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 Status
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/348,035 filed on 6/2/2022. At this point in examination, the effective filing date of claims 1-8 is 6/2/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/23/2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 24-25, it is unclear whether the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester is cooled to the first temperature or the second temperature because the next step of recording the changes in enthalpy and entropy is recorded from the third temperature to the second temperature. Para. [0067] of the instant specification discloses a fifth step of chilling the liquid urea and liquid FAMEs mixture to the decomposition temperature, which is the second temperature of the process. For examination purposes, the term “first temperature” is interpreted to be the second temperature. Because dependent claims 2-8 incorporate the limitations of claim 1, they are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an unconventional combination of additional elements.
The additional elements of heating the solid urea inclusion compound to a second temperature sufficient to decompose the solid urea inclusion compound, decomposing the solid urea inclusion compound at the second temperature to produce a mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester, heating the mixture of the solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to a third temperature sufficient to melt the urea, wherein the third temperature is greater than the second temperature, melting the solid urea at the third temperature to produce a mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester, cooling the mixture of the liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to the first temperature, and cooling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to a fourth temperature (claim 1) are a combination of unconventional activities not previously known in the field of art and are therefore patent eligible under Step 2B of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because dependent claims 2-8 incorporate the limitations of claim 1, they are likewise patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
[Step 2B: YES]
Therefore, claims 1-8 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Purdue University, 2012, 1-164).
With respect to claim 1:
Regarding the recited providing a solid urea inclusion compound having a first temperature; heating the solid urea inclusion compound to a second temperature sufficient to decompose the solid urea inclusion compound; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy to provide a first recorded change in enthalpy and a first recorded change in entropy from the first temperature to the second temperature, Liu et al. discloses heating a solid urea inclusion compound formed by urea and fatty acid methyl ester from temperature T to its decomposition temperature in the first step (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 6-9). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.12 and 3.13 (pg. 37). This teaches a solid urea inclusion compound with a first temperature, heating the compound to decompose it, and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this first step.
Regarding the recited decomposing the solid urea inclusion compound at the second temperature to produce a mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy while decomposing the solid urea inclusion compound at the second temperature to provide a second recorded change in enthalpy and a second recorded change in entropy, Liu et al. discloses that the solid urea inclusion compound decomposes to solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester at the decomposition temperature (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 9-12). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.14 and 3.15 (pg. 37). This teaches decomposing the solid urea inclusion compound to produce a mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this second step.
Regarding the recited heating the mixture of the solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to a third temperature sufficient to melt the urea, wherein the third temperature is greater than the second temperature; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy to provide a third recorded change in enthalpy and a third recorded change in entropy from the second temperature to the third temperature, Liu et al. discloses heating the mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester from the melting point of urea (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 12-15). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.16 and 3.17 (pg. 37-38). This teaches heating the mixture of the solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to a third temperature and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this third step.
Regarding the recited melting the solid urea at the third temperature to produce a mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy while melting the solid urea to provide a fourth recorded change in enthalpy and a fourth recorded change in entropy, Liu et al. discloses reaching the melting point of urea, where the mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester becomes liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 15-18). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.18 and 3.19 (pg. 37-38). This teaches melting the solid urea to produce a mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this fourth step.
Regarding the recited cooling the mixture of the liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to the first temperature; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy to provide a fifth recorded change in enthalpy and a fifth recorded change in entropy from the third temperature to the second temperature, Liu et al. discloses chilling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to the decomposition temperature (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 18-21). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.20 and 3.21 (pg. 37-38). This teaches cooling the mixture of the liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this fifth step.
Regarding the recited cooling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to a fourth temperature; recording a change in enthalpy and a change in entropy to provide a sixth recorded change in enthalpy and a sixth recorded change in entropy from the second temperature to the fourth temperature, Liu et al. discloses chilling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to temperature T (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 21-24). The enthalpy change and entropy change of this step is shown in Eq. 3.22 and 3.23 (pg. 37-38). This teaches cooling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester and recording the change in enthalpy and entropy of this sixth step.
Regarding the recited calculating a thermodynamic model using the six recorded changes in enthalpies and six changes in entropies, Liu et al. discloses the enthalpy change and entropy change of component i from liquid to solid utilizing equations 3.12 to 3.25 is shown in Eq. 3.26 and 3.27 (pg. 39, lines 1-12). This teaches a thermodynamic model using the six recorded changes in enthalpies and entropies.
Regarding the recited using the thermodynamic model to predict a yield and composition of the solid urea inclusion compound, Liu et al. discloses applying the proposed thermodynamic model to predict the cooling urea inclusion fractionation and evaporative urea inclusion fractionation process (pg. 81-82, para. 2, lines 10-15). The yield and composition changes of the urea inclusion compound from the predicted cooling urea inclusion fractionation process is modeled in Figures 6.2 and 6.4, which depict the effect of the mass ratios of urea to FAME from soybean oil on cooling urea inclusion fractionation yield and composition (pg. 83-86). This teaches using the thermodynamic model to predict the yield and composition of the urea inclusion compound.
Regarding the recited selecting a fatty acid methyl ester source using the predicted yield and composition, Liu et al. discloses that since the urea inclusion fractionation process can be used on any FAME composition, it has the potential benefits of being able to make biodiesel products with consistent controlled cold flow properties from mixtures of natural FAME sources, which will allow both a variety of differentiated products to be made and more consistent cold flow quality control across the biodiesel industry (pg. 152, para. 3). Also, further discloses that the resultant properties and yields in the fractionation process are dependent upon the initial FAME composition, and the thermodynamic model with the activity coefficients predicted by the modified UNIFAC model can be used to evaluate urea inclusion fractionation in separating FAME because it is accurate in predicting the urea inclusion fractionation (pg. 152, para. 2, lines 1-2; pg. 153, para. 2, lines 1-3). It would be obvious to select a fatty acid methyl ester source using the predicted yield and composition because the thermodynamic model is able to accurately predict the yield and composition of FAMEs, which can be used to select a FAME source for more consistent controlled cold flow biodiesel products.
With respect to claim 2:
Regarding the recited wherein calculating the thermodynamic model using the six recorded changes in enthalpy and six changes in entropy comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, Liu et al. discloses the enthalpy change and entropy change of component i from liquid to solid utilizing equations 3.12 to 3.25 is shown in Eq. 3.26 and 3.27:
PNG
media_image2.png
170
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(pg. 39, lines 1-12). This teaches the thermodynamic model using the six recorded changes in enthalpy and entropy.
With respect to claim 3:
Regarding the recited wherein using the thermodynamic model to predict a yield and composition of the solid urea inclusion compound comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, Liu et al. discloses an equation that can be used to calculate the solubility of urea inclusion compound in the solvent:
PNG
media_image4.png
119
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pg. 40, lines 9-14). This teaches the equation used in the thermodynamic modeling method to predict the yield and composition of the solid urea inclusion compound.
With respect to claim 4:
Regarding the recited wherein the predicted yield and composition comprise the yield and composition of fatty acid methyl esters in a liquid phase, Liu et al. discloses applying the proposed thermodynamic model to predict the cooling urea inclusion fractionation and evaporative urea inclusion fractionation process (pg. 81-82, para. 2, lines 10-15). The yield and composition changes of the urea inclusion compound from the predicted cooling urea inclusion fractionation process is modeled in Figures 6.2 and 6.4, which depict the effect of the mass ratios of urea to FAME from soybean oil on cooling urea inclusion fractionation (pg. 83-86). This teaches observing the yield and composition of FAME in liquid phase.
With respect to claim 5:
Regarding the recited wherein selecting a fatty acid methyl ester source using the predicted yield and composition comprises using fatty acid methyl ester source composition and operation data to predict the yield and composition of fatty acid methyl esters in a liquid phase, Liu et al. discloses measuring effects such as ratios of urea to FAME to solvent and operation temperature and operation pressure on urea inclusion fractionation through experiments and simulating these effects using the proposed thermodynamic model (pg. 81, para. 1). Figures 6.14 and 6.17 depict the effect of operation temperature and pressure on evaporative urea inclusion fractionation by fixing operation pressures or temperatures and mass ratios of urea to FAME to methanol to observe yield and compositions of FAME in liquid phase (pg. 92-98). Figure 6.21 depicts the effect of the composition of FAME on cooling urea inclusion fractionation yields and FAME from soybean oil, safflower oil, grapeseed oil, flaxseed oil, palm oil, waste cooking oil, and chicken fat (pg. 103-104). Liu et al. discloses that since the urea inclusion fractionation process can be used on any FAME composition, it has the potential benefits of being able to make biodiesel products with consistent controlled cold flow properties from mixtures of natural FAME sources, which will allow both a variety of differentiated products to be made and more consistent cold flow quality control across the biodiesel industry (pg. 152, para. 3). Also, further discloses that the resultant properties and yields in the fractionation process are dependent upon the initial FAME composition, and the thermodynamic model with the activity coefficients predicted by the modified UNIFAC model can be used to evaluate urea inclusion fractionation in separating FAME because it is accurate in predicting the urea inclusion fractionation (pg. 152, para. 2, lines 1-2; pg. 153, para. 2, lines 1-3). It would be obvious to select a fatty acid methyl ester source using the predicted yield and composition because the thermodynamic model is able to accurately predict the yield and composition of FAMEs using FAME source composition and operation data, which can be used to select a FAME source for more consistent controlled cold flow biodiesel products.
With respect to claim 6:
Regarding the recited wherein the second temperature is the decomposition temperature of the solid urea inclusion compound, Liu et al. discloses heating a solid urea inclusion compound formed by urea and fatty acid methyl ester from temperature T to its decomposition temperature in the first step (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 6-9). This teaches the decomposition temperature of the solid urea inclusion compound as the second temperature of the thermodynamic modeling process.
With respect to claim 7:
Regarding the recited wherein the third temperature is the melting point of the solid urea, Liu et al. discloses reaching the melting point of urea, where the mixture of solid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester becomes liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 15-18). This teaches the melting point of the solid urea as the third temperature of the thermodynamic modeling process.
With respect to claim 8:
Regarding the recited wherein the fourth temperature is an arbitrary temperature that is less than the second temperature, Liu et al. discloses chilling the mixture of liquid urea and liquid fatty acid methyl ester to temperature T (pg. 36, para. 2, lines 21-24). This teaches chilling a mixture to temperature T in the sixth step of the thermodynamic modeling process, which is the fourth temperature that is less than the second decomposition temperature.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to predict yield and composition changes during urea inclusion fractionation to select a fatty acid methyl ester source for biofuel as disclosed by Liu et al. One would be motivated to predict yield and composition changes because Liu et al. discloses that since the urea inclusion fractionation process can be used on any FAME composition, it has the potential benefits of being able to make biodiesel products with consistent controlled cold flow properties from mixtures of natural FAME sources, which will allow both a variety of differentiated products to be made and more consistent cold flow quality control across the biodiesel industry (pg. 152, para. 3). The resultant properties and yields in the fractionation process are dependent upon the initial FAME composition, and the thermodynamic model with the activity coefficients predicted by the modified UNIFAC model can be used to evaluate urea inclusion fractionation in separating FAME because it is accurate in predicting the urea inclusion fractionation (pg. 152, para. 2, lines 1-2; pg. 153, para. 2, lines 1-3). The thermodynamic model can accurately predict the yield and composition of FAMEs, which can be used to select a FAME source for more consistent controlled cold flow biodiesel products. There is a likelihood of success, since thermodynamic modeling of urea inclusion fractionation is a well-known technique in the field of chemical engineering.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jammy Luo whose telephone number is (571)272-2358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights