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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, J. et al., US 20030064006 A1 (hereinafter Carnahan) and in view of US 5824270 A (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 1, Carnahan teaches an apparatus comprising: a plurality of metallic reaction vessels (fig. 7 element 45, para [0026] lines 1-5), each of the plurality of reaction vessels comprising, a top open end (fig. 1 element 18, para [0019] lines 1-6) and a bottom closed end (fig. 1 element 16, para [0019] lines 1-6), and a removable cap (fig. 3 element 28, para [0023] lines 7-13; it is a removable cap because the tubes 45 may be re-usable, para [0037] last sentence) to hermetically seal the top open end (para [0037] last sentence, para [0023] lines 15-17 and last sentence), the removable cap comprising a transparent window made of a transparent solid material (the solid transparent window is window 50 as shown in fig. 6, para [0025] lines 1-6); a bath that houses the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (para [0023] lines 1-4), “the bath comprising one or more partitions, defining at least a first zone and a second zone of the bath, the bath configured to maintain the first zone at a first temperature and the second zone at a second temperature” (para [0024] lines 1-9); a Raman probe above the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (para [0025] lines 1-6, fig. 9 para [0033] lines 1-14; note that the Raman probe is on top of the reactor tubes 45), configured to collect a Raman signal from inside one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels through the transparent window (para [0025] lines 1-10); and “such that the Raman probe faces down and toward the transparent window of the one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (para [0025] lines 1-6, fig. 9 para [0033] lines 1-14; note that the Raman probe is on top of the reactor tubes 45).
Carnahan fails to teach a Raman moving mechanism that moves and holds the Raman probe in a position selected from a plurality of possible positions, the Raman moving mechanism comprising, a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe from the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Rao, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches “a Raman moving mechanism that moves and holds the Raman probe in a position selected from a plurality of possible positions, the Raman moving mechanism comprising, a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe from the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” (col 3 lines 2-7; the laser beam is attached to a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe, see evidentiary reference US 20170059296 A1 (hereinafter Chang), fig. 1B at B-axis, para [0004] lines 1-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rao to Carnahan to have “a Raman moving mechanism that moves and holds the Raman probe in a position selected from a plurality of possible positions, the Raman moving mechanism comprising, a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe from the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” in order to prevent leaks or spillage of the cuvettes (col 3 lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 2, Carnahan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bath is filled with a heat transfer fluid (para [0026] lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 6, Carnahan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a temperature sensor attached to at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (para [0026] lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 7, Carnahan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a sealable inlet port attached to a side of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Carnahan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of metallic reaction vessels comprise an alloy comprising nickel, chromium, and molybdenum (para [0023] lines 4-7, para [0032] to para [0033]; note that HastelloyTM alloy comprises nickel, chromium, and molybdenum, see Hastelloy p. 2 para 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang, P. et al., US 20170059296 A1 (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Carnahan does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the central rod is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Chang, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the central rod is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (the central rod corresponds to the spindle 50, para [0027] lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of the modified device of Chang to Carnahan to have the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the central rod is laterally offset from longitudinal axes of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels in order to provide a rotary probe head that can allow for greater flexibility in probe/ sensor compatibility as well as improved motor control performance (para [0005] last sentence).
Claim(s) 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Subramanian, Sivakumar. "Measurements of clathrate hydrates containing methane and ethane using Raman spectroscopy." (2000) (hereinafter Subramanian).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Carnahan does not teach the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a pressure sensor attached to at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Subramanian, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a pressure sensor attached to at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (fig. 3.2 there is a pressure sensor between the glass tube and gas bottle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Subramanian to the modified device of Carnahan to have the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a pressure sensor attached to at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels in order to obtain the Raman signal of the hydrate samples at lower pressure (see 3.2 para 2 last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Carnahan does not teach the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a Raman detector connected to the Raman probe, the Raman detector comprising a charged-coupled device (CCD) camera configured to capture a video of inside the one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Subramanian, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a Raman detector connected to the Raman probe, the Raman detector comprising a charged-coupled device (CCD) camera configured to capture a video of inside the one of the plurality of metallic reaction (this is shown in fig. 3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Subramanian to the modified device of Carnahan to have the the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a Raman detector connected to the Raman probe, the Raman detector comprising a charged-coupled device (CCD) camera configured to capture a video of inside the one of the plurality of metallic reaction in order to obtain the Raman signal of the hydrate samples at lower pressure (see 3.2 para 2 last sentence).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Awadh, T. et al., US 10883873 B1 (hereinafter Awadh).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Carnahan does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels, wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a rod supporting the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels at the closed end; and a rotation mechanism to rotate the rod and the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction.
Awadh, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (this is shown in fig. 3A), wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a rod supporting the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels at the closed end (fig. 3A “366a”, col 8 lines 25-34); and a rotation mechanism to rotate the rod and the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction (fig. 3A “322”, col 8 lines 25-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Awadh to the modified device of Carnahan to have the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels, wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a rod supporting the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels at the closed end; and a rotation mechanism to rotate the rod and the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction in order to overcome the heating problem and the need to change the laser angle to obtain the preferred angle of incidence (col 3 lines 42-46).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Semicontinuous Parallel Reactor with Non-Contact Raman Monitoring (hereinafter Document 1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Carnahan does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels, wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a magnetic stirrer; and a magnetic stir bar inside the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Document 1, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels, wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a magnetic stirrer; and a magnetic stir bar inside the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Document 1 to the modified device of Carnahan to have the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an agitation mechanism to agitate a content of at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels, wherein the agitation mechanism comprises: a magnetic stirrer; and a magnetic stir bar inside the at least one of the plurality of metallic reaction vessels in order to agitate or mix evenly the sample inside the vessels (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, in view of Document 1, and further in view of Rao.
Regarding claim 12, Carnahan teaches a system of Raman spectroscopy comprising: a plurality of metallic batch reactors (fig. 7 element 45, para [0026] lines 1-5), each metallic batch reactor comprising a metallic reaction vessel (fig. 7 element 45, para [0026] lines 1-5), a sealable inlet port attached to the metallic reaction vessel (para [0037] last sentence, para [0023] lines 15-17 and last sentence), a top removable cap to hermetically seal the metallic reaction vessel (fig. 3 element 28, para [0023] lines 7-13; it is a removable cap because the tubes 45 may be re-usable, para [0037] last sentence), the top removable cap comprising a transparent window made of a transparent solid material (the solid transparent window is window 50 as shown in fig. 6, para [0025] lines 1-6), and a Raman probe connected to a Raman detector and a laser source (para [0015]; Raman spectrometer has a laser and a detector, see evidentiary reference US20230204515A1 fig. 19); “the Raman probe is positioned above and faced toward a selected one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors to collect a Raman signal from inside the selected one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors through the transparent window” (para [0025] lines 1-6, fig. 9 para [0033] lines 1-14; note that the Raman probe is on top of the reactor tubes 45), a bath to house the plurality of metallic batch reactors and maintain a uniform temperature of the plurality of metallic batch reactors at a set temperature (para [0026] lines 1-13).
Carnahan does not teach an agitation mechanism configured to agitate contents of the metallic reaction vessel; a probe adjusting mechanism configured to move the Raman probe, the probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Document 1, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches an agitation mechanism configured to agitate contents of the metallic reaction vessel (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Document 1 to Carnahan to have an agitation mechanism configured to agitate contents of the metallic reaction vessel in order to agitate or mix evenly the sample inside the vessels (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Carnahan, when modified by Document 1, does not teach a probe adjusting mechanism configured to move the Raman probe, the probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Rao, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches “a probe adjusting mechanism configured to move the Raman probe, the probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” (col 3 lines 2-7; the laser beam is attached to a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe, see evidentiary reference US 20170059296 A1 (hereinafter Chang), fig. 1B at B-axis, para [0004] lines 1-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rao to Carnahan, when modified by Document 1 to have “a probe adjusting mechanism configured to move the Raman probe, the probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” in order to prevent leaks or spillage of the cuvettes (col 3 lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 14, Carnahan teaches the system of Raman spectroscopy of claim 12, wherein the bath is filled with a heat transfer fluid (para [0026] lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 15, Carnahan teaches the system of Raman spectroscopy of claim 14, wherein the bath is configured to hold each batch reactor at a same depth in the heat transfer fluid (fig. 7 shows element 70 are at a same depth in the heat transfer fluid).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, Document 1, and Rao as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Subramanian.
Regarding claim 13, the modified apparatus of Carnahan does not teach the system of Raman spectroscopy of claim 12, wherein the agitation mechanism is configured to perform swaying agitation.
Subramanian, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the system of Raman spectroscopy of claim 12, wherein the agitation mechanism is configured to perform swaying agitation (section 8.2.2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Subramanian to the modified apparatus of Carnahan to have the system of Raman spectroscopy of claim 12, wherein the agitation mechanism is configured to perform swaying agitation in order to equilibrate the sample in the cell (section 8.2.2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, in view of Subramanian, Hong, Sang Yeon, et al. "Kinetic studies on methane hydrate formation in the presence of kinetic inhibitor via in situ Raman spectroscopy." Energy & fuels 26.11 (2012): 7045-7050 (hereinafter Hong), and further in view of Rao.
Regarding claim 16, Carnahan teaches a method of processing, the method comprising: loading a plurality of metallic batch reactors (this is shown in fig. 7) “wherein each metallic batch reactor comprising, a metallic reaction vessel having a cylindrical shape” (para [0026] lines 1-13), a removable cap to hermetically seal the reaction vessel (fig. 3 element 28, para [0023] lines 7-13; it is a removable cap because the tubes 45 may be re-usable, para [0037] last sentence), the removable cap comprising a transparent window made of a transparent solid material (the solid transparent window is window 50 as shown in fig. 6, para [0025] lines 1-6); hermetically sealing the plurality of metallic batch reactors with the removable cap (para [0037] last sentence, para [0023] lines 15-17 and last sentence); immersing the plurality of metallic batch reactors into a bath configured to maintain a set temperature(para [0026] lines 1-13); and measuring Raman signals, using a Raman probe positioned above the plurality of metallic batch reactors, from inside one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors through the transparent window (the Raman probe is above the element 45),
Carnahan does not teach with a crystal precursor, a solvent, and a hydrate inhibitor, charging the plurality of metallic batch reactors with a gas comprising guest molecules for a gas hydrate formation; the Raman signals being characteristic of a gas hydrate formation process within the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors, wherein the Raman probe is attached to a probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Subramanian, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches “a crystal precursor, a solvent” (fig. 3.1 “DI water/hydrates/gas sample”); hydrates are crystals, see Table 2.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Subramanian to Carnahan to have a crystal precursor, a solvent in order to obtain the Raman signal of the hydrate samples at lower pressure (see 3.2 para 2 last sentence).
Carnahan, when modified by Subramanian, does not teach with a hydrate inhibitor, charging the plurality of metallic batch reactors with a gas comprising guest molecules for a gas hydrate formation; the Raman signals being characteristic of a gas hydrate formation process within the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors, wherein the Raman probe is attached to a probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Hong, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches a hydrate inhibitor, charging the plurality of metallic batch reactors with a gas comprising guest molecules for a gas hydrate formation; the Raman signals being characteristic of a gas hydrate formation process within the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors (this is explained in the Abstract ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hong to Carnahan, when modified by Subramanian, to have a hydrate inhibitor, charging the plurality of metallic batch reactors with a gas comprising guest molecules for a gas hydrate formation; the Raman signals being characteristic of a gas hydrate formation process within the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors in order to contribute and to have a better understanding of inhibition mechanisms and practical applications for flow assurance in gas and oil pipelines (p. 5 col 2 last para).
Carnahan, when modified by Subramanian and Hong, does not teach wherein the Raman probe is attached to a probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels.
Rao, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches “wherein the Raman probe is attached to a probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” (col 3 lines 2-7; the laser beam is attached to a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe, see evidentiary reference US 20170059296 A1 (hereinafter Chang), fig. 1B at B-axis, para [0004] lines 1-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rao to Carnahan, when modified by Subramanian and Hong, to have “wherein the Raman probe is attached to a probe adjusting mechanism comprising a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe at discrete lateral positions corresponding to the plurality of metallic reaction vessels while maintaining a same height distance of the Raman probe form the plurality of metallic reaction vessels” in order to prevent leaks or spillage of the cuvettes (col 3 lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 19, Carnahan does not teach the method of claim 17, further comprising: moving the Raman probe to face toward another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors; and measuring Raman signals from inside the another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors.
Rao, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches “the method of claim 17, further comprising: moving the Raman probe to face toward another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors; and measuring Raman signals from inside the another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors” (col 3 lines 2-7; the laser beam is attached to a rotatable stage supported by a central rod and configured to move and hold the Raman probe, see evidentiary reference US 20170059296 A1 (hereinafter Chang), fig. 1B at B-axis, para [0004] lines 1-4; tote that Carnahan teaches the Raman probe is facing downward)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rao to Carnahan, when modified by Subramanian and Hong, to have “the method of claim 17, further comprising: moving the Raman probe to face toward another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors; and measuring Raman signals from inside the another one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors” in order to prevent leaks or spillage of the cuvettes (col 3 lines 2-7).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, Subramanian, Hong, and Rao as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Document 1.
Regarding claim 17, the modified equipment of Carnahan does not teach the method of claim 16, further comprising agitating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors while measuring the Raman signals.
Document 1, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising agitating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors while measuring the Raman signals (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Document 1 to the modified equipment of Carnahan to have the method of claim 16, further comprising agitating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors while measuring the Raman signals in order to agitate or mix evenly the sample inside the vessels (p. 2 para 4 last sentence).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, Subramanian, Hong, Rao, and Document 1 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Harward, B., US 20140118733 A1 (Harward).
Regarding claim 18, the modified equipment of Carnahan does not teach does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the agitating comprises rotating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors at a rate between 50 rpm and 300 rpm.
Harward, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches teach the method of claim 17, wherein the agitating comprises rotating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors at a rate between 50 rpm and 300 rpm (para [0034] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Harward to the modified equipment of Carnahan to have the method of claim 17, wherein the agitating comprises rotating the one of the plurality of metallic batch reactors at a rate between 50 rpm and 300 rpm in order to measure each vial many times during the sampling period, thereby ensuring a high degree of reproducibility in measuring the combination of vials (Abstract, lines 9-13).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan, Subramanian, Hong, Rao, and Document 1 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Liu, Ni, et al. "Experimental study on the mechanism of enhanced CO2 hydrate generation by thermodynamic promoters." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 11.14 (2023): 5367-5375 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 20, the modified equipment of Carnahan does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the solvent comprises water, the crystal precursor comprises a carbonate, and the gas comprises CO2, or H2S.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Carnahan, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the solvent comprises water (p. 3 col 2 Table 1 “Pure water”), the crystal precursor comprises a carbonate (Table 1, this is CO2 dissolve in pure water), and the gas comprises CO2 (p. 3 col 2 para 3 lines 1-5), or H2S.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu to the modified equipment of Carnahan to have the method of claim 17, wherein the solvent comprises water, the crystal precursor comprises a carbonate, and the gas comprises CO2, or H2S in order to provide a theoretical foundation for the further development of CO2 capture and storage technology involving the use of the hydrate method (Abstract last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877