less (the pH of the solution after the first dilution with HCl is -log10(6)=-0.778151250383644, see Chemicals and reagents).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein the first acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid and/or 2 mol/L or more and 18mol/L or less of sulfuric acid (the concentration of first HCl quantity is 6.0 mol/L, see Chemicals and reagents).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein the second acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid (the second HCl concentration is 3.0mol/L).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein the first analysis solution does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate, the first acid does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate, and the second acid does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate (there is no oxidant in the acid solution, so the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate equals 0.00M, see Chemicals and reagents, Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V), and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1, wherein a pH of the first analysis solution is -1 or more and 1 or less (the pH of the standard solution is -log(H+), or -log10(2.0)=-0.301029995663981 , see Chemicals and reagents), and a pH of the second analysis solution is -1 or more and 1 or less (the pH of the solution after the first dilution with HCl is -log10(6)=-0.778151250383644, see Chemicals and reagents).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto et al. teaches the method of analyzing an antimony ion according to claim 1, further comprising:
mixing the first analysis solution or the second analysis solution with a third acid to obtain a sixth analysis solution in which trivalent antimony ions are oxidized into pentavalent antimony ions (the antimony sample solution is mixed with a Cerium (IV) sulfate oxidizing solution to generate Sb(V) ions, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure);
mixing the sixth analysis solution with a fourth acid to obtain a seventh analysis solution containing [SbCl6]- ions in which pentavalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution and pentavalent antimony ions in which trivalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution are oxidized are chlorinated (HCl is added to the mixed solution to obtain SbCl6 ions, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure and Effect of the HCl concentration)
mixing the seventh analysis solution with a second organic solvent and phase-separating the mixture into an eighth analysis solution as a second organic phase and an aqueous phase to obtain the eighth analysis solution (the chlorinated Sb ions are mixed with toluene and separated to create another solution, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure);
mixing the eighth analysis solution and a coloring liquid containing rhodamine B to obtain a ninth analysis solution (Rhodamine B is added to extracted solution, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure)
evaluating a total concentration of trivalent antimony ions and pentavalent antimony ions in the first analysis solution from color of the ninth analysis solution (the measured intensity, or color, of the analyte solution is correlated to a calibration curve to determine an Sb(III) concentration, see Analytical performance and Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V)); and
comparing a color of the fifth analysis solution with the color of the ninth analysis solution to evaluate a concentration of trivalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution (the total Sb(III) and Sb(V) concentrations are compared by relative intensity, see Fig. 4, Ion-pair extraction and RMM-CL system, and Analytical performance),
wherein the third acid contains one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate (the acid consists of cerium (IV) sulfate, see Chemicals and reagents and Liquid-liquid extraction procedure).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 9, wherein the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate in the third acid is 0.02 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less (the cerium (IV) concentration is 0.1M which falls within the instant range, see Chemicals and reagents).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 9, wherein the fourth acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid (the acid used is 3.0M HCl, which falls within the instant range, see Liquid-liquid extraction procedure).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 9, wherein a color chart is used in the comparing the color of the fifth analysis solution with the color of the ninth analysis solution to evaluate the concentration of trivalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution (a chromograph is used to compare the color of the analysis solutions to determine the concentration of Sb(III) by determining the difference between measured values, see Analytical performance and Differential determination of antimony(III)/antimony (V)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., “Flow chemiluminescence determination of antimony(III,V)…,” cited on the IDS dated 10/29/2024, as applied above, and further in view of Fredrick (“Estimation of Small Amounts of Antimony with Rhodamine B”)
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a mixing volume ratio of the first analysis solution and the first acid is represented by [amount of the first acid]/[amount of the first analysis solution] (an amount of acid is added to the antimony sample to create a standard solution from Merck), but does not teach that the mixing volume ratio is 1 or more and 100 or less.
However, in the analogous art of using Rhodamine B to detect antimony within a sample, Fredrick teaches an antimony sample where the mixing volume ratio is 1 or more and 100 or less (50mL of antimony solution is mixed with 500mL of hydrochloric acid to achieve a ratio 100:1 of solution that is identical to a Merck standard solution, see Page 922, Col.2, and Page 923, Col. 2, para. 6, where the "sulfuric acid" named in the procedure is hydrochloric acid).
The mixture of an acid to an antimony solution to create a standard solution (Merck standard solution, see Chemicals and reagents) was known in the prior art of Yamamoto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method including providing an antimony solution as stated by Yamamoto to include the 100:1 acid to antimony standard solution of Fredrick for the benefit of generating a standard solution for the determination of antimony content in a solution, see Standard Solutions and Procedure for Colorimeter in Fredrick. Further, the modification of the concentrations of the first acid solution and first analysis solution of Yamamoto et al. to match that of Fredrick would have resulted in the expected result of providing a standard solution identical to that of the aforementioned Merck standard solution.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., “Flow chemiluminescence determination of antimony(III,V)…,” cited on the IDS dated 10/29/2024.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto et al. teaches the analysis method according to claim 1 comprising an organic solvent (toluene), but does not teach that the first organic solvent is one or more selected from the group consisting of diisopropyl ether, diethyl ether, ethyl methyl ether, dibutyl ether, 1-octanol, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and hexane.
While the current embodiment of the invention does not teach the organic solvent used in the method is benzene, the reference teaches that benzene is an alternative solution to the toluene used within the method for phase separation of antimony, see CL measurement.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by the prior art of Yamamoto et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have substituted the toluene for the benzene as described by method of Yamamoto for the benefit of providing an organic solvent for phase separation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/A.N.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758