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 .
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US20200299141).
Du, paragraph 7 of the PGPUB, teaches a method for synthesizing sulfur-doped porous carbon comprising: combining a heavy hydrocarbon product with sulfur to form a reaction mixture, heating the reaction mixture to a first temperature state to form a liquefied reaction mixture comprising a reaction intermediate comprising a sulfur-crosslinked heavy hydrocarbon product, homogenously mixing a hydroxide base with the liquefied reaction mixture, and heating the liquefied reaction mixture and the hydroxide base to a second temperature state sufficient to pyrolyze the reaction intermediate in the liquefied reaction mixture to form a crosslinked, pyrolyzed reaction product comprising sulfur-doped porous carbon.
Du, paragraph 21 of the PGPUB, teaches that sulfur-doped porous carbon may be advantageously prepared from alternative hydrocarbon sources containing one or more olefinic moieties such as vacuum gas oil, atmospheric residue or vacuum residue.
Du, paragraph 44 of the PGPUB, teaches the hydroxide base may be potassium hydroxide, the like and any combination thereof. Other suitable bases other than alkali metal hydroxide bases may include bases such potassium carbonate and the like.
Du, paragraph 62 of the PGPUB, teaches the sulfur-doped porous carbon of the may be prepared by combining a suitable heavy hydrocarbon product and elemental sulfur (Ss).
Du, paragraph 66 of the PGPUB, teaches the second temperature state is the temperature at which pyrolysis of the sulfur-crosslinked heavy hydrocarbon product takes place and may comprise a temperature of about 600° C. to about 800° C.
It 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 to use a combination of bases such as potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate as Du teaches a combination of bases can be used.
Pyrolyzing the reaction intermediate in the liquefied reaction mixture as taught by Du reads on heating as claimed in claim 1.
Potassium carbonate as taught by Du reads on the carbonization catalyst as claimed in claim 1.
A pyrolysis temperature of about 600° C. to about 800° C as taught by Du reads on a carbonization temperature as claimed in claim 1.
A heavy hydrocarbon product comprising sulfur as taught by Du reads on a petroleum feedstock comprising one or more sulfur containing compounds as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, Du teaches potassium carbonate.
Regarding claims 5-6, Du, paragraph 46 of the PGPUB, teaches the amount of the heavy hydrocarbon product to sulfur prior to pyrolysis may be about 100% or higher on a mass basis.
Regarding claims 7-8, Du, paragraph 66 of the PGPUB, teaches the second temperature state is the temperature at which pyrolysis of the sulfur-crosslinked heavy hydrocarbon product takes place and may comprise a temperature of about 600° C. to about 800° C.
Regarding claim 9, Du, paragraph 92 of the PGPUB, teaches the reaction mixture was heated in a furnace at 500° C. for 2 hours to drive off H2S and other byproduct gases under a flowing inert atmosphere.
Regarding claim 10, Du, paragraph 92 of the PGPUB, teaches the reaction mixture was heated in a furnace at 500° C. for 2 hours to drive off H2S and other byproduct gases under a flowing inert atmosphere.
It 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 that the time can be increased or decreases as long as the time frame can drive off H2S and other byproduct gases under a flowing inert atmosphere.
Regarding claim 11, examiner interprets the process happening at atmospheric pressure (about 1 bar).
Regarding claims 12-14, Du, table 1, teaches a yield ranging from about 10-12 wt%.
Regarding claims 15-17, Du, paragraph 47 of the PGPUB, teaches following pyrolysis, the sulfur-doped porous carbon may comprise a crosslinked, pyrolyzed reaction product that has a sulfur content ranging from about 2 wt. % to about 10 wt. %.
Regarding claim 18, it 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 to use a combination of bases such as potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate as Du teaches a combination of bases can be used.
Du, paragraph 62 of the PGPUB, teaches the sulfur-doped porous carbon of the may be prepared by combining a suitable heavy hydrocarbon product and elemental sulfur (Ss).
Regarding claim 19, it 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 to use a combination of bases such as potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate as Du teaches a combination of bases can be used.
Regarding claim 20, Du, paragraph 62 of the PGPUB, teaches the sulfur-doped porous carbon of the may be prepared by combining a suitable heavy hydrocarbon product and elemental sulfur (Ss).
Regarding claim 21, Du, paragraph 21 of the PGPUB, teaches that sulfur-doped porous carbon may be advantageously prepared from alternative hydrocarbon sources containing one or more olefinic moieties such as vacuum gas oil, atmospheric residue or vacuum residue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Du states that the hydroxide base is optional but preferred, it is clear from the disclosure of Du that a hydroxide base is necessary to achieve the best results using the disclosed methods. Particularly, Du states that bases other than alkali metal hydroxide bases may be used, such as ammonium hydroxide, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, cesium nitrate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, and esium carbonate. 5 However, in practice, it is clear that the disclosed methods of Du resulted in sulfur-doped carbon products with very low surface areas whenever a metal hydroxide base was not used. Particularly, as seen in Table 1 of Du, recreated below, the exclusion of a hydroxide base led to a low BET surface area of about 4 m²/g, compared to surface area values on the order of about 1000 m²/g when a hydroxide, such as KOH, was used. Similarly, substituting alkali metal halide salts for a hydroxide base led to the formation of products with low surface areas under 10 m²/g.
A person of skill in the art would not look to modify the procedure of Du to omit a hydroxide base in favor of an alternative carbonization catalyst, such as an acetate, a bicarbonate, a bromide, a carbonate, a chloride, a fluoride, or an oxalate, as recited in the instant claims. The results in Table 1 of Du teach away from making such a modification to the methods of Du and it is only through the use of impermissible hindsight that one would make such a modification.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
Although Du, Table 1, teaches the base or salt is KOH, none, KCl, NaOH or NaCl, Du does not show an example with potassium carbonate.
Therefore, there is no evidence showing the properties of a sulfur doped porous carbon derived using potassium carbonate.
Further, Du, paragraph 62 of the PGPUB, teaches optionally and preferably, a hydroxide base may be thoroughly mixed with the sulfur - crosslinked heavy hydrocar bon product following crosslinking and prior to pyrolysis.
Further, Du, paragraph 44 of the PGPUB, teaches the hydroxide base may be potassium hydroxide, the like and any combination thereof. Other suitable bases other than alkali metal hydroxide bases may include bases such potassium carbonate and the like.
This clearly demonstrates that other bases such as potassium carbonate can be used instead of a hydroxide base or in combination with a hydroxide base, absent evidence to the contrary.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.975 (1989). MPEP 2123 I.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20080135454 teaches a process for the removal of sulfur from middle distillate fuels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 10/8/26
Prosecution Insights