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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieben (US 2018/0003619 A1) in view of Abdolrazzahi (“Dual Active Resonator for Dispersion Coefficient Measurement of Asphaltene Nano-Particles”) and Zuo (US 2018/0004863 A1) .
With respect to Claim 1 Sieben teaches A method for estimating an asphaltene content in an oil sample, the method comprising: a) placing a sensing device in a cell (See Fig 1); b) causing the oil sample to flow in the cell (See Fig 1); c) varying at least one parameter among temperature of the oil sample, pressure, and an amount of alkanes added to the oil sample (See Para[0008]; d) measuring a deposition rate of asphaltenes deposited on the sensing device while the at least one parameter varies (See Para[0034]); and However Sieben is silent to the language of e) calculating a concentration (C.sub.A) of asphaltenes from the measured deposition rate of asphaltenes and a diffusion coefficient (D.sub.A) of primary asphaltenes present in the oil sample, estimated based on a hydrodynamic radius (R.sub.A) of the primary unstable asphaltenes. Nevertheless Abdolrazzahi teaches unstable asphaltene e) calculating a concentration (C.sub.A) of unstable asphaltenes from the measured deposition rate of asphaltenes and a diffusion coefficient (D.sub.A) of primary unstable asphaltenes present in the oil sample, estimated based on a hydrodynamic radius (R.sub.A) of the primary unstable asphaltenes (See Page7249 Equations 1-4). However Abdolrazzahi is silent to the language of unstable asphaltene Nevertheless Zuo teaches unstable asphaltene (See Para]0097]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben and calculate a concentration such as that of Abdolrazzahi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because determining the concentration would allow one to know the amount present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben wherein the asphaltene is unstable and such as that of Zuo. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because determining unstable asphaltene would result in determining that the asphaltenes at the base are unstable (e.g., due to spinodal decomposition). With respect to Claim 2 Sieben teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the hydrodynamic radius (R.sub.A) of the primary unstable asphaltenes is between 7 and 10 nm. Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to , wherein the hydrodynamic radius (R.sub.A) of the primary unstable asphaltenes is between 7 and 10 nm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to Claim 3 Sieben is silent to the language of The method according to claim 1, wherein the diffusion coefficient D.sub.A of the primary unstable asphaltenes is estimated as:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: k.sub.B is Boltzmann's constant; T is the temperature of the oil sample; μ is the dynamic viscosity of the oil sample; and R.sub.A is the hydrodynamic radius of the primary unstable asphaltenes. Nevertheless Abdolrazzahi teaches wherein the diffusion coefficient D.sub.A of the primary unstable asphaltenes is estimated as:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where: k.sub.B is Boltzmann's constant; T is the temperature of the oil sample; μ is the dynamic viscosity of the oil sample; and R.sub.A is the hydrodynamic radius of the primary unstable asphaltenes. (See Page7249 Equations 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben and have diffusion coefficient such as that of Abdolrazzahi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because determining the diffusion concentration would allow one to know the amount diffusion and would be no more than predictable use of prior elements according to their established functions. With respect to Claim 5 Sieben is silent to the language of The method according to claim 1, wherein the concentration (C.sub.A) of unstable asphaltenes is calculated as a sum of concentrations of the primary unstable asphaltenes over consecutive time intervals. Nevertheless Abdolrazzahi teaches wherein the concentration (C.sub.A) of unstable asphaltenes is calculated as a sum of concentrations of the primary unstable asphaltenes over consecutive time intervals. (See Page7250 Equations 1- 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben and diffusion coefficient such as that of Abdolrazzahi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because determining the concentration would allow one to know the concentration and would be no more than predictable use of prior elements according to their established functions. With respect to Claim 8 Sieben is silent to the language of The method according to claim 1, wherein a solubility curve of asphaltenes in the oil sample is obtained based on the estimated unstable asphaltene content. (See Para[0005]
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieben (US 2018/0003619 A1) in view of Abdolrazzahi (“Dual Active Resonator for Dispersion Coefficient Measurement of Asphaltene Nano-Particles”) and Zuo (US 2018/0004863 A1) and further in view of Qiu (US2019/0310237 A1).
With respect to Claim 4 Sieben is silent to the language of The method according to claim 1, wherein the concentration (C.sub.A) of unstable asphaltenes is calculated as being proportional to D.sub.A.sup.−2/3, where D.sub.A is the diffusion coefficient of the primary unstable asphaltenes. Nevetheless Qiu teaches wherein the concentration (C.sub.A) of unstable asphaltenes is calculated as being proportional to D.sub.A.sup.−2/3, where D.sub.A is the diffusion coefficient of the primary unstable asphaltenes. (See Para[0023]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben and have diffusion coefficient such as that of Qiu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because determining the diffusion coefficient would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieben (US 2018/0003619 A1) in view of Abdolrazzahi (“Dual Active Resonator for Dispersion Coefficient Measurement of Asphaltene Nano-Particles”) and Zuo (US 2018/0004863 A1) and further in view of Jennings (US 2019/0048712 A1).
With respect to Claim 7 Sieben is silent to the language of The method according to claim 1, wherein the sensing device comprises a quartz crystal resonator. Nevertheless Jennings teaches wherein the sensing device comprises a quartz crystal resonator.(See Para[0024]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sieben and comprises a quartz crystal resonator such as that of Jennings. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sieben because using a quartz crystal resonator would be no more than predictable use of prior elements according to their established functions and improve accuracy. Examiner notes that the prior art fails to teach or make obvious claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights