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 .
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of typographical error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Drawings Fig. 3, 1. “STRAGE PORTION” should be corrected to “STORAGE PORTION”.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,5,8, 9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 ,2, 5, 8:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention? Yes, A method for estimating a state of wax in a rubber compound, fall under process category.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is a judicial exception recited in the claim? Yes –claim 1, the limitations “acquiring a chromatogram of an extracted component, by separating components thereof, in which the wax is extracted from the rubber compound including the wax; and deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons in the wax based on the chromatogram.” This is data gathering and mental process.
Claim 2 recite estimating wax content based on derived normal hydrocarbon distribution. This limitation is evaluation information and mathematical calculation. Claim 5,8 “wherein the chromatogram is created using a gas chromatograph” which is data gathering and extra-solution activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, limitation “acquiring a chromatogram …, deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons …” Acquisition of chromatographic information constitute data gathering of subsequent information analysis. These limitations fall under an abstract idea.
Step 2B: If no, are the additional elements significantly more than the judicial exception. Obtaining chromatographic information doing calculation to get a normal distribution is not an inventing concept.
Therefore, claim(s) 1,2, 5,8 do not recite significantly more than judicial exception and are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim(s) 9-10:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention? Yes, claim 9 recite non-transitory
computer-readable medium which falls under manufacture category, claim 10 recites device which falls under machine category.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is a judicial exception recited in the claim? Yes – the limitations “acquiring a chromatogram of an extracted component”, appear to do mathematical calculation and data gathering. “Deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons in the wax based on the chromatogram.” This appears to be a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, limitation “acquiring a chromatogram …, deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons …” appears to represent mere data-gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: If no, are the additional elements significantly more than the judicial exception? for claim 9,10 implementing information processing function using a computer readable media or device are not inventing concept beyond information analysis. Therefore, claim 9,10 do not recite significantly more than judicial exception and are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim(s) 3,4,6,7:
Claim(s) as a whole removes a specific peak dominated by the component derived from an impurity other than the wax and method how this is accomplished. This is mathematical calculation which falls under judicial exception.
However, specification recites improvement of technology or technical field in light of specification “[0040] This significantly reduces the work time required to estimate the state of wax, eliminates variations among operators, and improves the reliability in estimating the state of wax.” Specification further recites, “[0045] The operation of identifying the specific peak has less variations among operators and requires less time than the operation of correcting the specific peak. Thus, even if the specific peak is identified by the operator, the estimation reliability and efficiency can be improved.”
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Therefore, claim 3,4,6,7 recite significantly more than judicial exception and are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5,8 ,10 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 USC 102 being anticipated by Ref: Kim, KR 100537667 B1 Wax analysis in rubber compound, hereinafter referred as KIM.
Claim 1, KIM teaches “A method for estimating a state of wax in a rubber compound comprising”; (Abstract, pg 1, para 1, “wax analysis method in a rubber compound”)
“acquiring a chromatogram of an extracted component, by separating components thereof, in which the wax is extracted from the rubber compound including the wax;” (pg 3 para 5, “chromatogram obtained by analyzing the extract obtained” reads on “acquiring a chromatogram”; pg 3 para 7, “gas chromatography, showing that the wax is completely separated” reads on “by separating components”);
“and deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons in the wax based on the chromatogram.” (pg 2, para 18, “Wax, in contrast, is a pure paraffinic hydrocarbon, divided into linear and pulverized phases, which shows very narrow and sharp peak chromatograms in gas chromatography.” Wherein the “, is a pure paraffinic hydrocarbon, , divided into linear” reads on “normal hydrocarbons”.)
Claim 2, KIM further teaches “further comprising estimating a content of the wax in the rubber compound based on the derived distribution of the normal hydrocarbons.” (KIM, pg 2, para 18, “Wax, in contrast, is a pure paraffinic hydrocarbon, divided into linear and pulverized phases, which shows very narrow and sharp peak chromatograms in gas chromatography”. Wherein the “is a pure paraffinic hydrocarbon, , divided into linear” reads on “normal hydrocarbon” and wherein “chromatograms in gas chromatography” reads on “estimating a content of the wax in the rubber compound based on derived distribution”).
Claim 5, KIM further teaches “wherein the chromatogram is created using a gas chromatograph.” (KIM, pg 2, para 18, “which shows very narrow and sharp peak chromatograms in gas chromatography”)
Claim 8, KIM further teaches “wherein the chromatogram is created using a gas chromatograph” (KIM, pg 2, para 18, “which shows very narrow and sharp peak chromatograms in gas chromatography”)
Claim 10, KIM teaches “for estimating a state of wax in a rubber compound, comprising:an acquisition portion that acquires a chromatogram of an extracted component, by separating components thereof, in which the wax is extracted from the rubber compound including the wax; and a derivation portion that derives a distribution of normal hydrocarbons in the wax based on the chromatogram.” This teaching is anticipated by KIM as discussed in claim 1. KIM is silent on “A device”. The Chromatogram is generated via chromatography which reads on “A device”.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM.
KIM teaches “acquiring a chromatogram of an extracted component, by separating components thereof, in which the wax is extracted from the rubber compound including the wax; and deriving a distribution of normal hydrocarbons in the wax based on the chromatogram” which is anticipated in claim 1.
KIM is silent on “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program” KIM teaches “content of the wax are calculated by integration of each peak on the chromatogram” (pg 2, para 21 , it implicitly teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program”, based on one of ordinary skill in the art, it is impossible or almost impossible to implement such calculations without involving a computing system).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that calculation and integration of each peak implies executed on non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program.
Claim Objections
Claims 3,4, 6,7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 is objected to and depends on claim 1.
Claim 3 further teaches “wherein the deriving the distribution of the normal hydrocarbons includes: identifying peaks by carbon atom number for the components separated from the extracted component based on the chromatogram”; (pg 2, para 6, “Wax has an appropriate distribution in the range of 20 to 45 carbon atoms, and there are two types of waxes (linear) (normal) and branched (iso)”. Wherein “20 to 45 carbon atoms” reads on “identifying peaks by atom number”.)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art of record fails to teach in combination of remaining limitation of claim 1 “among the peaks, removing a specific peak dominated by the component derived from an impurity other than the wax; and interpolating an area of the removed specific peak based on the areas of the peaks with the carbon atom numbers before and after the carbon atom number corresponding to the specific peak”. Although Kim teaches gas-chromatographic determination of carbon number distribution in waxes but fails to teach impurity specific removal by interpolating an area of the removed specific peak and carbon atom number-based reconstruction.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 which is objected, thus 4 is objected to for the same reason.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and 2, is objected to.
Claim 6 further teaches, “wherein the deriving the distribution of the normal hydrocarbons includes: identifying peaks by carbon atom number for the components separated from the extracted component based on the chromatogram; among the peaks, removing a specific peak dominated by the component derived from an impurity other than the wax; and interpolating an area of the removed specific peak based on the areas of the peaks with the carbon atom numbers before and after the carbon atom number corresponding to the specific peak.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 is allowable for reasons stated with respect to claim 3. KIM of record fails to teach removing peak dominated by non-wax impurity and interpolating area removed from specific peak based on the areas of the peaks with the carbon atom numbers before and after the carbon atom number corresponding to the specific peak.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 which is objected thus 7 is objected to for the same reason.
Conclusion
Claim(s), 1, 2, 5, 8,9 and 10 are rejected over KIM and claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to include limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, JP2013160599A Method for analyzing composition of rubber material, alters pyrolysis conditions to separate and detect component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN UDDIN AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3785. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm ET.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached 571-272-4448. 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.
/Mon Ahmed/
Paten Examiner
Art Unit 2858
09/11/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights