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 § 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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: “analyzing the one or more odor-causing substances” which is considered to be mental processes because they encompass functions that can be performed in the human mind, such as reading an instrument output or interpreting data.
The judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into any particular practical application because the only use of the analysis is a “controlling” of an operating condition in the unit, which is a generic and high-level recitation of a use of the abstract idea, that amounts to generically linking the exception to the particular environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are directed towards a generic controlling operation, which only amounts to nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional elements in the art of flue gas separations, particularly evidenced by the art cited below.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 and further failing to integrate the exceptions or recite any additional elements that amount to anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional elements in the art.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US 2014/0199224) in view of Scoggins (NPL, 1970).
Regarding claim 1, Larsson (US 2014/0199224) teaches –
A method of monitoring type and amount of one or more an odor-causing substances in a flue gas, and of controlling an operating condition in an odor removal unit, the method comprising (title):
providing a flue gas comprising the one or more odor-causing substances (Figs. 1 and 7, flue gas F; par. 93);
introducing the flue gas into the odor removal unit to produce a gas phase stream (par. 93), wherein the gas-phase stream has a reduced number of odor-causing substances compared to the flue gas (par. 96);
dissolving a portion of the gas-phase stream in a solvent to produce a liquid-phase stream, wherein the liquid-phase stream has the reduced number of odor-causing substances dissolved therein (par. 95); and
measuring a property of the liquid-phase stream (sulfur dioxide sensor 105, par. 93);
analyzing the one or more odor-causing substances based on the measured absorbance to obtain an analysis result (par. 96); and
controlling the operating condition in the odor removal unit based on the analysis result (claim 4 discloses controlling the contact zone performance based on a measured and compared analysis result).
Larsson appears to be silent with regards to measuring specifically an absorbance of the liquid-phase stream.
Scoggins (NPL, 1970) (Cited on IDS, already present in file wrapper) discloses an odor control method (see abstract, p. 1091) including an absorption analysis of a liquid with spectrophotometry using light at 276 nm (see fig. 1, “Results and Discussion” par. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Larsson such that there the absorbance is measured as taught by Scoggins to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known effective analysis technique to arrive at a successful monitoring method. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known analysis techniques for known gas detection applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Larsson further teaches the one or more odor-causing substances comprises sulfur dioxide (par. 97).
Regarding claim 3, Larsson further teaches the flue gas is introduced into a bottom of the odor removal unit, and the odor removal unit comprises a scrubber, a combustion device, an adsorption device, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1 shows this, the device is a scrubber, par. 97).
Regarding claim 4, Larsson further teaches the odor removal unit is the scrubber, and water is supplied to the top of the scrubber (par. 26).
Regarding claim 5, Larsson further teaches the solvent comprises water, an aqueous solution, an organic solvent, or a combination thereof (par. 26).
Regarding claim 6, Larsson is set forth above with regards to claim 5, but appears to be silent with regards to an NaOH or sulfuric acid solution.
Scoggins (NPL, 1970) (Cited on IDS, already present in file wrapper) discloses an odor control method (see abstract, p. 1091) including a solvent including NaOH (“Results and Discussion” par. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Larsson such that the aqueous solution comprises an NaOH solution as taught by Scoggins to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known effective solvent to arrive at a successful monitoring method. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known solvents for known applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 7-8, Scoggins further teaches an odor control method (see abstract, p. 1091) including an analysis with spectrophotometry using light at 276 nm (see fig. 1, “Results and Discussion” par. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Larsson such that there the absorbance is measured in a wavelength range of 170 – 280 nm as taught by Scoggins to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known effective analysis technique to arrive at a successful monitoring method. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known analysis techniques for known gas detection applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US 2014/0199224) in view of Scoggins (NPL, 1970) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schroeter (US 3,152,251).
Regarding claim 10, modified Larsson appears to be silent with regards to a removing of solids.
Schroeter (US 3,152,251) teaches that in order to provide reliable sampling of a solution, the solution should be filtered prior to analysis (col. 3 ln 37-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Larsson such that the solids are removed from the liquid-phase stream before measuring the absorbance as taught by Schroeter to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to provide the most reliable sampling possible to arrive at an improved monitoring method.
Regarding claim 11, modified Larsson further teaches the removing of solids is accomplished by filtration (col. 3 ln 37-51 of Schroeter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the 101 rejection of claim 1 are persuasive and that rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments directed towards the abstract idea recited in former claim 9, now included in claim 1 per Applicant’s amendment, are not persuasive. “Analyzing” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind as set forth above, and the only application of the mental process amounts to a mere “apply it”.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the 102 rejections are moot as the claims are no longer rejected under 102 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Kwan are moot as the reference is not relied upon anywhere in this rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Schroeter and Scoggins are not persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim requires monitoring “one or more odor-causing substances”, and does not recite any limitation directed towards the substances being known or unknown. Furthermore, absorbance analysis of a liquid stream would necessarily identify the characteristics of the stream, whether the identity of the substances are known or not.
Any alleged deficiencies of the prior art have been remedied by the newly cited Larsson, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, particularly in view of Scoggins.
Conclusion
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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights