DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are indefinite because of the phrase “ is in replacement of liquid cleaning in place”. Specifically, it’s unclear whether the liquid cleaning occurs followed by the application of heat, wherein the heat replaces the liquid cleaning OR whether the method step of cleaning is absent of any liquid cleaning steps.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In paragraph 2 above, the examiner indicated that claims 1 and 7 can be interpreted in two ways. If claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as cleaning with an external heat gun with the absence of a liquid cleaning step, the limitations constitute new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. Paragraphs 5-6 teaches the disadvantages of liquid CIP systems and further teaches that a new CIP overcomes these disadvantages. However, paragraphs 5-6 do not specifically teach cleaning with an external heat gun absent a liquid cleaning step. Paragraph 22 teaches the “washed” and concentrated slurry is transferred to a filter, and heated air is blown thru the product wash system”. Paragraph 22 teaches that washing is done, prior to drying with heated air, further supporting the examiner’s position that cleaning with a heat gun without a liquid cleaning step, constitutes new matter, not supported by the originally filed specification. Should applicant amend claims 1 and 7 further to recite cleaning with an external heat gun, absent a liquid cleaning step, the limitations would constitute a proposed new matter rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollwedel et al. (US2010/0313913A1) in view of Nam et al. (KR 100810584B1).
Claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as a liquid cleaning step which is replaced by application of heat.
Re claim 1, Hollwedel et al. teach cleaning a secondary chamber of a heat exchanger of a nuclear facility, which reads broadly on applicant’s claim language of “a system comprising nuclear material”, comprising introducing a cleaning solution to treat deposits followed by introducing hot air (paragraphs 35-40) to dry the impurities present in the secondary chamber 6 of the steam generator 2, wherein the deposits flack off during drying. Re claims 1-2, 6, 8, Hollwedel et al. teach applying heat (i.e. hot air) to the process equipment (secondary chamber 6 of steam generator 2). The limitations of without disassembly of the system are inherently met since paragraph 36 teaches introducing hot air into the chamber 6.
Re claim 1, Hollwedel et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of an external heat gun. Nam teaches the use of heat guns for blowing hot air onto a surface of an object to dry the object. Specifically Nam teaches using a heat gun for use in cleaning and drying pipes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hollwedel et al. to include a heat gun, as taught by Nam, for purposes of blowing hot air.
Re claims 3 and 9, the limitations are met since hot air is introduced into the chamber. Specifically, air is heated and then introduced into the chamber. Re claim 5, the limitations are met since paragraph 36 teaches introducing hot air which causes the deposits to develop cracks and flake off. Additionally, applicant is not claiming a specified temperature, such that any temperature which results in a change in the structure of the material would read broadly on applicant’s claim language. Additionally, Hollwedel et al. teach drying to result in mechanical destabilization of the deposits (paragraph 40). Re claim 7, the limitations are met since Hollwedel et al. teach flaking off the deposits, followed by application of a cleaning solution (paragraph 38), such that the deposits are dissolved in the cleaning solution (paragraph 23; i.e. recovery of the deposits). Re claims 11-12, the limitations are met by Hollwedel et al. in view of Nam et al. for the reasons previously recited. Specifically, Hollwedel et al. teach applying heat to a system comprising nuclear material (i.e. heat exchanger in a nuclear facility, abstract), wherein application of heat results in cleaning in place without disassembly of the system, since hot air (paragraphs 35-40) is introduced to dry the impurities present in the secondary chamber 6 of the steam generator 2, wherein the deposits flack off during drying. The flaking off of deposits read on a cleaning step. Since the hot air is applied directly into the second chamber, the limitations of without disassembly of the system are met. The limitations of a heat gun to provide heated air are met by Nam. Re claim 12, the limitations of providing concentrated nuclear material as met since Hollwedel et al. are directed to cleaning and removing deposits from generators in nuclear facilities. Furthermore, applicant has not defined what the skilled artisan would consider as a “concentrated” amount of nuclear material and therefore, any amount of nuclear material would read as “concentrated”. Re claim 12, the limitations of flaking off are a result of applying heat at a temperature above a destruction temperature. Since Hollwedel et al. teach cracking and flaking off of contaminants (paragraph 36) as a result of heating, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the limitations of applying heat at a temperature above a destruction temperature to be met. Furthermore, since Hollwedel et al. teach applying heat, the examiner argues that Hollwedel et al. is heating above a destructive temperature which results in the contaminants being fractured, followed by flaking off of the generator. In reference to collecting the flaked off material and combining the recovered material with rest of a batch of nuclear material, applicant is directed to paragraph 36 for example which teaches that the flaked off deposits accumulate in the base plate or lower tube sheet 10 of the steam generator. Specifically, the flaked off material is being collected in the tube sheet and combine with a batch of other material, which are recovered in the tube sheet. Applicant has not limited the definition of “batch” as it reads broadly on other material being collected.
Response to Arguments
The issuance of the Final Rejection of 9/16/2025 is maintained for reasons set forth in the Examiner Interview Summary of 11/10/2025.
9. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant cites support, referencing paragraphs 3, 8, and 19 of the instant specification. Paragraph 3 is directed to existing clean in place methods. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are directed to application of heat. Applicant has not specifically clarified how claims 1 and 7 should be interpreted. As stated previously, it’s unclear whether the liquid cleaning occurs followed by the application of heat, wherein the heat replaces the liquid cleaning OR whether the method step of cleaning is absent of any liquid cleaning steps. The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph is maintained.
10. The rejection of the claims under 112, first paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant continues to argue that the above limitations do not constitute new matter, and directs the examiner’s attention to paragraphs 3, 8 and 19. Paragraph 3 is directed to existing clean in place methods. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are directed to application of heat. Applicant has failed to provide clarification concerning how claims 1 and 7 should be interpreted. If claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as cleaning with an external heat gun with the absence of a liquid cleaning step, the limitations constitute new matter not supported by the originally filed specification as previously argued.
11. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-9. Applicant continues to argue that the examiner’s reasoning of without disassembly is flawed and not supported by the cited reference. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as applicant has not provided any clear reasoning why the Examiner’s reasons are flawed. The prior art teaches heating the steam generator to remove impurities, the reference is silent to a disassembly of the steam generator/ heat exchanger and/or any reactor parts. Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to teach an external heat gun, the limitations of which are taught by Nam. Applicant’s claim is broadly interpreted to read on liquid cleaning followed by application of heat by an external heat gun to any type of equipment, the limitations of which are neither novel or unobvious.
12. Applicant argues that Hollwedel fails to teach heat treatment in the absence of liquid cleaning. As previously discussed, and in view of the indefiniteness, the claim language is subject of various interpretations. The examiner agrees that Hollwedel does not teach heat treatment in the absence of liquid cleaning, however, the argued limitations constitute new matter, not supported by the originally filed specification, for the reasons recited above. However, the examiner is interpreting the claims as liquid cleaning, followed by application of heat, wherein the heat replaces the liquid cleaning, the limitations of which are taught by the prior art.
13. Applicant argues that the examiner is mistaken by interpreting the claims as a liquid cleaning followed by application of heat, wherein the heat replaces the liquid cleaning. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as applicant is directed to paragraph 22 of the instant specification which teaches a liquid cleaning (washing) followed by application of heated air.
14. In summary, the examiner finds the instantly claimed invention as neither novel and/or unobvious as a) removing contaminants from a nuclear facility using a heat treatment is known; and b) the use of a heat gun to generate heated air for cleaning is known.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc