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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office Action based on application 17/673987 response filed 02/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15 & 17-27 have been fully considered.
Claims 2, 10, 14, & 16 are cancelled.
In view of the appeal brief filed on 07/23/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. The Non-Final rejection is set forth below. The Non-Final rejection was notably made to add a 101 rejection.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
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, 3-9, 11-13, 15 & 17-27 are rejected under U.S. C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category of invention?
Yes, the claims depending on and including independent Claim 1 are drawn towards a method.
For the other independent Claim 15, yes, it is drawn towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites a method for “evaluating,” in the preamble and claim body and also “determining.” These are all mental processes, which are abstract idea judicial exceptions.
Claim 17 recites the same judicial exception as Claim 1- “evaluating,” which is a mental process abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
For Claims 1 & 17,
other than the judicial exception above, the additional step claimed is “measuring a parameter of the water,” which is Ph or conductivity.
Especially as generally claimed, this measurement is only done for data gathering to utilize the judicial exception. Note that data gathering to be used in an abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, taking a corrective action to reduce the amount of contaminant is claimed, however this is not claimed with any specificity, and not fully integrated into the judicial exception and the rest of the claim but only “based on,” the evaluation and gives no indication what parameter needs to be satisfied for correction to be taken, nor if that condition is always positively satisfied as far as the claim language goes. Since as claimed, the correction is only taken “based on,” the evaluation, this can broadly read on no corrective action being taken or stoppage of action(so no action) if the evaluation determines its not needed. Therefore, as claimed this reads on insignificant extra-post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further- as broadly claimed generally stating “corrective action,” is not specific.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
No.
For Claims 1 & 17, other than the judicial exception above, the only additional step claimed is “measuring a parameter of the water,” which is Ph or conductivity. This is something that is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC). Things that are WURC do not add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 (d).
Further for Claims 1 & 17 in addition, taking a corrective action to reduce the amount of contaminant is claimed, however this is not claimed with any specificity, and not fully integrated into the judicial exception and the rest of the claim but only “based on,” the evaluation. Taking corrective action is also WURC.
That measuring pH or conductivity, fluorescence at specific wavelengths and conductivity, taking corrective action as claimed is WURC is evidenced by:
BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 and VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant.
BURCHTORF further teaches of measuring tannin lignin throughout a stream process (Figure 6B), and of measuring the tannin lignin in correlation with pH (See unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6). BURCHTORF teaches of measuring and determining whether to take action based on fluorescence value of parameter in the water (abstract, paragraph 0037). BURCHTORF teaches of measuring the fluorescence intensities in a range which includes claimed specific wavelengths (paragraph 0064, Figure 3, all parts and Figure 9, 10, 11, all parts).
VIDOJKOVIC also teaches of generally measuring the conductivity of the feedwater (abstract, 4 lines from bottom) and conductivity and pH together (Page 685, column 2, lines 1-2 & Table 1). VIDOJKOVIC further teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4).
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claim 3 adds that the measuring if fluorescence measuring. This does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 and is still considered WURC so not significantly more at step 2B. See the rejection for Claim 1 on evidence of this.
Claim 4 specifies that the evaluation is determining a rate of change in comparison to a threshold. Comparison to a threshold and determining a rate of change are math and mental processes. Therefore, this is specifying an abstract idea itself so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 5 specifies a combination of Claims 3 & 4 and further of taking a corrective action depending on what is in Claim 3 & 4. The reasoning is maintained for what is shown above for Claims 3 & 4. With respect to taking corrective action, as generally claimed, this is not considered a practical application, nor significantly more. See Claim 1 for evidence of WURC.
Claim 6 specifies that the evaluation is determining in comparison to a threshold. Comparison to a threshold is math and mental processes. Therefore, this is specifying an abstract idea itself so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 7-8 specify what type of water the sample in Claim 1 is from. However, this is still just what the data is gathered from so doesn’t change the analysis for Claim 1.
Claim 9 specifies the measuring which was already commented on in Claim 1, and correlating, correlating which is a mental process abstract idea itself, so this claim does not change the analysis for Claim 1.
Claim 11 specifies that the measuring includes both fluorescence and conductivity measuring. This is something that is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC). This does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor add significantly more at step 2B. See Claim 1 for evidence of this.
Claims 12-13 specify that the measuring includes both fluorescence is done at specific wavelengths. This is something that is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC). This does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor add significantly more at step 2B. See Claim 1 for evidence of this.
Claim 15 specifies that what contaminant is measured, but again this measurement is done for data gathering for the claimed evaluation. Therefore, like in Claim 1, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 18- 21 do not fully integrated into the judicial exception and the rest of the claim but only “based on,” the evaluation and gives no indication what parameter needs to be satisfied for correction to be taken, nor if that condition is always positively satisfied as far as the claim language goes. Since as claimed, the correction is only taken “based on,” the evaluation, this can broadly read on no corrective action being taken if the evaluation determines it’s not needed. Therefore, as claimed this reads on insignificant extra-post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further- as broadly claimed generally stating “corrective actions,” in Claims 18-21 including changing and operating parameter, of flow rate, pH, temperature, addition of chemicals, changing a feedwater, taking the boiler offline (so stopping production), are not specific. Some of these actions read of just stoppage of action, so no action or treatment/particular practical application taken. Further, some of the things like pH and temperature changes occur naturally, and also just saying “an operating parameter,” is not specific. Therefore, there is not practical application at step 2A/2 nor is significantly more added at step 2B. See above for some of these treatments being WURC.
Claims 22-24, specify that what contaminant is measured, but again this measurement is done for data gathering for the claimed evaluation. Therefore, like in Claim 1, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim 25-27 specify that the evaluation is determining a rate of change in comparison to a threshold. Comparison to a threshold and determining a rate of change are math and mental processes. Therefore, this is specifying an abstract idea itself so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A/2 nor to add significantly more at step 2B.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 seems to be claiming a correlation that is already present in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant.
With respect to Claim 1, BURCHTORF teaches of a method for determining the lignin or lignin by-product content of a process stream (abstract). The process stream can be boiler feedwater (paragraph 0003, 0011, 0046, 0077, 0084). BURCHTORF further teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004).
Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.)
BURCHTORF further teaches of measuring tannin lignin throughout a stream process (Figure 6B), and of measuring the tannin lignin in correlation with pH (See unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6). As instantly claimed, “evaluating,” can read on mentally processing, or, looking at and reading unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on page 5 & 6 of BURCHTORF, which is done by anyone reading these tables, or who makes these tables.
The above reads on the instant “measuring a parameter…selected from pH and conductivity,” and “evaluating the measured parameter,” “based on the correlation between concentrations of an organic contaminant,” “that includes at least one of sugars, lignins, tannins,” and the “values of the parameter.” Looking at tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6 read on this instant “evaluating the measured parameter,” (Tables 2 & 3, paragraph 0074).
BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations of if to do something or not to prevent fouling (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023, 0046-0047).
BURCHTORF does not specifically teach of determination of whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant.
VIDOJKOVIC is used to remedy this and further teaches of a feedwater quality monitoring method, and further teaches of methods for determination of root causes of corrosive contaminants, and methods for their maintenance in proscribed limits (abstract).
VIDOJKOVIC teaches of the need in the art to optimize the water quality and method to minimize the content of contaminants (Page 685, column 1, second to last paragraph, last two lines of that paragraph). VIDOJKOVIC further teaches of measuring the parameter of pH and that the pH serves as an indication of all acid and basic compounds and products of their reactions in the water (Page 687, Table 3, row 1), and that the acid or basic compounds or products thereof which are measured by pH can be from acids which are acetic acid, or formic, butyric, or propionic acid (these are all organic acids), and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2). VIDOJKOVIC also teaches of generally measuring the conductivity of the feedwater (abstract, 4 lines from bottom) and conductivity and pH together (Page 685, column 2, lines 1-2 & Table 1).
Even further, VIDOJKOVIC teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have reasonable expectation of success in determining whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant as is done in VIDOJKOVIC in the method of BURCHTORF due to the advantage that monitoring and changing both pH and conductivity to optimal ranges has for preventing problems such as in increasing corrosion rate ( VIDOJKOVIC Page 686, column 2, 4, paragraph 2, lines 6-10 from bottom), and due to the need in the art for more effective feedwater monitoring (abstract).
With respect to Claim 3, BURCHTORF teaches of measuring and determining whether to take action based on fluorescence value of parameter in the water (abstract, paragraph 0037).
With respect to Claim 6, BURCHTORF teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004). Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignin which can be a contaminant (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012). BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations to if to do something or not (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023).
With respect to Claim 7, BURCHTORF teaches of the boiler water supply being from evaporator condensate (paragraph 0043).
With respect to Claim 8, BURCHTORF teaches of the boiler water supply being from evaporator condensate (paragraph 0043).
With respect to Claim 9, BURCHTORF teaches of measuring organic contaminants including lignin or tannin (abstract) and correlating the measurement with the contaminant content concentration (paragraph 0055, 0064, 0079).
With respect to Claim 11, BURCHTORF teaches of measuring and determining whether to take action based on fluorescence value of parameter in the water (abstract, paragraph 0037). BURCHTORF does not teach of measuring conductivity. and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2). VIDOJKOVIC also teaches of generally measuring the conductivity of the feedwater (abstract, 4 lines from bottom) and conductivity and pH together (Page 685, column 2, lines 1-2 & Table 1).
Even further, VIDOJKOVIC teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have reasonable expectation of success in determining whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant as is done in VIDOJKOVIC in the method of BURCHTORF due to the advantage that monitoring and changing both pH and conductivity to optimal ranges has for preventing problems such as in increasing corrosion rate ( VIDOJKOVIC Page 686, column 2, 4, paragraph 2, lines 6-10 from bottom), and due to the need in the art for more effective feedwater monitoring (abstract).
With respect to Claim 12, BURCHTORF teaches of measuring the fluorescence intensities in a range which includes the claimed 380-400nm (paragraph 0064, Figure 3, all parts and Figure 9, 10, 11, all parts).
With respect to Claim 13, BURCHTORF teaches of measuring the fluorescence intensities in a range which includes the claimed 340-360nm (paragraph 0064, Figure 3, all parts and Figure 9, 10, 11 all parts).
With respect to Claim 15, BURCHTORF teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004). Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignin which can be a contaminant (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012).
With respect to Claim 17, BURCHTORF teaches of a method for determining the lignin or lignin by-product content of a process stream (abstract). The process stream can be boiler feedwater (paragraph 0003, 0011, 0046, 0077, 0084), and BURCHTORF teaches of the boiler water supply being from evaporator condensate (paragraph 0043). BURCHTORF further teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production in a sugar processing plant or facility (paragraph 0003-0004).
Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.)
BURCHTORF further teaches of measuring tannin lignin throughout a stream process (Figure 6B), and of measuring the tannin lignin in correlation with pH (See unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6). As instantly claimed, “evaluating,” can read on mentally processing.
The above reads on the instant “measuring a parameter…selected from pH and conductivity,” and “evaluating the measured parameter,” “based on the correlation between concentrations of an organic contaminant,” “that includes at least one of sugars, lignins, tannins,” and the “values of the parameter.” Looking at tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6 read on this instant “evaluating the measured parameter,” (Tables 2 & 3, paragraph 0074).
BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations of if to do something or not to prevent fouling (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023, 0046-0047).
BURCHTORF does not specifically teach of determination of whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant, VIDOJKOVIC is used to remedy.
VIDOJKOVIC teaches of a feedwater quality monitoring method, and further teaches of methods for determination of root causes of corrosive contaminants, and methods for their maintenance in proscribed limits (abstract).
VIDOJKOVIC teaches of the need in the art to optimize the water quality and method to minimize the content of contaminants (Page 685, column 1, second to last paragraph, last two lines of that paragraph). VIDOJKOVIC further teaches of measuring the parameter of pH and that the pH serves as an indication of all acid and basic compounds and products of their reactions in the water (Page 687, Table 3, row 1), and that the acid or basic compounds or products thereof which are measured by pH can be from acids which are acetic acid, or formic, butyric, or propionic acid (these are all organic acids), and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2). VIDOJKOVIC also teaches of generally measuring the conductivity of the feedwater (abstract, 4 lines from bottom) and conductivity and pH together (Page 685, column 2, lines 1-2 & Table 1).
Even further, VIDOJKOVIC teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have reasonable expectation of success in determining whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant as is done in VIDOJKOVIC in the method of BURCHTORF due to the advantage that monitoring and changing both pH and conductivity to optimal ranges has for preventing problems such as in increasing corrosion rate ( VIDOJKOVIC Page 686, column 2, 4, paragraph 2, lines 6-10 from bottom), and due to the need in the art for more effective feedwater monitoring (abstract).
With respect to Claim 22, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.)
With respect to Claim 23, BURCHTORF teaches of the above, but does not teach of the contaminant being an organic acid.
VIDOJKOVIC is used to remedy this and teaches of measuring the parameter of pH and that the pH serves as an indication of all acid and basic compounds and products of their reactions in the water (Page 687, Table 3, row 1), and that the acid or basic compounds or products thereof which are measured by pH can be from acids which are acetic acid, or formic, butyric, or propionic acid (these are all organic acids), and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success to measure acids as contaminants as is done in VIDOJKOVIC in the method of BURCHTORF due to the problems acids cause in decreasing the pH since this is detrimental to constructional material so the need in the art to monitor so can be fixed (Page 688, column 1 , last row, bullet 3).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant and further in view of MILLET in US 5724254.
With respect to Claim 4, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. BURCHTORF further teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004). Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignin which can be a contaminant (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012). BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations to if to do something or not/take corrective action (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023). They do not call out specifically detecting the rate of change of the contaminant/parameter.
MILLET is used to remedy this and teaches of a system to manage baseline organic compounds in a process steam wherein rate constants are used and change is able to be predicted and monitored with respect to the organic levels/contaminants associated with it. MILLET also teaches of monitoring pH change in association with this and also conductivity(Column 9, line 370column 10, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success of measuring the change of pH with respect to rate of contaminants as is done in MILLET in the methods of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage this has in detecting if there are additional organics present or not (MILLET, column 10, first full paragraph).
With respect to Claim 5, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. BURCHTORF teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004). Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignin which can be a contaminant (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012) and further of detecting the contaminant by detecting fluorescence and comparing the fluorescence to a fluorescence parameter/threshold (abstract). BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations to if to do something or not/take corrective action (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023). They do not call out specifically detecting the rate of change of the contaminant/parameter.
MILLET is used to remedy this and teaches of a system to manage baseline organic compounds in a process steam wherein rate constants are used and change is able to be predicted and monitored with respect to the organic levels/contaminants associated with it. MILLET also teaches of monitoring pH change in association with this and also conductivity(Column 9, line 370column 10, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success of measuring the change of pH with respect to rate of contaminants as is done in MILLET in the methods of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage this has in detecting if there are additional organics present or not (MILLET, column 10, first full paragraph).
Claims 18-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant and further in view of POLIZZOTTI in US 20120325744.
With respect to Claim 18, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 17. They do not call out specifically that the corrective action includes one of the claimed things.
POLIZZOTTI is used to remedy this and teaches of a process and apparatus for treating produced water, in which the process might be controlled to respond to upset conditions or contaminants (abstract).
POLIZZOTTI teaches that the water is from a boiler feed tank (boiler feed water) (paragraphs 0022-0033, 0035). POLIZZOTTI further teaches of using a sensor and controller to determine (evaluate) what is unacceptable feed water and to then treat the water. POLIZZOTTI even further teaches of using an organic carbon analyzer with the device to determine concentrations of one or more contaminants produced in the flowing water (paragraph 0014).
Even more specifically, POLIZZOTTI teaches of that one or more contaminants, for example total organic carbon (TOC) is monitoring after each treatment in the boiler feed tank (paragraph 0022, 0025, 0027, 0029-0032, 0035). POLIZZOTTI further teaches of determining the concentration of the contaminants (paragraph 0013).
POLIZZOTTI teaches of monitoring the content by conductivity or pH sensors (paragraph 0040-0041).
POLIZZOTTI further teaches of the apparatus containing one or more treatment units and determining whether to treat (take corrective action) by increasing or decreasing the addition of chemicals such as coagulant, flocculants or both and whether to adjust the pH of the produced water or adjust the treatment unit in any other way (Claims 22-24, paragraph 0013-0014). POLIZZOTTI teaches that they treatment would be undertaken to reduce the concentration of contaminants (paragraph 0030-0031, 0048-0049).
POLIZZOTTI further teaches of the apparatus containing one or more treatment units and determining whether to treat (take corrective action) by increasing or decreasing the addition of chemicals such as coagulant, flocculants or both and whether to adjust the pH of the produced water or adjust the treatment unit in any other way (Claims 22-24, paragraph 0013-0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success in treating and changing treatment as in POLIZZOTTI in the methods of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage these treatments would offer in reducing the concentration of contaminants (paragraph 0030-0031, 0048-0049).).
With respect to Claim 19, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 17. They do not call out specifically that the corrective action is changing the boiler water feedsource. POLIZZOTTI teaches of the above for Claims 18 and further teaches of making adjustments to the boiler feed water (paragraphs 0035-0036, 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success in treating and changing treatment as in POLIZZOTTI in the methods of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage these treatments would offer in reducing the concentration of contaminants (paragraph 0030-0031, 0048-0049).).
With respect to Claim 21, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not call out specifically that the corrective action is changing the boiler water feedsource. POLIZZOTTI teaches of the above for Claims 18 and further teaches of making adjustments to the boiler feed water (paragraphs 0035-0036, 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success in treating and changing treatment as in POLIZZOTTI in the methods of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage these treatments would offer in reducing the concentration of contaminants (paragraph 0030-0031, 0048-0049).).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant and further in view of LIANG in US 20140060659.
With respect to Claim 20, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above. They do not call out offline detection.
LIANG is used to remedy this and further teaches of off-line detection methods for sugar detection (paragraph 0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success to use offline detection as is done in LIANG in the method of BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC due to the advantage offline has over offline due to the disadvantages of online monitoring (LIANG, paragraph 0011).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant and further in view of WRUBEL in US 20150321924.
With respect to Claim 24, BURCHTORF and VIDOJKOVIC teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of betaine being a contaminant.
WRUBEL is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of a method for detecting contaminants a purifying an aqueous hydrocarbon mixture (abstract). WRUBEL further teaches of betaine being a contaminant (paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of detecting betaine as a contaminant in a hydrocarbon or aqueous fluid since it is known to be a contaminant thereof (paragraph 0031), and due to the need in the art to separate contaminants in hydrocarbon processes (paragraph 0007).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURCHTORF in US 20200172988 in view of VIDOJKOVIC in Extensive feedwater quality control and monitoring concept for preventing chemistry related failures of boiler tubes in a subcritical thermal power plant and further in view of MILLET in US 5724254 and further in view of GUNTHUR in US 5696696.
With respect to Claim 1, BURCHTORF teaches of a method for determining the lignin or lignin by-product content of a process stream (abstract). The process stream can be boiler feedwater (paragraph 0003, 0011, 0046, 0077, 0084). BURCHTORF further teaches of detection of organic contaminants in sugar production (paragraph 0003-0004).
Specifically, BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.)
BURCHTORF further teaches of measuring tannin lignin throughout a stream process (Figure 6B), and of measuring the tannin lignin in correlation with pH (See unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6). As instantly claimed, “evaluating,” can read on mentally processing, or, looking at and reading unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on page 5 & 6 of BURCHTORF, which is done by anyone reading these tables, or who makes these tables.
The above reads on the instant “measuring a parameter…selected from pH and conductivity,” and “evaluating the measured parameter,” “based on the correlation between concentrations of an organic contaminant,” “that includes at least one of sugars, lignins, tannins,” and the “values of the parameter.” Looking at tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6 read on this instant “evaluating the measured parameter,” (Tables 2 & 3, paragraph 0074).
BURCHTORF further teaches of detecting the contaminant level with respect to a predetermined threshold and the threshold allows determinations of if to do something or not to prevent fouling (if the threshold is exceeded) (paragraph 0023, 0046-0047).
BURCHTORF does not specifically teach of determination of whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant.
VIDOJKOVIC is used to remedy this and further teaches of a feedwater quality monitoring method, and further teaches of methods for determination of root causes of corrosive contaminants, and methods for their maintenance in proscribed limits (abstract).
VIDOJKOVIC teaches of the need in the art to optimize the water quality and method to minimize the content of contaminants (Page 685, column 1, second to last paragraph, last two lines of that paragraph). VIDOJKOVIC further teaches of measuring the parameter of pH and that the pH serves as an indication of all acid and basic compounds and products of their reactions in the water (Page 687, Table 3, row 1), and that the acid or basic compounds or products thereof which are measured by pH can be from acids which are acetic acid, or formic, butyric, or propionic acid (these are all organic acids), and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2). VIDOJKOVIC also teaches of generally measuring the conductivity of the feedwater (abstract, 4 lines from bottom) and conductivity and pH together (Page 685, column 2, lines 1-2 & Table 1).
Even further, VIDOJKOVIC teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have reasonable expectation of success in determining whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant as is done in VIDOJKOVIC in the method of BURCHTORF due to the advantage that monitoring and changing both pH and conductivity to optimal ranges has for preventing problems such as in increasing corrosion rate ( VIDOJKOVIC Page 686, column 2, 4, paragraph 2, lines 6-10 from bottom), and due to the need in the art for more effective feedwater monitoring (abstract).
VIDOJKOVIC and BURCHTORF do not call out the claimed “correlation,” being specifically between organic contaminant and rate of change of pH, and of there being a threshold for this.
MILLET is used to remedy this. MILLET teaches of a method for analyzing a power plant water chemistry(abstract). MILLET further teaches diagnosing ingress of organic contaminants (example 4, column 9, lines 15-27). MILLET even further teaches of confirming if the right amount of organics or organic contaminants are present by measuring the pH and conductivity and then seeing if the measured pH or conductivity have changed in comparison to fist level of threshold, and further of correlating the decomposition rate (Column 9, lines 55-Column 10, line 30). MILLET further teaches of examining the changes in rate of contaminant hideout in the boiler (Column 6, lines 7-11). MILLET further teaches of optimizing the measurements used to describe and measure the system, meaning the system can be optimized to measure the rate of change of the organic contaminants (column 10, lines 31-column 11, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to correlation pH and change in pH or rate in change of pH with the organic contaminants as is done in MILLET in the methods of VIDOJKOVIC and BURCHTORF due to the need in the art to diagnose ingress of organic contamination since they can cause accelerated corrosion (Column 9, lines 15-26).
If it is still unclear that the prior art teaches of calculation of rate of change of contaminants, GUNTHUR is used to remedy this.
GUNTHUR teaches of a method for measuring and controlling fluid content in boilers (abstract) and further of measure the rate that contaminants change in the boiler, based on pH, to then calculate contaminant ingress to the system in comparison to a thresold (Column 9, lines 9-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to allow for optimization of contaminant ingress levels and bringing boiler operations to within its control/threshold limits due to the advantage limiting contaminants would have for opera limiting corrosion in boiler operation systems (Column 1, lines 8-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in appeal brief filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the application was still re-opened to add a 101 rejection.
With respect to the prior art, applicant argues that the office action does not teach “evaluation based on a correlation,” as instantly claimed in claims 1 & 17. The examiner disagrees.
Specifically, applicant argues that BURCHTORF does not disclose evaluating measured values of pH or conductivity and correlating between the pH and the amount of tannins/lignins. Applicant further argues that the office action states that the “evaluating,” step can read on mentally processing, but that BURCHTORF does not disclose mentally comparing the measured pH values to any correlation and instead suggest that pH values are only measured to know the pH of the process stream.
The examiner disagrees.
BURCHTORF teaches of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.) BURCHTORF further teaches of measuring tannin lignin throughout a stream process (Figure 6B), and of measuring the tannin lignin in correlation with pH (See unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on pages 5 & 6). As instantly claimed, “evaluating,” reads on mentally processing/ looking at one value in comparison to another, the reading of unlabeled tables 2 & 3 on page 5 & 6 of BURCHTORF, where both pH and lignin and tannin value appear reads on this one mentally look at the tables 2 & 3 and comparing the values thereon.
Applicant argues that “correlation,” as claimed necessarily means something more specific than this, but the examiner disagrees. If applicant means something more specific then they should add this to the claims.
Applicant further argues with respect to the secondary reference, that VIDOJKOVIC does not suggest that a measured pH value can be correlated with a concentration of any specific organic contaminant and taking the claimed corrective action. The examiner disagrees.
First--- the examiner notes that BURCHTORF, the primary reference already taught of correlation of measured pH with contaminant, so the secondary reference does not need to since a 103 rejection was made. Though this is the case--- VIDOJKOVIC still does teach of this correlation of a contaminant with pH or conductivity as claimed, since it teaches of the organic acids (which can be considered organic contaminants).
VIDOJKOVIC specifically teaches of measuring the parameter of pH and that the pH serves as an indication of all acid and basic compounds and products of their reactions in the water (Page 687, Table 3, row 1), and that the acid or basic compounds or products thereof which are measured by pH can be from acids which are acetic acid, or formic, butyric, or propionic acid (these are all organic acids), and they can be detected or measured by increased conductivity (Page 687, last two, bullet point 2).
Even further, VIDOJKOVIC teaches that taking corrective action is based on the determination of the pH or conductivity (abstract, “Obtained results provided evidences for exceeded levels of oxygen, silica, sodium, chloride, sulfate, copper, and conductivity what distinctly demonstrated necessity of feedwater control improvement.” And further see Table 3). VIDOJKOVIC teaches that the improvement is done by optimization based on the measurements of parameters (Page 684, column 2, paragraph 3), and by maintaining the pH and conductivity at certain levels (Page 686, column 2, 4). As acids/organic acids affect pH—VIDOJKOVIC teaches managing of optimizing/making corrective actions based on measurements of these acids, that could be considered to be contaminants.
Therefore, again, especially as broadly and generally claimed--- the prior art, makes the instant claims obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Applicant further argues that one would not have modified BURCHTORF’s method based on VIDOJKOVIC because the contaminants in BURCHTORF are not the same as in VIDJKOVIC. What applicant argues here seems to be that they think that you should not bodily incorporated VIDOJKOVIC into BURCHTORF.
With respect to this, the examiner reminds applicant, that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure or method of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As laid out in the 103 rejection above, the combination of prior art references, would have suggested the instant claims, especially at the level of generality they are instantly claimed at, to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further—there is adequate reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of VIDOJKOVIC and BURCHTORF. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have reasonable expectation of success in determining whether to take corrective action or not being, “based on,” the measured parameter of pH and it’s correlation with the organic contaminant as is done in VIDOJKOVIC feedwater in the method of BURCHTORF process streams due to the advantage that monitoring and changing both pH and conductivity to optimal ranges has for preventing problems such as in increasing corrosion rate ( VIDOJKOVIC Page 686, column 2, 4, paragraph 2, lines 6-10 from bottom), and due to the need in the art for more effective feedwater monitoring for process streams (abstract). This reason for monitoring contaminant in boiler feedwater and making corrections due to contaminants, is relevant for all contaminant sources. Further, both pieces of prior art are in fact commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant argues that because VIDOJKOVIC teaches of controlling different contaminants (specifically corrosive organic acids such as acetic acid, formic, acid, and propionic acid) that there is no reason what controlling of contaminants in this case would be relevant to controlling of contaminants in the case of BURCHTORF, which are tannin and lignin. The examiner disagrees, especially with as broadly the claimed these things including organic acids and tannin and lignins.
Applicant further argues that the rejection of Claim 4 should be reversed. The examiner notes, that a new reference MILLETT is now used to teach of this as shown above.
With respect to claims 15 & 22, applicant argues that they are narrower than Claims 1 & 17 from which they depend on and do not allow for the contaminant to be sugars or organic acids and that the secondary reference VIDJKOVIC does not teach of these contaminants. With respect to this, the examiner maintains that the primary reference BURCHTORF teaches of detecting these contaminants, and specifically of detecting lignins and tannins which can be contaminants (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0012, 0016). All lignins and tannins are, “organic,” since they all are naturally occurring carbon containing plant materials. (organic means in a chemical context, “carbon containing”.) Therefore, this reads on the claims and the examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
