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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18650084 filed 4/30/24.
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 4/30/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/30/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBBINS ET AL. (WO2018017528; 1/2018) and as evidence by ROBBINS ET AL. (US PG PUB 20200291316) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ROBBINS and ROBBINS’316.
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.
Regarding claims 1-24:
ROBBINS teaches that the invention can be practiced whenever transmix is generated between hydrocarbons of different subtypes, as long as the subtypes are adequately characterized by a discreet set of physical properties, and the physical properties can be analyzed fast enough to distinguish the subtypes before the transmix has completely passed the analysis point. Thus, for example, the invention can be practiced when the flow comprises three, four, five or more hydrocarbon subtypes selected from conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline, diesel fuel, ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel fuel, aviation turbine fuel, heating oil, kerosene, RBOB, PBOB, CBOB, subgrade gasoline, diluent, propane, pentane and butane. In a preferred embodiment, however, the invention is used to reduce transmix generated at the interface of two hydrocarbon subtypes selected from aviation turbine fuel, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, a motor gasoline, and a diluent. (pg 12 para 2)
ROBBINS teaches the invention also employs batch information to determine the subtype of hydrocarbon flowing past a juncture in the transmission pipe, and the subtype to expect once the first subtype and transmix have passed the juncture. The subtype will typically be derived from batch information or a "cycle schedule" that includes the rate of flow through the transmission pipe, the time required for a hydrocarbon batch to flow past a particular juncture, and the distance of the batch from the juncture. Alternatively, the batch information can include the times when batches of hydrocarbon flowing through the pipeline will start and end passing a particular juncture. (pg 11 para 2)
ROBBINS teaches "Programmable Logic Controller" or "PLC" when used herein, refers to a data processing system which can receive, retrieve, store, process, and output data. The PLC processes data which has been captured and encoded in a format recognizable by the data processing system. The PLC communicates with other PLC(s), information database(s), component(s), system(s) and device(s) encompassed by the methods and systems of the present invention. "Informational database," when used herein, refers to a data storing system which can receive, store and output data. The informational database communicates with or is accessible to other informational database(s), PLC(s), component(s), system(s) and device(s) encompassed by the methods and systems of the present invention. When data or a signal is referred to herein as being transmitted between two PLCs or an PLC and an information database, or other words of like import such as "communicated" or "delivered" are used, it will be understood that the transmission can be indirect, as when an intermediate PLC receives and forwards the signal or data. It will also be understood that the transmission can be passive or active. (pg 7 para 3 – pg 8 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches this batch information is typically processed by a PLC to determine the hydrocarbon subtype flowing past a juncture, compare the physical property measurements at the juncture to one or more cut-points associated with the subtype, divert the flow to the transmix pipe when one or more of the cut-points is reached, compare the physical property measurements at the juncture to one or more cut-points associated with the succeeding subtype, and resume the flow through the transmission pipe once the flow reaches the cut- points of the succeeding subtype. (pg 11 para 3)
ROBBINS teaches the methods can also be practiced when the subtypes are defined by three or more cut-points. Thus, the methods may further comprise (a) providing a third cut-point for the first subtype for a different physical property than the first and second cut-points; (b) providing a third cut-point for the second subtype for a different physical property than the first and second cut-points; (c) analyzing the flow for physical property measurements of the first, second and third cut-points of the first and second subtypes; (d) diverting the flow to a transmix pipe when the physical property measurements reach either the the first or second or third cut-point of the first sub-type; but (e) resuming the flow through the transmission only when the physical property measurements reach all of the first and second and third cut-points of the second subtype. As noted above, the methods of the present invention can be practiced in pipelines that carry multiple subtypes of hydrocarbon, and which generate transmix at multiple interfaces of these varying subtypes. Thus, the invention can also be practiced when the flow of hydrocarbon further comprises a third subtype in sequence, further comprising: (a) providing a first cut-point for the third subtype; (b) analyzing the flow for physical property measurements of the first cut-point of the second subtype and the first cut-point of the third subtype; (c) diverting the flow to the transmix pipe when physical property measurement reaches the first cut-point of the second subtype; and (d) resuming the flow through the transmission pipe when the measurements reach the third subtype first cut-point and third subtype second cut-point. (pg 11 para 4 – pg 12 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches the invention can be practiced whenever transmix is generated between hydrocarbons of different subtypes, as long as the subtypes are adequately characterized by a discreet set of physical properties, and the physical properties can be analyzed fast enough to distinguish the subtypes before the transmix has completely passed the analysis point. Thus, for example, the invention can be practiced when the flow comprises three, four, five or more hydrocarbon subtypes selected from conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline, diesel fuel, ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel fuel, aviation turbine fuel, heating oil, kerosene, RBOB, PBOB, CBOB, subgrade gasoline, diluent, propane, pentane and butane. In a preferred embodiment, however, the invention is used to reduce transmix generated at the interface of two hydrocarbon subtypes selected from aviation turbine fuel, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, a motor gasoline, and a diluent. (pg 12 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches preferred cut-points are physical property values selected from sulfur content, specific gravity, API gravity, haze, color and flashpoint, and combinations thereof. A preferred combination of physical properties to monitor is sulfur content, gravity (either or both of specific gravity and API gravity), and flashpoint. One or more of these physical properties can be monitored, depending on the cut-points associated with the batch flowing past the juncture, preferably at a frequency of at least every minute, 30 seconds, 15 seconds, or 10 seconds. The flow of hydrocarbon is preferably analyzed by: (a) withdrawing a sample of the flow of hydrocarbon from the transmission pipe; (b) transmitting the sample to an analyzing unit; and (c) either returning the sample to the transmission pipe, or transmitting the sample to a storage unit. A particularly suitable sulfur analyzer is the Sindie.sup.® 6010 On-line MWD XRF Analyzer by XOS.sup.® products. Flash point is suitably analyzed by a FDA-5™ Flash Point Analyzer by Bartec Top Holding GmbH, and haze is suitably monitored by the Haze Tracker™ from Automated Pipeline Instruments (APLI). (pg 13 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches in the United States, pipelines ship motor gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, naphtha's, LPG, diluent, butane, propane, pentane, and other hydrocarbon products on the same clean pipeline. Both refineries and petroleum terminals ship on these common carrier pipelines, in varying sizes or batches. A batch is the volume of a product shipped on the pipeline meeting a pre-defined set of product specifications. The pipeline companies and various regulatory authorities publish product specifications that shippers on the pipeline are required to meet before introducing their products into the pipeline. The pipeline company must ensure that the products it eventually releases into commerce meet these specifications. The shippers provide a certified analysis of the products to the pipeline company to verify the products meet the minimum or maximum specifications published by the pipeline company. All multi-product pipelines create a volume of transmix that is not marketable for use in commerce. This transmix may be composed, for example, of previously certified gasoline (including previously certified gasoline blend-stocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition of an oxygenate), distillate fuel (such as diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene and heating oils), and other certified product types. (pg 1 para 3 – pg 2 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches the invention process preferably uses a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) to control the motors, solenoid valves, analyzers, sample recovery tanks, and pumps. The PLC will also monitor pressure transmitters, meter flow transmitters, temperature transmitters, guided-wave radar leveling gauges on sample recovery tanks, hydrocarbon detectors, oxygen detectors, and all alarms for the invention. (pg 15 para 3)
ROBBINS teaches the process flow has the PLC opening the solenoid valve to allow the sample stream to feed the product sample skid. The PLC will send a signal to start the sample skid pump and motor. On the sample skid, the PLC will monitor the flow of product from the pipeline through the Coriolis meter, will receive the specific gravity reading from the Coriolis meter monitor the pressure transmitter on the sample product line to make sure the pump has properly pressurized the sample line, control the sample product flow to each process analyzer, monitor each analyzer in order to receive test results, direct the test sample stream to the appropriate sampling recovery tank, and monitor the sampling stream flow back to pipeline. Downstream of each analyzer, the PLC will direct the sample stream flow to the appropriate sample recovery tank, and monitor the inventory in each sample recovery tank. Once the inventory in a tank reaches a fixed level the PLC will also control when to pump the recovery tank volume back into the pipeline. This will ensure the product in the pipeline is the appropriate product (matches) to pump from the sample recovery tank. (pg 15 para 4 – pg 16 para 1)
ROBBINS teaches the analyzer building has a set of three process analyzers. The first analyzer is the flash point analyzer. This process analyzer will give test results between 10-15 seconds. The PLC will control the analyzer to obtain a sample from the sampling condition product line. The results from the analysis are sent to the pipeline operator station to assist in determining when to direct the flow in the pipeline to the appropriate storage tank in the petroleum terminal. The timing to activate the analyzer to take a sample will be controlled by the PLC. The PLC will monitor information provided by the pipeline operator to determine when to activate the analyzer. (pg 16 para 2)
ROBBINS teaches various physical properties can be used for the cut-points of the present invention. They can be defined in terms of ranges for a particular hydrocarbon subtype, maximum allowable limits, or minimum allowable limits. Thus, when the cut-point defines a ceiling on a physical property, whether in a range or maximum allowable limit, "reaching a cut- point" will occur when a physical property corresponding to the cut-point is greater than or equal to the cut-point. When a cut-point defines a floor on a physical property, whether in a range or a minimum allowable limit, "reaching a cut-point" will occur when a physical property corresponding to the cut-point is less than or equal to the cut-point. (pg 12 para 3)
ROBBINS teaches it will also be understood that a cut-point is not reached until two or more sequential measurements for the cut-point have been satisfied. Thus, in any of the embodiments of this invention, reaching a cut-point will occur when two or more consecutive analyses of the flow yield a physical property measurement greater than or equal to the cut-point when the cut-point defines a ceiling, and a physical property measurement less than or equal to the cut-point when the cut-point defines a floor. (pg 12 para 5 – pg 13 para 1)
Although, ROBBINS does not teach the rate percent, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system would utilize rate concentrations for the components of the transmix; applicant is reminded it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thereby meeting the claim limitations.
ROBBINS does not explicitly teach wherein said physical property is obtained by generating a spectral response of said gasoline stream, blended stream, and/or transmix stream using absorption spectroscopy with a near infrared analyzer, and comparing said spectral response to a chemometric dataset specific for said physical property in said gasoline stream, blended stream, and/or transmix stream; however, it is within the scope of ROBBINS as evident by ROBBINS’316.
ROBBINS’316 teaches Near Infra-Red (NIR) Spectroscopy; para [0100] NIR spectroscopy is an everyday tool used by the oil and gas industry. NIR does not require any specific sample preparation, requires short acquisition time, and allows performing an online measurement in a non-intrusive way. This is critical for the oil and gas industry since the product, as crude oil or refined fuel, remains almost its entire lifetime in pipelines. Para [0101] to perform an NIR online measurement there are two possibilities. Either an immersion probe or a flow cell is used. Immersion probes are most widely used for Fourier transform near infrared (FT-NIR) measurements in process control and can work in a transmission mode or a reflection depending on the transmittance of the sample. For crude oil, reflectance will be typically used, while, for refined fuels, transmission can be the most appropriate. Besides immersion probes, flow cells are widely used. In this case, the sample flows directly through the cell where the spectrum is measured and measurement is done exclusively in transmission mode. Typically, a flow cell probe allows one to acquire the spectra of a fluid flowing in a pipeline at a high pressure, while the immersion probe is designed to measure at pressures close to atmospheric.
Again, ROBBINS’316 is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps and/OR recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis and/OR additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Moreover, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In conclusion, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771