METHOD OF ANALYZING ISOPROPYLPHENYL PHOSPHATE

§101 §103

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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 29, line 25, “The method according to claim 10” should be revised to “The method according to clause 10”. The specification should generally serve as a glossary of the claim limitations, but direct references to the claim numbers should be avoided. See MPEP 2173.03. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3 of both claims, “400 [°C]” and “700 [°C]” should read “400 °C” and “700 °C” because the brackets are unconventional and unnecessary. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation Claims 1-11 recite the analysis of “isopropylphenyl phosphate,” but this term itself is not a specific chemical identifier because there are many unique molecules that may be considered to be “isopropylphenyl phosphate”; for example, mono/bis/tris/tetra-(isopropylphenyl) phosphate are all “isopropylphenyl phosphate”. As such, the phrase “isopropylphenyl phosphate” is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean “any molecule that contains a central phosphate group covalently bound to at least one isopropylphenyl group via an oxygen bound to both phosphorus and the isopropylphenyl ring.” This interpretation is consistent with the specification of the instant application ([0002] and [0004]) (the present embodiments relate to… analyzing isopropylphenyl phosphate (Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate) and Tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate, referred to as PIP (3:1) which is isopropylphenyl phosphate). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 USC § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims will be analyzed below according to MPEP 2106. Inquiry 1: Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes, claims 1-11 are directed to processes. Inquiry 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 1 recites “determining whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions and/or one or more molecular ions each having a predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z).” This reads as a mental process that can take place in the human mind and/or with pen and paper by simply observing the mass chromatogram and checking for the presence of peaks at the predetermined m/z values, and is therefore an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also recite an abstract idea. Claim 10 recites “calculating a concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphate in the sample from one or more areas of one or more peaks of one or more molecular ions of the mass chromatogram.” This reads as a mathematical calculation that uses the data gathered in the previous “analyzing” step, and is therefore an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c). Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 and is therefore also drawn to an abstract idea. Inquiry 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No they do not. Regarding claim 1, note that nothing occurs after the determination step, which indicates that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the determination step does not affect the method in any material way. Furthermore, the step(s) prior to the judicial exception (‘desorbing’ and ‘analyzing’) amount to the extra-solution (pre-solution) activity of mere data gathering; the steps prior to the abstract idea are essentially meant to produce a mass chromatogram. Extra-solution activities such as data-gathering are insufficient to amount to a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 3 and 8 are dependent on claim 1 and recite limitations directed to a “desorbing temperature” for the “desorbing” step of claim 1. However, because these limitations are directed the initial data-gathering steps of claim 1, they are insufficient to amount to a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-7 and 9 are dependent on claim 1, and recite limitations directed to the “determination” step (they all contain the phrase “wherein in the determining…”). However, these limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception; they read as instructions on ‘where to look’ on the mass chromatogram and what m/z values to check for. Instructions to apply the judicial exception are insufficient to amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the judicial exception (‘determining’). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 10, note that nothing occurs after the ‘calculating’ step, which indicates that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the calculation does not affect the method in any material way. Furthermore, the step(s) prior to the judicial exception (‘desorbing’ and ‘analyzing’) amount to the extra-solution (pre-solution) activity of mere data gathering; the steps prior to the abstract idea are essentially meant to produce a mass chromatogram. Extra-solution (or pre-solution) activities such as data-gathering are insufficient to amount to a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and recites an additional limitation of “the concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphate is calculated from a ratio…” However, this is merely defining the equation used in the ‘calculating’ step of claim 10, which amounts to, at best, mere instructions to generally apply the judicial exception; the limitations provide instruction to utilize "a total peak area of one or more molecular ions of isopropylphenyl phosphate of the mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing the sample" and "a peak area of a molecular ion of tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate of a mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing a standard sample which includes tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate by pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry" for the ‘calculating’ step of claim 10. This is insufficient to amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Inquiry 2B: Does the claim recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Regarding claim 1, the step(s) prior to the judicial exception (‘desorbing’ and ‘analyzing’) amount to the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering; the steps prior to the abstract idea are essentially meant to produce a mass chromatogram. Extra-solution activities such as data-gathering are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 3 and 8 are dependent on claim 1 and recite limitations directed to a “desorbing temperature” for the “desorbing” step of claim 1. However, because these limitations are directed the initial data-gathering steps of claim 1, they also amount to, at best, the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is insufficient to amount to a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-7 and 9 are dependent on claim 1, and recite limitations directed to the “determination” step (they all contain the phrase “wherein in the determining…”). However, these limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception; they read as instructions on ‘where to look’ on the mass chromatogram and what m/z values to check for. Instructions to apply the judicial exception are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claim 10, the step(s) prior to the judicial exception (‘desorbing’ and ‘analyzing’) amount to the extra-solution (pre-solution) activity of mere data gathering; the steps prior to the abstract idea are essentially meant to produce a mass chromatogram. Extra-solution (or pre-solution) activities such as data-gathering are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and recites an additional limitation of “the concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphate is calculated from a ratio…” However, this is merely defining the equation used in the ‘calculating’ step of claim 10, which amounts to, at best, mere instructions to generally apply the judicial exception; the limitations provide instruction to utilize the following data for the ‘calculating’ step of claim 10: "a total peak area of one or more molecular ions of isopropylphenyl phosphate of the mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing the sample" and "a peak area of a molecular ion of tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate of a mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing a standard sample which includes tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate by pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry.” This is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the concepts and limitations recited in claims 1-11 are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art: Silva, M. F. et al. (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 397, 23 February 2010, pp. 357-367) teaches a method of using pyrolysis-GC-MS at temperatures between 400-700 °C to analyze a sample and determine the presence of isopropylphenyl phosphate using key ions that have peaks at predetermined m/z values (see Table 1 for m/z values and pg. 359 right column third paragraph for pyrolysis temperatures); Ronsenberger, W. et al. (The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 6., No. 1, 31 Mar 2021, pp 1-12) teaches another analysis of isopropylphenyl phosphate using GC-MS to obtain a mass chromatogram and checks for key ions that have peaks at predetermined m/z values to determine the presence of isopropylphenyl phosphase (see table 5 of Ronsenberger), and Ronsenberger also calculates the concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphase using peak area obtained from the mass chromatogram and a series standard samples (pg. 3 bottom paragraph; see also “Aq” at the bottom of page 8); Feistner et al. (Biomedical and Environmental Mass Spectrometry, Vol. 19, March 1990, pgs. 151-158) further establishes the relevant m/z values to look for as it pertains to the determination of the presence of isopropylphenyl phosphate (see figure 8 of Feistner). See MPEP 2106.05(d). 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberger, W. et al. (The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 6., No. 1, 31 Mar 2021, pp 1-12), further in view of Silva, M. F. et al. (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 397, 23 February 2010, pp. 357-367). Regarding claim 1, Rosenberger teaches a method of analyzing isopropylphenyl phosphate (pg. 3, first paragraph) (The method enables the determination of the content of isopropylated phenyl phosphates (IPPhPs) in the workplace), comprising: desorbing a sample by extraction (pg. 7 third paragraph of Rosenberger) (For sample preparation the filter is transferred into a 10 ml headspace vial using tweezers and immersed in 5 ml of ethyl acetate… the samples are extracted first in the ultrasonic bath and then on a horizontal shaker; Note that “the filter” is interpreted as the sample from which isopropylphenyl phosphate is desorbed. analyzing the desorbed sample to obtain a mass chromatogram of one or more compounds in the sample by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (pg. 7 fifth paragraph ‘Operating Conditions’ section and pg. 3 first paragraph) (Gas chromatograph with autosampler (e.g. Agilent 6890) and mass-selective detector and The components… separated by means of gas chromatography and determined using a mass-selective detector (GC-MS)) (Note that ‘mass-selective detector’ is a way of referring to an apparatus for conducting mass spectrometry); and determining whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions and/or one or more molecular ions each having a predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) (pg. 3 first paragraph) (the determination of the content of isopropylated phenyl phosphates (IPPhPs)… determined using a mass-selective detector (GC-MS)). See also modified Table 5 of Rosenberger, which shows the m/z values that correspond to isopropyl phenyl phosphates (“Mono-IPPhPs”, “Bis-IPPhPs”, “Tris-IPPhPs”, “Tetra-IPPhPs” below, “Quantifyer ion m/z” and “Qualifier ion” columns): PNG media_image1.png 438 815 media_image1.png Greyscale Rosenberger does not teach desorbing a sample by hot extraction. In the analogous art of identifying isopropylphenyl phosphate additives in samples (pg. 364 left column first paragraph of Silva) (a strong peak corresponding to isopropyl phenyl diphenyl phosphate, a flame retardant additive, has been detected in this paint sample.), Silva teaches desorbing a sample by hot extraction (abstract of Silva and pg. 359 left column third paragraph of Silva) (In order to identify these additives… pyrolysis–silylation gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)… is proposed… and a temperature of pyrolysis of 700°C). Silva teaches that pyrolysis at ~700 C enables identifying the overall components of the sample, allows for thorough desorption of ‘additives’ including isopropylphenyl phosphate, and allows for differentiating between the various components of the sample (pg. 359, right column, fifth paragraph of Silva) (At 700°C, the analysis performed with HMDS gives much more complete information about the overall components… including peaks from the polymer chain and additives, and also possible fragments from distinct additives); Silva teaches that pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in general is a known method of desorption for the analysis of flame retardants such as isopropylphenyl phosphate (pg. 358 left column bottom paragraph of Silva) (Wang has published articles concerning the study of lubricants, antioxidants and flame retardants by means of Py-GC-MS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the sonication desorption method of Rosenberger with the pyrolysis desorption method of Silva because both desorption methods were known in the art to be appropriate for the identification of isopropylphenyl phosphate and pyrolysis at 700 ºC is particularly advantageous for the analysis of isopropylphenyl phosphate because it allows for thorough desorption of ‘additives’ including isopropylphenyl phosphate and allows for differentiating between the various components of the sample to identify isopropylphenyl phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success (pg. 7 fifth paragraph ‘Operating Conditions’ section and pg. 3 first paragraph and Table 5 of Rosenberger; see abstract, pg. 359 left column ‘Py-CG-MS’ section, and pg. 358 left column bottom paragraph of Silva). See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 2, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 118, 145, 160, 251, 277, 293, 335, 353, 377, and 452 is evaluated; see modified table 5 below “Qualifier ion” column, which shows that a mass-to-charge ration (m/z) value of 118, 145, 160, or 251 indicates the presence of one or more isopropylphenyl phosphate ions: PNG media_image1.png 438 815 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 118, 251, and 335 is evaluated; see modified table 5 above from Rosenberger, “Qualifier ion” column, which shows that a mass-to-charge ration (m/z) value of 118 or 251 indicates the presence of one or more isopropylphenyl phosphate ions. Regarding claim 5, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 118 and 251 and one or more peaks of one or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 145 and 160; see modified table 5 above from Rosenberger, “Qualifier ion” column, which shows that a mass-to-charge ration (m/z) value of 118 or 251 and 145 or 160 indicates the presence of one or more isopropylphenyl phosphate ions. Regarding claim 6, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks of one or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 145 and 160 is evaluated; see modified table 5 above from Rosenberger, “Qualifier ion” column, which shows that a mass-to-charge ration (m/z) value of 145 or 160 indicates the presence of one or more isopropylphenyl phosphate product ions. Regarding claim 7, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes peaks of two or more product ions each having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of a value selected from the group consisting of 118, 145, 160, 251, and 335 is evaluated; see modified table 5 below from Rosenberger, “Qualifier ion” column, which shows that a mass-to-charge ration (m/z) value of 118, 145, 160, or 251 indicates the presence of one or more isopropylphenyl phosphate product ions: PNG media_image1.png 438 815 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein a desorbing temperature by the hot extraction is 400 [ºC] or more and 700 [ºC] or less (pg. 359 left column third paragraph of Silva) (a temperature of pyrolysis of 700°C). Regarding claim 9, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes one or more peaks each having a mass-to-charge (m/z) related to one or more molecular ions of isopropylphenyl phosphate is evaluated; see table 5 of Rosenberger above, which indicates that the presence of one or more predetermined mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) is determined based on one or more molecular ions of isopropylphenyl phosphate. Regarding claim 10, Rosenberger teaches a method of analyzing isopropylphenyl phosphate (pg. 3, first paragraph) (The method enables the determination of the content of isopropylated phenyl phosphates (IPPhPs) in the workplace), comprising: desorbing a sample by extraction (pg. 7 third paragraph of Rosenberger) (For sample preparation the filter is transferred into a 10 ml headspace vial using tweezers and immersed in 5 ml of ethyl acetate… the samples are extracted first in the ultrasonic bath and then on a horizontal shaker; Note that “the filter” is interpreted as the sample from which isopropylphenyl phosphate is desorbed. analyzing the desorbed sample to obtain a mass chromatogram of one or more compounds in the sample by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (pg. 7 fifth paragraph ‘Operating Conditions’ section and pg. 3 first paragraph) (Gas chromatograph with autosampler (e.g. Agilent 6890) and mass-selective detector and The components… separated by means of gas chromatography and determined using a mass-selective detector (GC-MS)) (Note that ‘mass-selective detector’ is a way of referring to an apparatus for conducting mass spectrometry); and calculating a concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphate in the sample from one or more areas of one or more peaks of one or more molecular ions of the mass chromatogram (pg. 8 second and third paragraph of Rosenberger) (quotients calculated from the peak areas of the individual IPPhPs with respect to that of D15-TPP are plotted versus the respective IPPhP concentrations. and The concentrations of the selected eight IPPhPs… are calculated... Equation 1 shows the relationship between the signal intensity and the concentration of an IPPhP in the calibration functions). See also modified Table 5 of Rosenberger, which shows the m/z values that correspond to isopropyl phenyl phosphates (“Mono-IPPhPs”, “Bis-IPPhPs”, “Tris-IPPhPs”, “Tetra-IPPhPs” below in ‘Components’ Column; “Quantifyer ion m/z” column): PNG media_image1.png 438 815 media_image1.png Greyscale Rosenberger does not teach desorbing a sample by hot extraction. In the analogous art of identifying isopropylphenyl phosphate additives in samples (pg. 364 left column first paragraph of Silva) (a strong peak corresponding to isopropyl phenyl diphenyl phosphate, a flame retardant additive, has been detected in this paint sample.), Silva teaches desorbing a sample by hot extraction (abstract of Silva and pg. 359 left column third paragraph of Silva) (In order to identify these additives… pyrolysis–silylation gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)… is proposed… and a temperature of pyrolysis of 700°C). Silva teaches that pyrolysis at ~700 C enables identifying the overall components of the sample, allows for thorough desorption of ‘additives’ including isopropylphenyl phosphate, and allows for differentiating between the various components of the sample (pg. 359, right column, fifth paragraph of Silva) (At 700°C, the analysis performed with HMDS gives much more complete information about the overall components… including peaks from the polymer chain and additives, and also possible fragments from distinct additives); Silva teaches that pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in general is a known method of desorption for the analysis of flame retardants such as isopropylphenyl phosphate (pg. 358 left column bottom paragraph of Silva) (Wang has published articles concerning the study of lubricants, antioxidants and flame retardants by means of Py-GC-MS). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the sonication desorption method of Rosenberger with the Pyrolysis desorption method of Silva because both desorption methods were known in the art to be appropriate for the identification of isopropylphenyl phosphate and pyrolysis at 700 ºC is particularly advantageous for the analysis of isopropylphenyl phosphate because it allows for thorough desorption of ‘additives’ including isopropylphenyl phosphate and allows for differentiating between the various components of the sample to identify isopropylphenyl phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success (pg. 7 fifth paragraph ‘Operating Conditions’ section and pg. 3 first paragraph and Table 5 of Rosenberger; see abstract, pg. 359 left column ‘Py-CG-MS’ section, and pg. 358 left column bottom paragraph of Silva). Regarding claim 11, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 10 as rejected above, wherein the concentration of isopropylphenyl phosphate is calculated from a ratio "a total peak area of one or more molecular ions of isopropylphenyl phosphate of the mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing the sample" to "a peak area of a molecular ion of tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate of a mass chromatogram obtained by analyzing a standard sample which includes tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate by pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry" (pg. 8 bottom paragraph, just below Equation 1 of Rosenberger and pg. 7 third paragraph and pg. 6 third paragraph) (AQ… is the quotient of the peak area of the respective IPPhP with respect to the internal standard D15-triphenyl phosphate and The content of D15-TPP in the measurement solutions thus prepared is identical to that in the calibration standards and Two calibration series can be prepared from the IPPhP-8 calibration stock solution, whereby calibration series 1 is recommended for the practical application); see also table 3 of Rosenberger which shows the calibration series. Note that: “quotient” is interpreted to be synonymous with “ratio”; “calibration series” is interpreted to mean one or more of “a standard sample which includes tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate”. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberger, W. et al. (The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 6., No. 1, 31 Mar 2021, pp 1-12), further in view of Silva, M. F. et al. (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 397, 23 February 2010, pp. 357-367), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Feistner et al. (Biomedical and Environmental Mass Spectrometry, Vol. 19, March 1990, pgs. 151-158). Regarding claim 3, Modified Rosenberger (Rosenberger in view of Silva) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, including wherein a desorbing temperature by the hot extraction is 400 ºC or more and 700 ºC or less (pg. 359 left column third paragraph of Silva) (a temperature of pyrolysis of 700°C). Modified Rosenberger teaches of evaluating if the mass chromatogram includes a peak of a product ion having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 368, 410, 452, 494, 118, 145, 160, 251, 395, or 437, as seen in table 5 of Rosenberger (“Qualifier ion” column for “IPPhPs” components): PNG media_image1.png 438 815 media_image1.png Greyscale Modified Rosenberger is silent to in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes a peak of a product ion having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 335 is evaluated. In the analogous art of analyzing environmental contaminants (pg. 152 right column first and second paragraph of Feistner) (some disorders may only develop after longterm exposure to environmental toxins.32 It thus appears important…to monitor their presence in the environment and we present… the general fragmentation behavior of the encountered plasticizers), Feistner teaches that the inclusion of a peak of a product ion having a mass-to-charge ratio of 335 m/z is evaluated as being a predetermined value that indicates the presence of isopropylphenyl phosphate; see figure 8a of Feistner, which shows that 335 m/z is one of the peaks evaluated as being indicative of the presence of tris(isopropylphenyl) phosphate, which is isopropylphenyl phosphate (specifically the following m/z values are evaluated: 65, 77, 91, 103, 118, 175, 251, 293, 335, 367, 409, 437, 452): PNG media_image2.png 694 873 media_image2.png Greyscale . Feistner teaches that evaluating these individual peaks (in other words, the fragmentation pattern) allows for a more sophisticated determination of isopropylphenyl phosphates, and can allow for the differentiation of various isomers based on the degree of fragmentation due to some isomers fragmenting less during MS (pg. 154 right column second paragraph of Feistner) (this loss occurs with the least abundance for the o- isomer... Based on our GC/EI MS data we could identify some of the contaminants in the ethanol sample as tris(o-isopropylphenyl) phosphate (13) and tris(m-isopropylphenyl) phosphate…contaminated ethanol contains many more 'mixed' triaryl phosphates). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the determination method taught by Modified Rosenberger to include evaluating if the mass chromatogram includes a peak of a product ion having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 65, 77, 91, 103, 118, 175, 251, 293, 335, 367, 409, 437, or 452 to provide: wherein a desorbing temperature by the hot extraction is 400 ºC or more and 700 ºC or less, and in the determining whether the mass chromatogram includes the one or more peaks of the one or more product ions and/or the one or more molecular ions each having the predetermined mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), whether the mass chromatogram includes a peak of a product ion having a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 335 is evaluated. Doing so would result in determining the presence of isopropylphenyl phosphate and the differentiation of different isopropylphenyl phosphate isomers with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 359 left column third paragraph of Silva; table 5 of Rosenberger; figure 8a of Feistner). See MPEP 2143(I)(G). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Phillips et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 51, No. 22, 21 November 2017, pgs. 13443–13449) teaches a series of isopropylphenyl phosphate compounds, a number of which are seen in Figures 3-4 of the instant application (see graphical abstract and Table 1 of Phillips). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOUSTON D COLE whose telephone number is (571)272-8405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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. /H.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /CHRISTINE T MUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797