DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 09 JANUARY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 JANUARY 2026.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-10
Withdrawn Claims: 11-16
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 6 contains the reference #170 which is not included in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, “the determined amount of sulfite in the water” in line 3 of the claim should read “the amount of sulfite in the water”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “at least one controller that is configured to receive information regarding the fluorescence signal measure by the fluorimeter and determine an amount of sulfite in the water based on the fluorescence signal”, which has been added to a water treatment system with a sulfite container, a reagent container, and a fluorimeter. The water treatment system with a sulfite container, a reagent container, and a fluorimeter falls within the patentable categories (Step 1, YES), but the controller simply receives information and determines a result, which is a calculation based upon the reading, and this pertains to the category of an abstract idea/mathematical concept and is not patentable (Step 2A PRONG ONE, YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving information and determining an amount of sulfite pertain to extra-solution activity in which data is gathered and then manipulated but not applied to the apparatus in any meaningful manner (See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)) (Step 2A PRONG TWO, NO). In contrast to instant claim 2, instant claim 3 expands upon the data collection and determination by controlling sulfite addition based upon the determination from the controller, and is thus specifically applying the abstract ideas to meaningfully impact the function of the apparatus.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receiving data and determining pertain to mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea such that the information could be analyzed by a mental process. In this case, an operator could read the fluorimeter values and either write down or input the calculation into a simple calculating device to obtain the same results as instant claim 2 (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)) (Step 2B, NO). Therefore instant claim 2 does not qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al (US Patent Application No. 20080257831 A1) hereinafter Nakajima in view of Rao et al (US Patent No. 10765999 B2) hereinafter Rao.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakajima teaches a water treatment method for a boiler system (i.e., a water treatment system comprising; Abstract)
with a water treating agent tank (i.e., a sulfite container; Fig. 1, #41; Paragraph 0062) that includes an oxygen scavenger wherein sulfite is taught as an explicit example of an oxygen scavenger (i.e., that contains a sulfite solution; Paragraph 0016) that is supplied to the water supply tank (i.e., and is configured to supply the sulfite solution to water of the water treatment system at a first location; Fig. 1, #23; Paragraph 0063)
wherein there is a detection portion (Fig. 1, #24) that measures dissolved oxygen in the water supply tank (Paragraph 0063).
Nakajima does not teach (1) a reagent container that is configured to supply a fluorophore compound to the water at a second location downstream of the first location and (2) a fluorimeter that is configured to measure a fluorescence signal of the water at a third location that is downstream of the second location.
However, Rao teaches the creation of a blend of an inert fluorescent chemical (i.e., a fluorophore compound) and an active ingredient in known proportion to one another from containers (i.e., a reagent container; Fig. 5, #400-405), adding the blend to an industrial water system (i.e., that is configured to supply a fluorophore compound to the water at a second location downstream of the first location),
and then monitoring the fluorescent signal of the inert fluorescent chemical using a fluorometer downstream from the injection point (i.e., a fluorimeter that is configured to measure a fluorescence signal of the water at a third location that is downstream of the second location; Fig. 5, #408; Col. 1, Line 55 to Col. 2, Line 13; Col. 13, Line 40 to Col. 14, Line 34),
for the purpose of precisely controlling chemical treatment dosage to prevent overfeeding and underfeeding through the direct measurement of the chemical additive in the system (Col. 1, Line 30 to Col. 2, Line 13).
Rao is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to controlling treatment of an industrial water system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method as taught by Nakajima with the inert fluorescent and fluorometer as taught by Rao because the inert fluorescent and fluorometer would allow for precise chemical agent dosing and prevent overfeeding and underfeeding.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakajima further teaches the addition of sulfite as an oxygen scavenger to boiler feed water for the purpose of reducing corrosive action on the heat transfer surface of the boiler tube (i.e., wherein the water treatment system includes a boiler that is downstream of the sulfite container so that sulfite-containing water is supplied as feedwater to the boiler; Paragraphs 0016-0017).
Regarding Claim 5, Rao further teaches that it is known to add the treatment product during make-up water addition to boiler operation (Col. 1, Lines 20-54) and specifically that the fluorometer is located directly after additive injection to ensure additive dispensing is occurring (i.e., wherein the boiler is downstream of the fluorimeter; Col. 14, Lines 12-35).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “wherein the water to which the sulfite is added includes bleach” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (Lei Wang, Wenxuan Li, Wenjing Zhi, Dandan Ye, Yun Wang, Liang Ni, Xu Bao, “A rapid-responsive fluorescent probe based on coumarin for selective sensing of sulfite in aqueous solution and its bioimaging by turn-on fluorescence signal”, Dyes and Pigments, Volume 147, 2017, Pages 357-363, ISSN 0143-7208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2017.07.021.) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakajima further teaches controlling supplied water treating agent by measuring dissolved oxygen content (i.e., wherein the water treatment system further includes at least one controller; Paragraph 0025).
Rao further teaches controlling chemical additive addition based upon sensor measurements with a PLC controller (i.e., at least one controller; Col. 4, Line 55 to Col. 5, Line 5) where the controlling sensor includes a fluorometric sensor (i.e., that is configured to receive information regarding the fluorescence signal measured by the fluorimeter and determine an amount of [active chemical] in the water based on the fluorescence signal; Col. 7, Lines 20-30).
Nakajima in view of Rao do not explicitly teach where the at least one controller is configured to determine an amount of sulfite in the water based on the fluorescence signal.
However, Wang teaches a fluorescent probe that is selective for the detection of sulfite (Abstract) where the fluorescence of the probe is correlated with sulfite concentration (i.e., determine an amount of sulfite in the water based on the fluorescence signal; Page 359, Section 3.2) for the purpose of detecting sulfite at low levels to improve human health (Page 357, Introduction).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the fluorescent detection of sulfite in water (Page 357, Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method made obvious by Nakajima in view of Rao with the fluorescent probe that attaches to sulfite as taught by Wang because the sulfite level could be controlled more precisely to improve human health.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakajima further teaches controlling supplied water treating agent by measuring dissolved oxygen content (i.e., wherein the at least one controller is configured to send a signal to control the amount of the sulfite solution that is supplied to the water based on the amount of sulfite in the water; Paragraph 0025).
Rao further teaches controlling chemical additive addition based upon sensor measurements with a PLC controller (Col. 4, Line 55 to Col. 5, Line 5) where the controlling sensor includes a fluorometric sensor (Col. 7, Lines 20-30).
Wang further teaches a fluorescent probe that is selective for the detection of sulfite (Abstract) where the fluorescence of the probe is correlated with sulfite concentration (Page 359, Section 3.2) for the purpose of detecting sulfite at low levels to improve human health (Page 357, Introduction).
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima in view of Rao does not teach wherein the fluorophore compound includes a coumarin moiety.
However, Wang teaches a fluorescent probe made from coumarin (i.e., wherein the fluorophore compound includes a coumarin moiety) and levulinic acid (Page 358, Scheme 2) for the purpose of detecting sulfite at low levels to improve human health (Page 357, Introduction).
PNG
media_image1.png
129
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method made obvious by Nakajima in view of Rao with the fluorescent probe with the coumarin moiety that attaches to sulfite as taught by Wang because the sulfite level could be controlled more precisely to improve human health.
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima in view of Rao does not teach wherein the fluorophore compound includes an ester moiety.
However, Wang teaches a fluorescent probe made from coumarin and levulinic acid (i.e., wherein the fluorophore compound includes an ester moiety; Page 358, Scheme 2) for the purpose of detecting sulfite at low levels to improve human health (Page 357, Introduction).
PNG
media_image2.png
129
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method made obvious by Nakajima in view of Rao with the fluorescent probe with the ester moiety that attaches to sulfite as taught by Wang because the sulfite level could be controlled more precisely to improve human health.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Rao as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dale et al (US Patent Application No. 20190143266 A1) hereinafter Dale.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakajima in view of Rao does not teach further comprising a membrane that is located downstream of the first location through which the water passes.
However, Dale teaches that it is known to position a wet flue gas desulfurization system (Fig. 1, #130) downstream from a boiler (Fig. 1, #110) which produces wastewater (Fig. 1, #140), called blowdown, that is processed by a bioreactor (Fig. 1, #240; Paragraphs 0021-0024) wherein the effluent from the bioreactor is polished further with membrane filtration (i.e., further comprising a membrane that is located downstream of the first location through which the water passes) for removing selenium from the clarifier effluent (Paragraph 0015).
Dale is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the treatment of sulfite containing blowdown water from a boiler (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method as made obvious by Nakajima in view of Rao with the membrane as taught by Dale because the membrane would remove selenium from the blowdown water before disposal or further use.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakajima in view of Rao does not teach further comprising a bioreactor that is located downstream of the second location.
However, Dale teaches that it is known to position a wet flue gas desulfurization system (Fig. 1, #130) downstream from a boiler (Fig. 1, #110) which produces wastewater (Fig. 1, #140), called blowdown, that is processed by a bioreactor (Fig. 1, #240; Paragraphs 0021-0024) wherein the effluent from the bioreactor (i.e., further comprising a bioreactor that is located downstream of the second location) is polished further with membrane filtration for removing selenium from the clarifier effluent (Paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the water treatment method as made obvious by Nakajima in view of Rao with the bioreactor as taught by Dale because the membrane would remove selenium from the blowdown water before disposal or further use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/John Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777