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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-2, 4-10, and 17-19
Cancelled Claims: 3 and 11-16
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11 MAY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-2 and 6, the addition of new claims 17-19 and the cancellation of claims 3 and 11-16 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to specification, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 3, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim 2, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1 that Nakajima and Rao do not teach the newly added limitations of instant claim 1. Therefore instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 11 MAY 2026, Page 6 to Page 8, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that instant claims 2, 4-10, and 17-19 are allowable because they depend upon instant claim 1 and instant claim 1 is now allowable (Arguments filed 11 MAY 2026, Page 8, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claims 2, 4-10, and 17-19 are not allowable because instant claim 1 is not allowable.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the sulfite" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as though Applicant may have intended this to read “the residual sulfite”.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots et al US Patent No. US 5435969 A (hereinafter Hoots) in view of Bailey, III et al US Patent Application No. US 20060182651 A1 (hereinafter Bailey).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoots teaches monitoring of in-system concentrations of water treatment agents in industrial water systems (Col. 1, Lines 5-17) including oxygen scavengers in boiler waters (i.e., a water treatment system that treats water that includes an oxidizer selected at least one of dissolved oxygen, the water treatment system comprising: Col. 7, lines 43-63),
wherein the water treatment agent includes oxygen scavengers such as sodium sulfite to reduce corrosion in boiler water systems (i.e., a sulfite container that contains sulfite and is configured to supply the sulfite to the water of the water of the water treatment system at a first location so that a portion of the sulfite in the sulfite solution scavenges or neutralizes the oxidizer in the water; Col. 21, Lines 39-61),
wherein the water treatment agent interacts with or reacts with an incipient reagent which can be a fluorophore to form an in system water treatment agent concentration indicator, the addition of the incipient reagent should be added to a sample volume of the water system, the interaction of the incipient reagent and the water treatment agent produces fluorescent characteristics which can be measured and correlated to the concentration of the water treatment agent in the water system (i.e., a reagent container that contains a fluorophore compound and is configured to supply the fluorophore compound to the water at a second location downstream of the first location, the fluorophore compound being able to interact or react with residual sulfite that is dissolved in the water so that an intensity of a fluorescence signal of the water changes based on an amount of the residual sulfite dissolved in the water; Col. 25, Lines 15-66),
and wherein a fluorometer can be used for on-line fluorescence monitoring (i.e., and a fluorimeter that is configured to measure the fluorescence signal of the water; Col. 17, Lines 57-64) downstream of the location at which the incipient reagent is introduced (i.e., at a third location that is downstream of the second location; Col. 25, Line 67 to Col. 26, line 17).
Hoots does not explicitly teach the sodium sulfite is a sulfite solution.
However, Bailey teaches that sulfite solution is known to be fed to a to the exit of a deaerator to reduce the baseline dissolved oxygen (i.e., a sulfite solution; Paragraph 0163) to reduce corrosion (Abstract).
Bailey is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to methods for inhibiting corrosion in industrial boiler systems (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the tie of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the water treatment system taught by Hoots with the sodium sulfite solution as taught by Bailey because the sodium sulfite solution would remove dissolved oxygen after the deaerator to prevent corrosion in a boiler.
Furthermore, the limitation “that treats water that includes an oxidizer selected at least one of dissolved oxygen and 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Hoots further teaches the control of a water treatment agent by regulating water treatment agent feed through the monitoring of an in-system water treatment agent concentration indicator by fluorescence analysis (i.e., wherein the water treatment system is configured to receive information regarding the fluorescence signal measured by the fluorimeter and determine an amount of the residual sulfite in the water based on the fluorescence signal and send a signal to control the amount of the sulfite solution that is supplied to the water based on the amount of the residual sulfite in the water; Col. 4, Lines 1-28).
Bailey further teaches the use of PID controllers to control feed of sulfite to the exit of the deaerator to improve performance of sulfite addition (i.e., wherein the water treatment system further includes at least one controller; Paragraph 0163).
Regarding Claim 4, Bailey further teaches that the simulation of preboiler environments includes oxygen scavenger solution (Fig. 4, #37) being fed to the deaerator (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; Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0111-0112).
Regarding Claim 5, Bailey further teaches the measurement of the oxygen scavenger (Fig. 4, #1) located in the preboiler environment for the purpose of controlling oxygen scavenger feed (i.e., wherein the boiler is downstream of the fluorimeter; Paragraphs 0111-0115).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “wherein the oxidizer 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.
Regarding Claim 17, Hoots further teaches that the fluorescence analysis can be conducted on the sample stream a short distance downstream from the point at which the incipient reagent is introduced, in a range of moments to within 5 minutes (i.e., wherein the second location and the third location are spaced at a relative distance so that the fluorophore compound interacts or reacts with the residual sulfite for a time period in a range from 1 second to 2 minutes prior to the fluorescence signal being measured by the fluorimeter; Col 25, Line 67 to Col. 26, Line 17). Hoots in view of Bailey does not teach the explicit distance between the second and third locations of 1 second to 2 minutes in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected the distance between the second and third locations with the time period that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Hoots in view of Bailey.
Regarding Claim 18, Bailey further teaches the measurement of the oxygen scavenger (i.e., the third location; Fig. 4, #1) located in the preboiler environment for the purpose of controlling oxygen scavenger feed (i.e., wherein the water system includes a process that is selected from at least one of a boiler, and the process is located downstream of the third location; Paragraphs 0111-0115).
Regarding Claim 19, Hoots further teaches the addition of the incipient reagent should be added to a sample volume of the water system (i.e., the second location; Col. 25, Lines 15-66) and that the fluorescence analysis can be conducted on the sample stream a short distance downstream from the point at which the incipient reagent is introduced, in a range of moments to within 5 minutes (Col 25, Line 67 to Col. 26, Line 17).
Bailey further teaches that oxygen scavenger solution addition location (i.e., the first location; Fig. 4, #37) is located upstream of the heat exchangers (i.e., wherein the water system includes a process that is selected from at least one of heat exchanger, and the process is located downstream of the first location; Fig. 4, #42) and the measurement of the oxygen scavenger (i.e., the second location; Fig. 4, #1) is located downstream of heat exchangers in the preboiler environment for the purpose of controlling oxygen scavenger feed (i.e., and upstream of the second location; Paragraphs 0111-0115).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots in view of Bailey as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dale et al US Patent Application No. US 20190143266 A1 (hereinafter Dale).
Regarding Claim 7, Hoots further teaches the application of the fluorescence measuring system to membrane separation applications (Col. 12, Lines 1-60).
Hoots in view of Bailey 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 system as made obvious by Hoots in view of Bailey 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, Hoots in view of Bailey 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 system as made obvious by Hoots in view of Bailey with the bioreactor as taught by Dale because the membrane would remove selenium from the blowdown water before disposal or further use.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots in view of Bailey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 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 9, Hoots in view of Bailey 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 (Page 357, Abstract).
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 Hoots in view of Bailey 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.
Regarding claim 10, Hoots in view of Bailey 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 (Page 357, Abstract).
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 Hoots in view of Bailey 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights