Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/18/2023 was filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claim 5, 10, 13, 17, 20, 26 and 30 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. The use of the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite.
5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 requires a different limitation for component B than required in claim 1 and therefore fails to further limit the claim.
6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by the reference of (US 2019/0171610 A1) to Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang).
Tang is directed toward removal of fouling from hydrocarbon streams. Tang discloses at paragraph [0024] the composition is a 6 amino caproic acid, which is also known as a 6-amino hexanoic acid of compound A, with a sodium borohydride of compound B, which prevents unwanted polymerizations. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the invention is directed toward inhibiting unwanted condensation reaction of polymers that act as impurities. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the condensation reaction would be via an adol condensation reaction. Tang discloses at paragraph [0022] the method is adding to a hydrocarbon stream at a basic pH below 7. Tang discloses each and every element as arranged in claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0171610 A1) to Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang).
Tang is directed toward removal of fouling from hydrocarbon streams. Tang discloses at paragraph [0024] the composition is a 6 amino caproic acid, which is also known as a 6-amino hexanoic acid of compound A, with a sodium borohydride of compound B, which prevents unwanted polymerizations. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the invention is directed toward inhibiting unwanted condensation reaction of polymers that act as impurities. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the condensation reaction would be via an adol condensation reaction. Tang discloses at paragraph [0022] the method is adding to a hydrocarbon stream at a basic pH below 7.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Tang to select each and every element as arranged in claims to inhibit unwanted polymerization in a hydrocarbon stream that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30.
13. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0171610 A1) to Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang) in view of the teachings of (US 5,582,808) to Patek (hereinafter Patek).
Tang is directed toward removal of inhibiting unwanted polymerization to prevent fouling of hydrocarbon streams. Tang discloses at paragraph [0024] the composition is a 6 amino caproic acid, which is also known as a 6-amino hexanoic acid of compound A, with a sodium borohydride of compound B, which prevents unwanted polymerizations. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the invention is directed toward inhibiting unwanted condensation reaction of polymers that act as impurities. Tang discloses at paragraph [0001] the condensation reaction would be via an adol condensation reaction. Tang discloses at paragraph [0022] the method is adding to a hydrocarbon stream at a basic pH below 7.
Patek is directed toward removal of inhibiting unwanted polymerization to prevent fouling of hydrocarbon streams. Tang and Patek are both directed toward removal of inhibiting unwanted polymerization to prevent fouling of hydrocarbon streams. Patek teaches at (C2,L9) that borohydrides are useful in reducing adol condensation polymerization in hydrocarbon streams. Patek teaches at (C2,L36) that the borohydrides prevents fouling by inhibiting polymerization. Patek teaches at (C2,L55 to L60) that sodium borohydride and tetramethylammonium borohydride are functionally equivalent to prevent polymerization. One would be motivated to use a functionally equivalent borohydrate to inhibit unwanted polymerization.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Tang in view of the teachings of Patek to select each and every element as arranged in claims to inhibit unwanted polymerization in a hydrocarbon stream that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 4-7, 10-14, 17-21 and 25-30.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766