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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 10/24/2025.
Claims 28-47 are currently pending.
The Drawings filed 11/29/2022 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statements filed 07/24/2023 and 08/23/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 28-43, in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 44-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and/or a foreign style claim format. Applicant is suggested to amend/correct the claims to correct their grammar and place them in conformance with U.S. practice. Doing so would likely overcome most of the below claim objections.
Claims 28-31, 34-36, 41, and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitation “which method comprises the addition of an N-acylsarcosine compound ...” to read as “comprising adding a N-acylsarcosine compound” in order to improve grammar and clarity of the claim.
Also in claim 28, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitation of “the N-acylsarcosine compounds (I)” in the first section of the claim to read as “the N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I)” in order to precisely match the antecedent basis previously set forth in the claim and improve clarity in the claim.
Also in claim 28, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitation “a mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I)” in the middle section of the claims (beginning with “where the N-acylsarcosine compound …”) to read as “the mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I)” as the first section of the claims already has antecedent basis for a mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I). Claims 29, 30, 31, 34, and 43 are also objected to for the same reason and the same amendment is suggested to improve clarity of these claims.
Also in claim 28, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitation of “the compound of formula (I)” in the middle section of the claim to read as “the N-acylsarcosine compound of the formula (I)” in order to precisely match the antecedent basis previously set forth in the claim and improve clarity in the claim. Claims 29, 30, 31, and 36 are also objected to for the same reason and the same amendment is suggested to improve clarity of these claims and match the antecedent basis set forth in the independent claim.
Also in claim 28, please correct the grammar of “where however in case that the …” in the last section of the claim.
Also in claim 34, Applicant is suggested to change the semicolon in “C5-C9 alkyl; and in up to 55%” to a comma in order to improve clarity in the claim because the “up to 55% by weight” limitation following the semicolon refers to the mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds recited and referred to prior to the semicolon.
Also in claim 34, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitations of “the N-acylsarcosine compounds (I)” to read as “the N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I)” in order to precisely match the antecedent basis set forth in the parent claim and improve clarity in the instant claim.
In claim 35, Applicant is suggested to amend the recitation “the mixture” to read as “the mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I) or salts thereof” as stated on the previous line of the claim in order to precisely match the previously set forth antecedent basis and improve clarity in the claim.
In claim 41, please correct the recitation of “the water the water”.
Also in claim 41, the claim appears to use the terms “water-steam circuit” and “water-steam cycle” interchangeably. Applicant is suggested to amend “the water-steam cycle” to “the water-steam circuit” in order to improve clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 28-43 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 28, the claim specifically defines “the pressure in the water-steam system during operation is at least 1 MPa (10 bar)” which has the implication of limiting the method to adding the N-acylsarcosine compound(s) to water of systems that operate or are capable of operating at a pressure of at least 1 MPa. However, the claim then immediately contrarily recites “however in case that the water-steam system is a geothermal, the pressure is from 0.2 to 6 MPa (2 to 60 bar)” which completely redefines the water-steam system for cases where the water-steam system is a geothermal system. This is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the pressure in the water-steam system during operation is at least 1 MPa when the claim contrarily redefines the pressure to permit lower pressures (0.2 MPa inclusive to 1 MPa exclusive) in some alternative cases. How can geothermal systems comprise a pressure of 0.2 to 6 MPa when the claim previously requires all systems have a pressure of at least 1 MPa? The claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired of the system’s pressure, and there is a question or doubt as to what pressure range is required by the claim. Is the system’s pressure at least 1 MPa, 0.2 MPa to 6 MPa, or at least 0.2 MPa? For purposes of further examination, the pressure will be broadly construed.
Claims 29-43 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 28.
In claim 32, the term “the condensate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims, which renders the claim indefinite. However, for purposes of claim interpretation, please note that the claim is ultimately drawn to an intended use/purpose recitation of the method rather than requiring/imparting patentable structure within the claimed method. The intended use/purpose limitation is of little significance to claim construction and is extended little patentable weight. There is no manipulative difference between the intended use and the limitations of the parent claim so long as the N-acylsarcosine compound of the recited compound is added to water in the recited concentration in a system that is capable of operating at the recited pressures. In other words, any method meeting the parent claim meets claim 32.
In claim 37, the claim recites the pressure of the water-steam system during operation “is at least 2 MPa”. Note the parent claim recites two, albeit unclear/conflicting, pressure ranges of the system: “at least 1 MPa” and “0.2 to 6 MPa”. While the instant pressure range limits the case where the pressure is at least 1 MPa, it is unclear (under an indefiniteness rationale rather than a clear cut 112(d) rationale) whether the instant pressure range further limits and/or includes all the limitations of the parent claim’s “0.2 to 6 MPa” pressure range. While a lower boundary of 1 MPa further limits a broader lower boundary of 0.2 MPa, it is unclear if the instant limitation (with no set maximum) actually includes the 6 MPa maximum pressure of the parent claim’s “0.2 to 6 MPa” pressure range.
In claim 43, the recitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound is added to “the production well of a geothermal power plant” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore and/or alternatively, it is unclear (under an indefiniteness rationale rather than a clear cut 112(d) rationale) whether this supposed step/limitation further limit and/or includes all the limitations of the parent claim. The parent claim requires the N-acylsarcosine compound be added to water of a water-steam system, and it is seriously unclear whether the instant claim’s recitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound is added to some sort of production well of a geothermal power plant is actually further limiting and/or including adding the N-acylsarcosine compound to water of a water-steam system as required by the parent claim.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Notwithstanding the above rejections, the claims will be examined to the best extent understood from the language in which they are presented.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 36 recites the [N-acylsarcosine] compound of formula (I) is added either in its acid form or a salt form. However, parent claim 28 precisely requires this by reciting “the addition of an N-acylsarcosine compound of the formula (I) or of a mixture of different N-acylsarcosine compounds of the formula (I) R-C(=O)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH (I) … or of a salt thereof”, which is another way of reciting adding a single/mixture of N-acylsarcosine compounds of a certain formula (recited in acid form by “-COOH”) or a salt of the formula (i.e., a salt form).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
In addition to any claim interpretation discussed above:
The recitation in claim 28 that, in a mixture of different N-sarcosine compounds of the recited formula, that up to 30% by weight of the compounds may have an R group of 4 to 9 carbon atoms (less than the 10 to 24 carbon atom range specified for the sole N-sarcosine compound case) is clear and definite. This limitation does not (unclearly) redefine the scope of the formula but rather states there may be up to 30% by weight of an additional N-acylsarcosine(s) with an R group of 4 to 9 carbon atoms in the mixture of N-acylsarcosines in addition to (i.e., 70 to 100 wt.%) of the N-acylsarcosine compound of formula (I) with an R group of 10 to 24 carbon atoms. The same is similarly true in claim 34.
The recitation of the N-acylsarcosine compound(s) “is added to the water used for operating the water-steam system” is construed as clearly meaning the compound is added to the water present in the water-steam system.
The recitations of pressure in the parentheses (e.g., “at least 1 MPa (10 bar)” and “0.2 to 6 MPa (2 to 60 bar)”) are clear and definite because they are merely conversions of the pressure magnitudes outside the parentheses stated in different units. 1 bar = 0.1 MPa and accordingly, for example, at least 1 MPa is equal to at least 10 bar and 0.2 to 6 MPa is equal to 2 to 60 bar.
Please also note that, the recitation of a “water-steam system” appears to merely be broad terminology and steam is not required in the independent claim’s system/method per se. However, the claim requires addition of the N-acylsarcosine compound(s) to water of some system in the recited concentration and the system be capable of operating at the recited pressure(s). The recitations of pressures in the body of the claim imparts structural weight to the preamble of the claim that the method pertains to a pressurized water-containing system.
Claim 42 recites that the method is “for providing corrosion protection to a pressurized water-steam system used for generating steam for the direct or indirect processing of food, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals” which merely constitutes an intended use/purpose recitation of the method rather than requiring/imparting patentable structure within the claimed method. The intended use/purpose limitation is of little significance to claim construction and is extended little patentable weight. There is no manipulative difference between the intended use and the limitations of the parent claim so long as the N-acylsarcosine compound of the recited compound is added to water in the recited concentration in a system that is capable of operating at the recited pressures. In other words, any method meeting the parent claim meets claim 42.
It is also noted the concentrations recited in units of mg/kg are equivalent to ppm.
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 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 28-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A). Translations to non-English foreign references are with respect to the English language machine translations thereof of record filed on 08/23/2024 unless specified otherwise. Note that the Mori et al. patent is an English language equivalent of the KR101787457B1 reference cited on the third party IDS.
As to independent claim 28 and dependent claim 36, Ano et al. teach corrosion protection/inhibition of metallic materials in aqueous systems such as cooling water systems and boiler water systems (p.1 & bottom half of p.3). Cooling water systems and boiler water systems inherently/intrinsically are pressurized or else the system would not function. Ano et al. teach providing a corrosion inhibitor to the water of such systems in order to inhibit corrosion therein (Id. at p.3). Collectively, the above teachings read on a method for providing corrosion protection to a pressurized water system comprising the addition of a corrosion inhibitor to the water of the system.
Ano et al. further teach the corrosion inhibitor contains a sarcosine compound and/or a salt thereof of the formula R’-C(=O)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH where R’ is an alkyl group having 8 to 22 carbon atoms and specific examples include, among others, N-myristol sarcosine and N-oleoyl sarcosine (bottom p.1, top p.2, middle p.3, etc.). This all reads on the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound of the formula (I) and its addition in an acid form or in a salt form. See also claim 2 and the right column of p.2 of the foreign language original document which more clearly depict the formula structure in the manner cited above. The disclosed R’ overlaps the scope of the claimed R, N-myristol sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a linear hydrocarbon group having 13 carbon atoms, and N-oleoyl sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a linear hydrocarbon group having 17 carbon atoms. Additional rationale exists over the additional examples of sarcosine compounds disclosed in the reference but is not stated here for brevity.
Regarding concentrations, Ano et al. further teach the sarcosine compound is typically blended with a copolymer at a weight ratio of 1:0.1-100, preferably 1:1-10, to form the corrosion inhibitor component and then this corrosion inhibitor compound is added to water at a concentration of 1 to 5,000 ppm, preferably 5 to 500 ppm, (middle p.3). This certainly overlaps the claimed N-acylsarcosine addition concentration of 0.1-10 mg/kg (ppm) (e.g., a 1:1 ratio at a concentration of 10 ppm within both preferred ranges in the reference equals addition of 5 mg/kg or ppm N-acylsarcosine to the water, a 1:5 ratio at a concentration of 6 ppm within both preferred ranges in the reference equals addition of 1 mg/kg or ppm N-acylsarcosine to the water, etc.).
Ano et al. teach and meet all the claimed limitations except for the pressure magnitude related limitations that the system operates, or is capable of operating, at (that the pressure in the system is one or more of at least 1 MPa, 0.2 to 6 MPa, at least 0.2 MPa, etc.).
However, Mori et al. is similarly drawn to a method of inhibiting corrosion in a boiler water system comprising use/dose/addition of an amine compound where exemplary boiler water systems operate at pressures of 4 MPa and 11 MPa (see Experiments 1 & 2 in col. 5 & 6). These operating pressures fall within the claimed ranges. Mori et al. teaches and serves as evidence boiler water systems typically and routinely operate at, are designed to operate at, and/or are capable of operating at pressure magnitudes within the claimed ranges.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a boiler water system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range or a boiler water system designed or capable to operate at a pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Mori et al. as the boiler water system of Ano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient, working, and/or operating boiler water system with corrosion inhibited water therein with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, Watering et al. is similarly drawn to a method of inhibiting corrosion in geothermal water systems comprising addition of a corrosion inhibitor therein where exemplary operating pressures inject a water-based fluid into an injection well at a pressure of 2 to 50 bar (i.e., 0.2 to 5 MPa) and produce/withdraw the water-based fluid out of a production well at a pressure of 3.5 to 25 bar (i.e., 0.35 to 2.5 MPa) (Table 1). The 2 to 50 bar and 3.5 to 25 bar ranges fall within the claimed 0.2 to 6 MPa range and overlap the other claimed at least 1 MPa range. Watering et al. teach a geothermal water system generally involves pumping a water-based fluid into an injection well to naturally heat it, draw it from a production well, perform a heat exchange (cooling it and transferring heat/energy), and then repeat the cycle (left col. p.1 and p.2). The system also comprises filters and the fluid has dissolved salts (Id.). In other words, a geothermal water system is generally any of a boiler water system, an open circulating cooling water system, a filter cooling water system, a brine water system, which are various types of apparatus/systems disclosed and encompassed by Ano et al. (Id. at p.3).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a geothermal system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Watering et al. as one or more of the disclosed systems of Ano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient, working, and/or operating water system with corrosion inhibited water therein with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the event the above rationale to Ano et al.’s final concentration of N-acylsarcosine compound in the system’s water somehow does not meet the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound addition/dosing rate, Asano et al. is similarly drawn to corrosion inhibition of metals by addition of an N-acylsarcosine compound where N-oleoyl sarcosine is specifically added/dosed in exemplary concentrations of 4 ppm and 10 ppm among Tables 2 and 5. For the reasons discussed above, these concentrations are within the claimed range as well as the preferred embodiments of Ano et al.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a N-acylsarcosine compound in a concentration on the order of 1 to 10 ppm, e.g., 4 ppm and 10 ppm, as taught by Asano et al. in the method/system of Ano et al. in order to sufficient inhibitor corrosion in the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
As to claims 29-31, the narrower N-acylsarcosine compound concentration ranges are met via the teachings of Ano et al. and Ano et al. in view of Asano et al. for the reasons discussed above. The cited concentrations overlap, if not squarely within, those claimed. See above.
As to claim 32, this claim is an intended use/purpose limitation and is thus met by the cited references of record. Nevertheless, the cited reference(s) above amount to providing a N-acylsarcosine compound to water systems such as boiler water systems/etc. to prevent corrosion therein, which meets the intended use/purpose limitations.
As to claim 33, Ano et al. teach the system may be constructed of and/or comprise steel via performing a test of the composition on steel (p.4), which meets the claimed limitation(s).
As to claim 34, Ano et al.’s preferred/exemplary N-myristol sarcosine and N-oleoyl sarcosine compounds meet the claimed limitations. N-myristol sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a C13 alkyl, and N-oleoyl sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a C17 alkenyl having 1 C=C double bond. Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
As to claim 35, Ano et al.’s preferred/exemplary N-oleoyl sarcosine compound meets the claimed limitations as it is capable of being derived from oleic acid (i.e., the oleoyl portion of the compound).
As to claim 37, the combination of references meet the claimed operating pressure of at least 2 MPa for the reasons described above. The disclosed pressures are either within or overlap that claimed.
As to claims 38-41, the reference(s) meet the claimed limitations at least because the reference(s) teach the system is a boiler and comprises water, which clearly reads on a boiler and also reads on a water-steam circuit. Regarding the additional pH of claim 40, Ano et al. further teach the pH of the water in the system is 6-11, preferably 7-9, (middle p.3), which overlaps and falls within the claimed range, respectively. If there is any doubt that the machine translation specifies these values as pH values, please see near the bottom of the right col. of p.3 of the original document which clarifies the value is indeed for pH. Regarding the additional electrical conductivity of claim 41, the claimed electrical conductivity of the (treated) water during operation being 30 µS/cm or less would flow naturally from the teachings of the references as Ano et al. teach the corrosion inhibitor composition merely comprises the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound and a copolymer which is added to pure water as the system’s circulating water/fluid (p.2 and 3), i.e., adding low electrically conductive components to a low electrically conductive if not electrically insulative fluid.
As to claim 42, this claim is an intended use/purpose limitation and is thus met by the cited references of record.
As to claim 43, the combination of references meet the claimed limitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound or salt thereof is added to a production well of a geothermal power plant (Id.).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) as applied to claims 28-43 above, and further in view of or as evidenced by Larin et al. ("Determination of salt component concentrations in boiler water using conductivity and pH measurements", Thermal Engineering, 66, 8, 2019, 593-598).
The disclosure of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
In the event the prior combination of reference somehow fails to meet the claimed electrical conductivity limitation, Larin et al. is similarly drawn to water chemistry of boiler water systems and teach that there is an art standard of boiler water quality to have a specific electrical conductivity of at most 30 µS/cm (Table 1 on p.594), which is precisely the same as that claimed.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide/maintain a of boiler water quality to have a specific electrical conductivity of at most 30 µS/cm as taught by Larin et al. in the corrosion inhibition method and boiler water system of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient boiler system. Alternatively, Larin et al. serves as supporting evidence the above rationale that the claimed electrical conductivity of the (treated) water during operation being 30 µS/cm or less would indeed flow naturally from the teachings of the references or else the boiler would be insufficient and/or below art standards.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) as applied to claims 28-43 above, and further in view of or as evidenced by Spiegelman et al. (US 8,518,150 B2).
The disclosure of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. is relied upon as set forth above. The above grounds of rejection rejects claim 42 as merely an intended use/purpose limitation that does not require any further structures than its parent claim.
In the event the claim somehow requires presence of the system in configuration that directly or indirectly processes food, cosmetics, or pharmaceuticals with steam, Spiegelman et al. is similarly drawn to boiler water systems that produce steam and then utilize the steam for processing pharmaceuticals (see, e.g., col. 6 lines 9-10, col. 15 lines 51-52, col. 16 line 53+, col. 17 lines 30-32).
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a boiler water system to process pharmaceuticals as taught by Spiegelman et al. utilizing the boiler water system with corrosion protection (or the corrosion protection method) of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient boiler system and a typical end use/application thereof with a reasonable expectation of success.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
December 5, 2025