CTFR 17/889,517 CTFR 100589 Detailed Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed 3/3/2026 has entered prosecution. Claims 21-32 have entered the prosecution. Claims 1-8, 21-32 are pending examination. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiners previous rejection citing (#3115, Fig. 31) of Jaffrey is not a structural equivalent of an at least one component of a hydrocarbon producing well. Applicant is correct that the examiner cited the wrong component as a matter of a minor typo in Claim 2, whereby as seen in Fig. 31, the raw gas receiving unit is #3105, however, this was expressly shown in the provided figure and clear from the cited text section as demonstrated in the rejection of Claim 1 . Applicant argues that Jaffrey neither teaches at least one of a component of a hydrocarbon producing well nor the use of a UV light source. This is not persuasive as a broadest reasonable interpretation of a “at least a component of a hydrocarbon well” allows for virtually anything tangentially related to hydrocarbon production to constitute the at least one of component, which in this case was the raw gas receiving unit (#3105, Fig. 31 and Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Further, Jaffrey clearly teaches the use of a UV light source by necessity as Jaffrey teaches that the photoreactor comprises ultraviolet radiation to perform the chemical work upon hydrogen sulfide (#3150, Fig. 31 and Col. 12, lines 43-45). Further, while not cited (owing to the fact UV light cannot be provided to a reactor chamber without a UV light source), Fig. 5 of Jaffrey clearly shows a UV-C lamp. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Jaffrey (US10300454B2) . Regrading Claim 1, 2, 23, Jaffrey teaches an apparatus for desulfurizing diesel via decomposition using ultraviolet radiation (Col. 9, lines 35-47). Jaffrey teaches a system (element 3100, Fig. 31) for processing raw gas, which includes H 2 S and methane (Col. 14, Lines 4-15). Jaffrey teaches that a raw gas receiving unit (element 3105), understood to be a gas treatment unit, is supplied to a gas cooler (element 3115, Fig. 31) can be supplied with a heat exchanger in order that a raw gas stream results in a condensed hydrogen sulfide output (element 3150, Fig. 31) which is separated into a photoreactor (element 800) (Col. 14, Lines 16-35 and Col. 15, lines 11-14). The photoreactor thermally excites hydrogen sulfide and causes dissociation into hydrogen ions and sulfur ions via ultraviolet radiation (Col. 12, lines 43-45). Jaffrey teaches that the system may be used in any method generally used in the oil refinery process (Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Accordingly, it is understood that the raw gas receiving unit (element 3115, Fig. 31) is a structural equivalent of either a flow line or a transportation pipeline. PNG media_image1.png 485 676 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 3, referencing Fig. 12 below, Jaffrey teaches that the photoreactor (element 800) comprises an inlet (element 812) for the hydrogen sulfide gas flows into the first and second chambers (elements 810 and 815; Col. 10, lines 11-18). Jaffrey teaches that the light is oriented in the center of the tube and shines radially, as shown in Fig. 9. Accordingly, it is understood that as the gas is flowing along the length of the second chamber, the light shining radially from the tube is perpendicular to the direction of the gas flow. Regarding Claim 4, Jaffrey teaches that the photoreactor is a cylindrical shape (Col. 10, Lines 11-18). PNG media_image2.png 800 610 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 5, Jaffrey teaches that the second chamber (element 815, Fig. 12) which houses the UV lamp can be made of stainless steel (Col. 10, lines 19-32) which is understood to be a reflective material. Regarding Claim 6, Jaffrey teaches the use of a gas-solid separator to remove the sulfur from the hydrogen gas (Col. 10, 1-10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 7, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jaffrey (US10300454B2), as applied in Claim, further in view of Kawakatsu (US6242862B1). Regarding Claim 7-8 and 24, Jaffrey teaches to Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Jaffrey teaches that the UV lamp may be a gas discharge lamp, such as a mercury or argon lamp (Col. 11, Lines 18-24). However, Jaffrey does not teach that the lamp has a window with transmissibility nor that the window has a self-cleaning coating. Kawakatsu teaches a photocatalyst coating on the surface of a lamp or lighting fixture (abstract). Referring to Fig. 1 shown below, Kawakatsu teaches that a base body, such as a soda lime glass, is coated with a mixture of silicon oxide and titanium oxide particles to form a layer with a depth of around 30 nm (Col. 11, lines 27-39), understood to be a titannate nanocoating. Kawakatsu teaches the lamp may be a mercury lamp (Col. 7, Lines 38-42). Kawakatsu teaches that the titannate coating is useful for removing contaminants which would otherwise deposit and contaminate the surface of the lamp (Col. 7, Lines 46-52). As Kawakatsu teaches a UV mercury lamp, it is understood that the base body of the lamp acts as a window, through which UV light shines through, thereby understood to be transmissible. PNG media_image3.png 391 319 media_image3.png Greyscale Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the photocatalytic coating of Kawakatsu into the mercury lamp device of Jaffrey, in order that one would arrive at a gas treatment unit for gas desulfurization with improved lamp lifetime, owing to the self-cleaning function of the photocatalyst coating on the window of the lamp. Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jaffrey (US10300454B2), as applied in Claim, further in view of Tabatabaie-Raissi (US 5842110 A). Regarding Claim 25, Jaffery teaches the use of a UV light source, as shown in Claim 1. However, Jaffrey does not teach the source has an intensity between 1 milliwatt and 1 megawatt. Tabatabaie-Raissi teaches a method for reacting sulfur containing compounds from flue gas using UV photolysis [abstract]. Tabatabaie-Raissi teaches the use of a 16 W UV Lamp [Col. 5, 65-67]. Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the UV lamp, as per Jaffery, could be substituted for the UV lamp of Tabatabaie-Raissi with an output power of 16 W with a reasonable expectation of success that the apparatus would enable a photolytic reaction of hydrogen sulfide. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. Claim(s) 21-22, 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103, as depending from Claim 1, as obvious over Jaffrey (US10300454B2). Regarding Claims 21-22, 26-31, Jaffrey teaches that the system may be used in any method generally used in the oil refinery process (Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Accordingly, it is understood that the raw gas receiving unit (element 3115, Fig. 31) is a structural equivalent of a pipe. The instant claims 26-31 each pertain to a variant of what the “member” the photolysis system is connected to, however applicant does not claim the structure (e.g. an oil well) which these systems would be attached to (see MPEP 2114 I and II). Accordingly, it is understood that claims 26-31 structurally relate to only a pipe, which has been shown by Jaffrey. In the alternative, Jaffrey teaches that the system may be used in any method generally used in the oil refinery process (Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Accordingly, it is understood that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious at the time of the filing of the present invention that the system of Jaffrey could be incorporated into any portion of an oil-production facility, which would include in attaching the apparatus to a wellhead or any ground source from which the gas mixture is obtained with a reasonable expectation of success that the apparatus would remediate hydrogen sulfide from the gas mixture by photolysis. Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103, as depending from Claim 1, as obvious over Jaffrey (US10300454B2). Regarding Claims 32, Jaffrey teaches that the system may be used in any method generally used in the oil refinery process (Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Accordingly, it is understood that the raw gas receiving unit (element 3115, Fig. 31) is a structural equivalent of a pipe. The instant claim 32 pertains to what the “member” in the photolysis system is connected to, however applicant does not claim the structure (e.g. an oil well) which these systems would be attached to (see MPEP 2114 I and II). Accordingly, it is understood that claims 32 structurally relate to only a pipe, which has been shown by Jaffrey. In the alternative, Jaffrey teaches that the system may be used in any method generally used in the oil refinery process (Col. 9, Lines 10-18). Accordingly, it is understood that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious at the time of the filing of the present invention that the system of Jaffrey could be incorporated into any portion of an oil-production facility, which would include in attaching the apparatus at the back end of a refinery process wherein the apparatus serves as a tail gas unit with a reasonable expectation of success that the apparatus would remediate hydrogen sulfide from the gas mixture by photolysis. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm. 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES Examiner Art Unit 1794 /NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794 /BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 10 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/889,517 Page 11 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights