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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 03/20/26 is acknowledged.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim is directed to "a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for a hydrocarbon fluid", not one of the statutory subject matter categories. See MPEP 2016. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72 (1972).
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to read "A non-transitory and a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program" or the like.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problem of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 17 is rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
a method and a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for a hydrocarbon fluid, the computer program comprising a routine set of instructions for causing the machine to perform the steps of comprising:
measuring a mid and/or near Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and/or Raman spectrum of a hydrocarbon fluid;
determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for the hydrocarbon fluid using a vibrational spectroscopy-CFPP correlation model; and
treating the hydrocarbon fluid to cause a change in the estimated CFPP.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 17 directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claims 1 and 17 are directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: measuring a mid and/or near Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and/or Raman spectrum of a hydrocarbon fluid; determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for the hydrocarbon fluid, and treating the hydrocarbon fluid to cause a change in the estimated CFPP. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claims 1 and 17 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "measuring a mid and/or near Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and/or Raman spectrum of a hydrocarbon fluid; determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for the hydrocarbon fluid, and treating the hydrocarbon fluid to cause a change in the estimated CFPP".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: “FTIR spectrophotometer and/or Raman spectrometer”, "computer", "vibrational spectroscopy-CFPP correlation model", "operation system", and “application program” therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of method and a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for a hydrocarbon fluid. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claim 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Measuring, determining, and treating are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 2-9 are dependent on their respective base claim 1 and dependent claims 18-20 are dependent on their respective base claim 17, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 18-20 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-9 and 18-20 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 2-9 and 18-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trygstad (US 2014/0309756).
Regarding claims 1 and 17; Trygstad discloses a method (300 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0088]: e.g., the method for determining distillation properties of a hydrocarbon sample by gas chromatography) and a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for a hydrocarbon fluid (20 @ figure 1 and abstract e.g., determining properties of process streams, in particular, hydrocarbon processing streams), the computer program comprising a routine set of instructions for causing the machine to perform the steps of comprising:
measuring a mid and/or near Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and/or Raman spectrum of a hydrocarbon fluid (20 @ figure 1) by a hard analyzer (310 @ figures 1 and 3 and claims 22 and 23: e.g., the hard analyzer comprises a gas chromatograph configured to generate the dependent variables by capturing and evaluating a chromatogram of a sample of the process stream wherein the hard analyzer is a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) analyzer, a Fourier Transform Near-Infrared (FTNIR) analyzer);
determining, a cognitive quality manager (316 @ figure 1) coupled to a process optimizer (314 @ figure 1), an estimated cold filter plugging point CFPP (paragraphs [0087] and [0022]: e.g., dependent variables may include concentrations of components in the sample and characteristics of the sample including "hot properties" such as flash point and distillation properties, or cold properties such as cloud point, freezing point, cold filter plugging point, and pour point of diesel… claim 24: e.g., the dependent variables include one or more of octane, percent total aromatics, percent benzene, percent olefins, distillation properties, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), cetane number, distillation properties, polynuclear aromatics, polycyclic aromatics, cloud point, pour point, cold filter plugging point, PIONA, PONA, distillation properties, and combinations thereof) for the hydrocarbon fluid (20 @ figure 1) using a vibrational spectroscopy-CFPP correlation model (312 @ figure 1); and
treating the hydrocarbon fluid (20 @ figure 1) to cause a change in the estimated CFPP (paragraphs [0009], [0048], and [0070]). See figures 1-3.
Regarding claim 8; Trygstad discloses the hydrocarbon fluid is a distillate (paragraph [0087]: e.g., evaluation of a chromatogram of the hydrocarbon stream(s) using methods known to those skilled in the art; where the properties include those of gasoline, e.g. octane, percent total aromatics, percent benzene, percent olefins, distillation properties).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygstad (US 2014/0309756) in view of Nordvik et al (US 2022/0220405 hereinafter “Nordvik”).
Regarding claims 2-3; Trygstad discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the treating of the hydrocarbon fluid comprises: adding a flow improver to the hydrocarbon fluid, wherein the treating of the first hydrocarbon fluid comprises: adding a second hydrocarbon fluid to the hydrocarbon fluid. However, Nordvik teaches that it is known in the art to provide the treating of the hydrocarbon fluid comprises: adding a flow improver to the hydrocarbon fluid, wherein the treating of the first hydrocarbon fluid comprises: adding a second hydrocarbon fluid to the hydrocarbon fluid (paragraph [0007]-[0008]: e.g., adding a flow improver composition to a first hydrocarbon fluid to produce a second hydrocarbon fluid, the flow improver composition comprising a solvent; and a dendrimer-based flow improver, wherein at least a portion of the surface sites of the dendrimer are chemically modified with saturated and unsaturated fatty acids ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Trygstad with limitation above as taught by Nordvik for the purpose of increased solids during pigging operations leading to decreased cleaning efficiency, or higher pipeline back pressure leading to lower throughput.
Regarding claim 4; Trygstad discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for blending the first hydrocarbon fluid with at least one additional hydrocarbon fluid to produce a fuel. However, Nordvik teaches that it is known in the art to provide blending the first hydrocarbon fluid with at least one additional hydrocarbon fluid to produce a fuel (paragraph [0031]-[0034]: e.g., adding a flow improver according to any one or combination of embodiments disclosed herein to a first hydrocarbon fluid to produce a second hydrocarbon fluid. In an embodiment, the first hydrocarbon fluid is a hydrocarbon fluid produced during extraction of hydrocarbons from a well, crude oil, a crude oil condensate, a middle distillate, a fuel oil, diesel, or a combination thereof). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Trygstad with limitation above as taught by Nordvik for the purpose of increased solids during pigging operations leading to decreased cleaning efficiency, or higher pipeline back pressure leading to lower throughput.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygstad (US 2014/0309756) in view of Kocsis et al (US 2022/0389341 hereinafter “Kocsis”).
Regarding claim 6 and 19; Trygstad discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the CFPP is for a total wax concentration. However, Kocsis teaches that it is known in the art to provide the CFPP (paragraph [0063]) is for a total wax concentration (paragraphs [0063] and [0084]: e.g., The normal paraffinic wax distribution and total wax content “concentration” of the fuel samples was measured by gas chromatography). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Trygstad with limitation above as taught by Kocsis for the purpose of additives composition to improve one or more properties of the fuel.
Regarding claims 7 and 20; Trygstad discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the CFPP is for a wax concentration at a temperature between about -50°C to about 20°C. However, Kocsis teaches that it is known in the art to provide the CFPP is for a wax concentration at a temperature between about -50°C to about 20°C (paragraphs [0013] and [0063]: e.g., a total weight of the fuel and wherein the wax distribution is between C.sub.11 to C.sub.28. In some embodiments the fuel has a cloud point temperature (“CP”) ranging from −17 to 14° C. as measured using ASTM test method D5773. In some embodiments, the cold filter plugging point (“CFFP”) of the composition is at least 5° C., 10° C., 20° C., or 30° C. lower than the CFPP of the fuel as measuring using ASTM D6371.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Trygstad with limitation above as taught by Kocsis for the purpose of additives composition to improve one or more properties of the fuel.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygstad (US 2014/0309756) in view of Bradford (US 2017/0241317
Regarding claim 9; Trygstad discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the hydrocarbon fluid is a low sulfur diesel fuel or an ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. However, Bradford teaches that it is known in the art to provide the hydrocarbon fluid is a low sulfur diesel fuel or an ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (paragraph [0035]: e.g., injector 22 can inject a hydrocarbon treatment fluid (e.g., ethanol, E85, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, or some other hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon mixture (such as an ethanol-gasoline blend)) into the exhaust stream). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Trygstad with limitation above as taught by Bradford for the purpose of significantly improve the light-off characteristics (and low-temperature performance characteristics) of several catalysts (in particular those for low-temperature methane oxidation, selective catalytic reduction of NOx (SCR), and lean NOx trapping and reduction (LNT).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a method and a machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for determining an estimated cold filter plugging point (CFPP) for a hydrocarbon fluid comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the measuring of the vibrational spectrum is part of continuously measuring the vibrational spectrum of hydrocarbon fluid, and wherein the determining of the estimated CFPP is part of monitoring the estimated CFPP over time in set forth of claims 5 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Trygstad (US 2017/0269559) discloses a system and method for determining the vapor pressure of a process stream includes a hard analyzer configured to measure one or more dependent variables associated with a sample of the process stream, where a dependent variable is also a property of the sample such as vapor pressure.
2) Spartz et al (US 2020/0292447) discloses a gas analysis system with an FTIR spectrometer preferably utilizes a long path gas cell, a narrow band detector, and an optical filter that narrows the detection region to measure hydrogen sulfide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
April 4, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights