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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 03 November 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretta (EP 1,103,299) in view of Uemura (US 4,474,617) and Broadhead (GB 334,380).
Regarding claims 1-7, Moretta teaches a process for treating liquid hydrocarbon material in an oxygen flowing gas environment to form a hardened solid composition having an increased softening point [0012-0017]. Moretta teaches heating temperatures of 350-700°F (148-371°C) [0018] for contacting times of 2-5 hours [0018] overlapping with the claimed range. Examiner considers the Moretta oxidation step to read on the claimed “stirring” since the oxygen gas would result in the same “stirring” action, and also forms the same solid material [0018-0023].
Moretta does not disclose gaseous sulfur containing catalyst.
However, Uemura teaches a similar process for increasing the softening point of hydrocarbons with oxidizing gas. Uemura teaches that sulfurous acid gas may be used in mixture with air or oxygen (column 2, lines 1-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the sulfurous acid gas of Uemura in combination with the air/oxidizing gas of Moretta, since it is known for the same purpose of increasing softening point of hydrocarbons.
The previous combination does not disclose solid ammonium sulfates.
However, Broadhead teaches that ammonium sulfates can be used as catalysts in air blowing to produce solid materials, for the benefit of speeding up the process (page 1, line 44-line 105). Examiner notes that sulfates of ammonia are ammonium sulfate compositions, which comprise ammonium, sulfur, and oxygen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the ammonium sulfate catalysts of Broadhead, for the benefit of speeding up the process of the previous combination. Further, the prior art teaches the same heating as the instant process, which Examiner considers would result in the same decomposition as claimed (see Applicant’s instant specification, teaching heating of ammonium sulfate results in gaseous sulfate catalysts (pages 4-5)).
Regarding claims 8-10, it appears that Applicant is simply splitting up the heating of the prior art into additional steps. Further, Uemura teaches that oxidizing treatment may be followed by hydrogenation, and then followed by melt spinning (column 2, lines 23-64). Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperatures and conditions in order to obtain the desired increased softening point. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Moretta teaches cooling after the heating steps [0013].
Regarding claim 12, as discussed with respect to claims 8-10 above, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate temperatures and conditions in order to obtain the desired increased softening point. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 13 and 15-17, Moretta teaches increasing the softening point to above 200°F (93°C) -400°F (204°C) [0018], [0054], which overlaps with the claimed range of 100°C-350°C. Further, Uemura teaches increasing the softening point to 260°C (see Example 1). Moretta teaches pelletizing the solids that can be shipped/stored at ambient temperatures [0001]. Moretta teaches forming spherical shaped pellets [0011].
Regarding claim 14, Uemura teaches that the products can be used for the production of carbon fibers (column 1, lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiiki (US 4,273,675) – teaches increasing softening point with SO3
Harrison (US 2,247,371) -teaches production of asphalt using oxygen and SO2
Hampton (US 2,115,306) – teaches producing asphaltic material with a mixture of air and sulfur
Tadashi (US 3,718,574) – teaches oxidation with SO3
Wombles (US 4,456,524) -teaches oxidizing to increase softening point using catalysts
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771