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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each Figure “D” (see Figures 2D-39D) contains numbers and text that is not readable/is illegible . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a cooling medium” should instead be –the cooling medium--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6, 7, 9, 11-12, 15, 18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “vinyl ester-ethylene or latex” is indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation is incomplete or if latex is an optional alternative member of the Markush group separate from vinyl ester-ethylene.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “a chemical treatment” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation is further limiting to the chemical treatment of claim 1 or is improperly reciting a further/separate chemical treatment different from the chemical treatment of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is not clear what is meant by “50% of the time”, specifically the metes and bounds of the span of time are not made clear so as to clearly set forth and allow determination of 50% thereof.
Regarding claim 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the process stream” as neither claim 11 nor claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, sets forth proper basis for a recitation of a ‘process stream’. It is further unclear at what point in the method of claim 1 the conductivity is required to be more than 5000 µS/cm.
Regarding claim 12, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the process stream” as neither claim 12 nor claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, sets forth proper basis for a recitation of a ‘process stream’. It is further unclear at what point in the method of claim 1 the total dissolved solids is required to be more than 2500 ppm.
Regarding claim 15, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “a membrane” as neither claim 15 nor claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, sets forth proper basis for the presence of a ‘membrane’. It is further unclear at what point in the method of claim 1 the conductivity is required to be more than 5000µS/cm.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is indefinite with respect to the final Markush member (i.e. --terpolymer of acrylic acid, and AMPS-- or --terpolymers of acrylic acid, and terpolymers of AMPS--, or other). The claim recites alternative limitations in the form of improper Markush group(s), and therefore said claims are indefinite. A proper Markush group recites its members as being “selected from the group consisting of: A, B, and C”. See MPEP 2173.05(h). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the term “amount sufficient to sustain” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “amount sufficient to sustain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case both the ‘amount sufficient’ and ‘sustain’ recitations are relative and therefore indefinite. It is further unclear what is meant by “exposure duration”, specifically to what is the cooling medium being exposed (i.e. the chemical treatment itself, a corrosive material, a microbe, a specific temperature, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donlan et al (US 6,039,965).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Donlan teaches methods of inhibiting microbes/biofilm in industrial aqueous systems, including recirculating cooling water systems utilizing cooling towers (abstract; col 1-2; col 5)(instant evaporative cooling system). Donlan teaches treating the water of such aqueous systems with polymer surfactant materials (col 1-2) (instant chemical treatment; instant dispersant polymer) and further teaches it is also beneficial to pretreat the cooling tower fill material (instant cooling medium) substratum itself with the surfactant material for greater reduction in adhesions (col 13 ln 19-23; col 14 ln 10-21)(instant coating a surface of the cooling medium with the chemical treatment).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Donlan teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the polymer surfactant treatment is utilized as an aqueous treatment solution that is introduced into the system in a continuous manner (col 7 ln 23-35).
Regarding claim 20, Donlan teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the treatment is used in a dosage required to obtain minimal adhesion over a 24h period (col 13-14). While Donlan does not specifically teach such sustains microstructure over 30 days of exposure, Donlan teaches the dosages will result in substratum surfaces with minimal or greatly reduced adhesion. It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Wal et al. (US PGPub 2014/0197102).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 15-16 and 18, Van der Wal teaches methods of continuously dosing an evaporative recirculation cooling water system with a chemical treatment including scale inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, and microbiocides (abstract; [0084]). Van der Wal teaches the system is equipped with a scale inhibiting dosing system upstream of a charge barrier flow through capacitor ([0012]-[0013]), which provides the scale inhibitor at a concentration between 0.5 and 20 ppm ([0044]). Van der Wal further teaches the charge barrier flow through capacitor is made of a suitable membrane material such as an anion exchange and/or a cation exchange membrane material ([0067]),
Van der Wal teaches the scale inhibitor may be suitably selected from 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid (PBTC), polymaleic acid polymers, (poly)carboxylic acids, polyacryates mixed with the phosphonic acid HEPD, other phosphonic acid derivatives, acrylic polymers, modified polyacrylic acids, etc. ([0091]-[0092])(instant phosphonate; instant dispersant polymer (claims 1-2, 16 and 18).
Regarding claim 3, Van der Wal teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches inclusion of microbiocides ([0087]) and of corrosion inhibitors including triazoles, benzotriazoles, tolyltriazoles, phosphonates, silicates, etc. ([0087])(instant scale inhibitors, chelating agents, and biocides).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14, Van der Wal teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the chemical treatment is continuously dosed into a feedstream (instant process stream) at the water entry point ([0026]; example). Van der Wal teaches the water entry point provides water to the recirculation loop with comprise a heat exchanger and a cooling tower (Fig 1; [0060]; [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Van der Wal teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the treatment is used in a dosage required to obtain a desired scaling potential ([0043]-[0047]). While Van der Wal does not specifically teach such sustains microstructure over 30 days of exposure, it is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keister (US 8,128,841).
Regarding claims 1-2, 14 and 16-19, Keister teaches methods of treating evaporative cooling systems comprising treating the cooling water with a composition for control of corrosion and biocidal growth (abstract; col 4 ln 9-25). Keister teaches the aqueous composition (instant liquid form (claim 14)) comprises i) 2-acrylamido-2-methyl propyl sulfonic acid (AMPS) acrylic terpolymer (instant dispersant polymer (claims 1-2 and 18)), ii) sodium silicate, iii) phosphate, iv) polyphosphate, v) at least one or more of hydroxyethylidene diphosphonic acid, aminotrimethylene phosphonic acid, and phosphonobutane tricarboxylic acid (instant phosphonate; (claims 1-2 and 16)), and vi) further optional components (col 3 ln 35-65).
Keister teaches the i) AMPS acrylic terpolymer is present in at least 1.0 wt%, preferably about 1.5 to about 10 wt% (col 5 ln 17-24)(claim 19).
Keister teaches the v) is present in any combination of the three compounds of hydroxyethylidene diphosphonic acid, aminotrimethylene phosphonic acid, and phosphonobutane tricarboxylic acid, wherein each compound is independently present in up to about 6 wt% (col 6 ln 4-21)(claim 17).
Regarding claims 3-4, Keister teaches the method set forth above. Keister teaches the above noted ii) sodium silicate, iii) phosphate, and iv) polyphosphate, and further teaches the optional components vi) are selected from sodium tolyltriazole, sodium mecaptobenzothiazole, zinc oxide, sodium molybdate dihydrate, sodium toluene sulfonate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, tetramethyl-5-decyndiol, copper phthalocyanide quad sulfonate (instant fluorescent tracer (claim 4)), and/or sodium nitrate (col 6 ln 46 to col 7 ln 12), and additionally teaches inclusion of biocides (col 10 ln 39-50) (a plurality of the aforementioned being readable over instant scale inhibitors, chelating agents and biocides (claim 3)).
Regarding claim 8, Keister teaches the method as set forth above and further teaches the composition is dosed into to the cooling water (instant process stream) which is then used in the cooling tower system (example 1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Keister teaches the method as set forth above and further teaches the cycles of operation of the cooling tower can be increased to any level desired, up to and including a maximum value where windage equals blowdown (col 4 ln 27-30). Keister further teaches an example where a cycle value range of from about 12 to about 20 was reached, although higher values were considered possible (col 11 ln 28-30). Keister teaches maintaining a dosage working range via the automatic or manual determination and dosing (col 10 ln 27-28; example 1).
Regarding claim 20, Keister teaches the method as set forth above and further teaches the treatment composition utilized at a dosage level in the range of from about 100 mg/L to about 700 mg/L (col 10 ln 3-12) provides corrosion prevention below generally accepted maximum corrosion rates of about 3 mil/yr for mild steel, about 0.5 mil/yr for yellow metal alloys, about 5 mil/yr for zinc and galvanized steel, and about 5 mil/yr for aluminum and aluminum alloys (col 10 ln 13-25).
It is further noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gill et al. (US PGPub 2017/0029305).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 18 , Gill teaches methods of inhibiting scale in water containing systems, including cooling systems using cooling towers ([0026]) wherein a polymer or polymer mixture is added to a water source for the cooling system ([0119]-[0126]). Gill teaches the polymer is a copolymer of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (ATBS) comprising up to 5 monomer units ([0036]-[0037])(instant dispersant polymer (claims 1-2 and 18). Gill further teaches the polymer mixture may comprise the combination of the polymer and phosphorous containing molecules e.g. polymethylene phosphonate derivatives ([0016])(instant phosphonate (claims 1-2)).
Regarding claim 4, Gill teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the polymer or polymer mixture may comprise a fluorescent taggant ([0107]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Gill teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches adding the polymer or polymer mixture to the water source (instant process stream) which then contacts the cooling system components, such as the cooling tower ([0124]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 9, Gill teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the polymer or polymer mixture may be delivered to the water source in a continuous (e.g. drip feed) or incremental manner as needed to maintain a desired dosage ([0117]-[0118]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Gill teaches the methods as set forth above and further teaches the water source (instant process stream) can have a total dissolved solids content of 4000 to 350,000 ppm ([0022]-[0023]; [0114]; see also Table 1).
Gill teaches the total dissolved solids content comprised of various ion species, depending on the water source selected, including for example, about 300-15,000 ppm of calcium, about 300-15,000 ppm of potassium, about 1,000-30,000 ppm of magnesium, about 5,000-100,000 ppm sodium, etc. ([0022]). Gill teaches the aforementioned total solids content, which will necessarily result in an associated conductivity value. While Gill does not specifically teach the conductivity of the water source it is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 20, Gill teaches the polymer or polymer mixture can be used in powder form or mixed in water ([0117]), at a desired dosage of about 0.01 ppm or more to about 1000 ppm ([0118]), including about 0.1 to about 50 ppm ([0127]). Gill teaches a desired dosage (instant ‘amount sufficient’) as noted. While Gill does not specifically teach such sustains microstructure over 30 days of exposure, Gill teaches the dosages will result in systems without any scale formation. As noted above a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al (US 6,039,965) in view of Yaeger et al. (US 8,440,290).
Donlan teaches the method as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches use of known cooling tower fill materials (instant cooling medium) such as Munters products (col 5 ln 9-20). Donlan does not specifically teach the fill materials to comprise cellulose or silicon dioxide (claim 5) or to further comprise a further resin, polymer or latex (claim 6). However, Yaeger teaches it is known that evaporative cooling contact media comprises two components (col 5 ln 14-59; FIG3): component I being a fibrous material folded into a suitable shape, such as cellulose, fiberglass or asbestos (col 5 ln 27-35); and component II being a polymer impregnating continuous phase, comprising one or more polymer including epoxies, polyacrylates, polyesters, polysilicones, polyacetals, polyvinylhalogens, etc. (col 5 ln 36-51). Yaeger and Donlan are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely evaporative cooling fill materials for recirculating cooling water systems. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have it obvious to select the contact media of Yeager as the fill materials of Donlan and would have been motivated to do so as Donlan teaches use of known/commercially available fill materials and further as Yeager teaches fill materials are known to comprise both a fibrous material and an impregnated polymer as such extends the life span and enhances performance of the contact media (col 3 ln 43-50; col 5 ln 14-26).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767