DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 22 December 2025 in response to the restriction requirement mailed 8 August 2025, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 are pending under examination and are as originally filed and claims 12-21 are withdrawn (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2025. As Applicant elected without traverse and failed to present arguments to the restriction as set forth, Applicant’s request to combine Groups I and II will not be granted.
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 1-2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amaike et al. (PGPub 2008/0058532).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, Amaike teaches molecular compounds which comprise supramolecular host-guest type compounds comprising a solid host compound and a solid or liquid guest compound (abstract; [0002]-[0003]; [0009]-[0011]). Amaike teaches the molecular compounds include hydrates, solvates, adducts and clathrate structures where the compound forms appropriate three-dimensional structures to contain other atoms or molecules as guests ([0018]). Amaike further teaches the molecular compounds may be present in combination with a poor solvent, preferably water ([0032]; [0042]; [0047])(instant solvent (claim 1); instant water (claim 8)).
Amaike further teaches a plurality of suitable host compounds ([0019]-[0020])(instant supramolecular host chemical or guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry). Amaike further teaches the solid or liquid guest compounds must be capable of being taken into the holes inside of the three-dimensional structures formed ([0021]) and include amine compounds including alkylamines ([0024]), aldehydes such as formaldehyde ([0021]), carboxylic acids ([0023]), heterocyclic compounds containing nitrogen such as triazoles ([0026]), etc. ([0021]; [0025]; [0027])(instant compounds readable on hydrogen sulfide scavengers (claim 1); instant H-2S scavenger compounds of alkyl amines, aldehydes, carboxylates, etc. (claim 2)).
Regarding the preamble/intended use recitation of ‘sulfur scavenging’, it is noted that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of sulfur scavenging is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); and MPEP § 2111.02). It is also noted that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim(s) to that product patentable (see In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ 2d 1429, (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Furthermore, the claim merely recites a composition capable of sulfur scavenging (of H2S scavenging) and does not otherwise require the presence of hydrogen sulfide or other sulfur compounds.
Regarding claims 9-11, Amaike teaches the composition as set forth above and further teaches the solid host compounds is selected to take the guest into the holes of the three-dimensional structure at desired composition ratios ([0019]), wherein the host is in a concentration of from 10 to 50 wt% ([0042]), and teaches a ratio of host to guest compounds of 1:2 (examples 1-5). Amaike teaches the solvent may be present from about 20 to 200 wt%, but is preferably then reduced to about 1 wt% ([0032]).
Claims 1-2, 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bedell (US PGPub 2010/0028232).
Regarding claims 1-2, Bedell teaches absorption/scrubbing compositions suitable for removing mercaptans, H2S and/or CO2 from a gas stream comprising a physical and/or chemical solvent for H2S and an inclusion compound (abstract; [0017]). Bedell teaches the inclusion compound is a host-guest inclusion compound that contains a host which forms a cavity in which the guest can be held ([0019]), and teaches preferably cyclodextrin, calixarene, cucurbituril, a cryptand, etc. ([0020]-[0023])(instant supramolecular host chemical or supramolecular guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry; note also MPEP 2112.01). Bedell further teaches the chemical solvent is a compound which reacts with acid gases, including alkanolamines selected to react with H2S ([0024])(instant hydrogen sulfide scavenger (claim 1); instant alkanolamine H2S scavenger (claim 2)). Bedell further teaches the physical solvent includes sulfones, aliphatic acid amides, NMP, N-alkylated pyrrolidones and piperidones, methanol and glycols ([0025]) and teaches the composition may be an aqueous solution ([0026])(instant solvent).
Regarding claim 5, Bedell teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the optional inclusion of additives such as corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, etc. ([0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Bedell teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the compositions may be aqueous solutions ([0026]) and teaches the physical solvents include methanol ([0025]) as noted above.
Regarding claims 9-11, Bedell teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the amount of chemical solvent (instant H-2S scavenger) is from about 0 to about 70 wt% (instant claim 9), the amount of physical solvent is from about 0 to about 99 wt% (instant claim 11)([0026]), and teaches the amount of inclusion compound is dependent on the specific one chose but in general ranges from about 0.1 to about 10 wt% ([0028]).
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al. (US PGPub 2019/0211249).
Regarding claim 1, Cole teaches host-guest complex solution compositions comprising a solution of a host molecule mixed with a guest molecule (abstract). Cole teaches the host-guest complex is such that the host molecule encapsulates a guest molecule having opposing solubility ([0004]-[0005]) and teaches the host material comprises hyperbranched polymer and dendrimer systems ([0011])(instant supramolecular host chemical or guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry; see also MPEP 2112.01). Cole further teaches the guest molecules encapsulated by the host ([0030]) includes hydrogen sulfide scavengers ([0031])(instant hydrogen sulfide scavenger). Cole further teaches the host-guest complex composition may further comprise a solvent, water, alcohols, and phase transfer agents including cryptands ([0009]; [0041])(instant solvent).
Regarding claim 5, Cole teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches compositions including pour point depressants, asphaltene dispersants, scale inhibitors, demulsifiers, biocides, etc. ([0046]) and/or teaches that multiple guest molecule types may be selected including corrosion inhibitors, demulsifiers, scale inhibitors, biocides, defoamers, wax inhibitor, asphaltene dispersants, pour point depressants, anti-agglomerants, etc. ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Cole teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and teaches the alcohol and water as noted above.
Regarding claim 10, Cole teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the host molecule is present in an amount of at least 2x106 M, or at least about 0.02 wt% ([0004]; [0043]).
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US PGPub 2019/0211249) in view of Bailey et al. (US PGPub 2017/0198225).
Cole teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the hydrogen sulfide scavengers include triazines ([0035]) but does not specifically teach a compound that is a reaction product between an alkylamine or alkanolamine and an aldehyde (claims 2-3), wherein the reaction product is monoethanolamine triazine or monomethylamine triazine (claim 4). However, Bailey teaches similar hydrogen sulfide scavenging compositions and teaches that known triazine based hydrogen sulfide scavengers include monoethanolamine triazine and monomethylamine triazine ([0045]). Bailey and Cole are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hydrogen sulfide scavenging compositions comprising triazine based hydrogen sulfide scavengers. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the scavengers of Bailey as the triazine based hydrogen sulfide scavengers of Cole and would have been motivated to do so as Cole invites triazine compounds and further as Bailey teaches monoethanolamine triazine and monomethylamine triazine are known and suitable examples of hydrogen sulfide scavenging triazine compounds.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell (US PGPub 2010/0028232) in view of Lian et al. (CN 108619874 A; see Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claim 6, Bedell teaches the compositions as set forth in claim 1 above and teaches that further optional additives may be included ([0029]). Bedell does not specifically teach sequestrants, specifically EDTA or a salt thereof.
However, Lian teaches similar hydrogen sulfide removing compositions comprising a nitrogen containing main agent that reacts with the hydrogen sulfide, an auxiliary agent, a synergistic metal ion chelating agent, and water (abstract). Lian teaches it is advantageous to include the metal ion chelating agent in order to synergistically aid the main agent in removal of hydrogen sulfide in a safe manner (pg2-3 bridging). Lian teaches the metal ion chelating synergist is EDTA or a salt of EDTA (pg3, top). Lian and Bedell are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hydrogen sulfide scrubber/removal compositions comprising amine scavengers. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the EDTA synergist compounds of Lian in the composition of Bedell and would have been motivated to do so as Bedell invites the inclusion of additives and further as Lian teaches that the synergist compounds advantageously aid the nitrogen containing components in safe and effective removal of hydrogen sulfide.
Regarding claim 7, Bedell in view of Lian render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 6 above. As noted, Bedell teaches inclusion of a physical solvent such as methanol ([0025]) (instant freeze point depressant).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767