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 Interpretation
In claim 2, the term “CuOXS” is interpreted as defined in Specification on Pg. 5, 2nd para, as a dispersion of colloidal silica surface treated with a combination of CuO and CuCl2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommese et al. US 20180291284 in view of Felipe et al. US 20180345212.
Regarding claim 1, Sommese et al. discloses (paragraphs [0001], [0022] - [0030], [0040]; claims 1, 16) a process for the removal of H2S from a fluid stream, such as an oil stream or a gas stream (paragraphs [0002], [0017], [0022] - [0026]), the process comprising adding a dispersion of colloidal silica or alumina nanoparticles coated with iron or zinc to said fluid stream to be desulfurized.
The difference between the invention of and that of claim 1 is that claim 1 requires the addition of triazine with the nanoparticles.
Felipe et al. teaches for scavenging hydrogen sulfide that are also useful for reducing or inhibiting solids and/or scale formation during treatment of hydrocarbon and aqueous streams related to oil and gas production and refining (Abstract). The reference highlights the suitability of triazine compounds for scavenging hydrogen sulfide (See Paras [0005], [0006], [0008], [0013], [0017] -[0020]; claims 1-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use triazine as taught by Felipe et al. in the method of H2S removal of Sommese. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose..” See MPEP §2144.06 I.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. US 2005/084438 in view of Felipe et al. US 20180345212.
Regarding claim 2, Do et al. discloses (Paras [0030], [0045]; examples 1-5) a process to remove H2S from a gas or water stream comprising adding a colloidal dispersion of silica nanoparticles having copper bonded thereto by means of an organosilane group.
The difference between the invention of Do et al. and that of claim 2 is that claim 2 requires the addition of triazine with the nanoparticles.
Felipe et al. teaches for scavenging hydrogen sulfide that are also useful for reducing or inhibiting solids and/or scale formation during treatment of hydrocarbon and aqueous streams related to oil and gas production and refining (Abstract). The reference highlights the suitability of triazine compounds for scavenging hydrogen sulfide (See Paras [0005], [0006], [0008], [0013], [0017] -[0020]; claims 1-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use triazine as taught by Felipe et al. in the method of H2S removal of Do et al. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose..” See MPEP §2144.06 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736