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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 is understood to require an amino-bonded silica stationary phase. Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, appears to broaden the scope of this limitation and thus not require amino-bonded silica. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 8-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Panda I et al (Aromatic-selective size exclusion chromatography: A new dimension…, Fuel, 2022) and Panda II et al (Determination of heavy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by non-aqueous reversed phase…, Journal of Chromatography, 2018) in view of Gong et al (CN 104569193 A).
With respect to claim 1, Panda I teaches methods for separation and quantitation of various fractions of crude oil components, including polycyclic aromatic compounds [Abs; Introduction; Conclusion] using HPLC with ASSEC, which employs an amino-bonded silica stationary phase, a solvent such as dichloromethane, and a suitable detector [Introduction, last paragraph; Results and Discussion, first paragraph]. The samples are flowed through the stationary phase to interact with the amino-bonded silica e.g. via size exclusion and other interactions, and discharged as eluent to the detector which generates a chromatogram [Sec. 2.6]. Compounds are identified by analyzing peaks and normalizing [Sec. 2.5]. Prior to loading, the samples are diluted and filtered [Sec. 2.5]. Quantitation is proposed using standards for the particular classes of compounds present in the sample [pg. 3, last paragraph].
Panda I essentially differs from the instant claimed process in that Panda I is silent to the specific focus on heavy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons i.e. those with at least 7 aromatic rings, though it may be considered that such would inherently be present in a crude oil sample of the type analyzed by Panda I. Further, Panda I is silent to the specific quantitating steps regarding the use of HPAH standards function obtained from regression of peaks of plural reference HPAH standards.
Panda II teaches chromatographic methods for separation and quantitation specifically of HPAHs due to their impacts on important processes such as hydrocracking [Abs, Introduction]. A sample containing the HPAHs is diluted and filtered, then processed by reversed phase HPLC, then detected and quantified using a mix of standards [Sec. 2.4].
Panda II essentially differs from the instant claimed process in that Panda II employs different stationary phases for the purpose of reversed phase chromatography, rather than the amino-based size exclusion media employed by the instant claims. Further, Panda II is silent the specific quantitating steps regarding the use of HPAH standards function obtained from regression of peaks of plural reference HPAH standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the size-exclusion process of Panda I to act on and specifically analyze samples containing HPAHs because, as in Panda II, monitoring and quantitation of these species is useful because of their detrimental impact on valuable processes such as hydrocracking processes (see [Introduction] of Panda II). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Panda II to employ media capable of facilitating size-exclusion behavior such as the amino-bonded silica of Panda I because, as in Panda I, this allows for very fast and very scalable separations to analyze petroleum fractions (see [Conclusions] of Panda I).
The combination of Panda I and Panda II (in either form) is nevertheless silent to regression of peaks of plural reference HPAH standards for quantitation. However, Gong teaches detection methods of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon species in samples [Abs] and teaches that, for quantitation, a standards curve is generated by taking multiple standard solutions together in a dilute manner, and performing a linear regression on the peak area of each compound at their relevant mass concentration (i.e. accounting for a dilution factor) to generate a standard working curve [0048]. This gives a useful standard for which a sample can be analyzed e.g. at various signal-to-noise ratios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined process of Panda I and Panda II to employ a regression of data from multiple sample standards in the manner taught by Gong because, as discussed, the samples e.g. crude oil fractions as in Panda I or derivatives thereof e.g. hydrocracking fractions as in Panda II nevertheless contain many compounds of interest, including many HPAHs, and such regression as employed by Gong allows for detection and quantitation of samples by generating a single standard working curve from a large number of standard species.
The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the aforementioned combinations.
With respect to claim 2, Panda II teaches coronene as an available standard [Sec. 2.4].
With respect to claim 3, Panda II identifies species with 7 or more rings as the relevant HPAHs, which overlaps the claimed range and thus renders it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, as above in view of Gong, providing a regressed standard reference curve based on measurement of compounds at different combinations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, as above Panda I teaches amino-bonded silica.
With respect to claim 10, Panda II discusses the use of peak area in a calculation for determining a concentration [Sec. 3.5, Eq. 1].
With respect to claims 12-16, Panda I [Introduction, last paragraph] and Panda II [Sec. 3.1] employ dichloromethane as solvent. Similarly, Panda I [Introduction, second-to-last paragraph] and Panda II [Sec. 3.1] discuss UV-based HPLC detectors.
With respect to claim 17, Panda I teaches a single set of conditions, solution concentration, etc. for the run of size exclusion chromatography [Sec. 2.6] such that isocratic operation is implicit or, at minimum, obvious over the taught conditions.
With respect to claim 18, Panda II suggests examining hydrocracker bottoms from a hydrocracking process [Sec. 3.1].
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Panda I et al and Panda II et al in view of Gong et al, further in view of Rovani et al (US 10,449,502 B2).
Panda I and Panda II teach as above, but are silent to the use of peak height as the standard peak characteristic.
However, Rovani teaches analysis of hydrocarbon compositions via size exclusion chromatography [Abs] and teaches that, in addition to peak area, peak height is also a useful metric for measurement and/or calculation for quantifying a solution constituent amount [Col. 6 lines 23-30; Col. 7 lines 36-47]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ peak heights as a characteristic for evaluation and calculation in the combined system of Panda I and Panda II for this reason i.e. as an alternative, useful means of quantifying constituent amounts.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Panda I et al and Panda II et al in view of Gong et al, further in view of Yanagawa et al (US PGPub 2013/0172639 A1).
Panda I and Panda II teach as above but do not specify sourcing samples from steam cracking or related operations, or thermal residual oil cracking.
However, Yanagawa teaches processes for producing aromatic hydrocarbons [Abs] and teaches operating using residual oils obtained from thermal cracking processes, or from processes such as steam cracking processes [0048], and teaches that a particular complication of working with such streams is the potential presence of heavy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [0058].
In view of this, it would have been obvious to apply the combined process of Panda I and Panda II to these streams i.e. steam cracking outputs and/or residual thermal cracking outputs because, as in Yanagawa, they may include HPAHs which may complicate other operations and therefore for which quantitation is useful.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art regarding the standards for HPAHs is taught by Panda II and Gong, discussed above. Panda II teaches reference against various specific species of HPAH for which standards are available, including coronene, 1-methylcoronene, perylene, and the like [Sec. 2.4]. Gong teaches forming a curve using linear regression at different concentrations of a mixed sample of multiple polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in combination [0048]. As such, while the prior art may be taken to render obvious the use of a linear regression of a sample standard at various concentrations to produce a reference curve, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art, alone or in combination, of producing such a standard where the sample consists essentially of coronene. Both Panda II and Gong teach or at least suggest measuring against a variety of different available standards. There is no teaching or suggestion that the use of coronene essentially alone as the reference material would be sufficient for analysis of samples which may contain a large number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon species.
In view of this, the invention of claims 5-7 is free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights