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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed May 20, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 6 and 14 are canceled, and claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19 and new claim 20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as to introducing the chemical solution at 20 to 40 degrees C, the disclosure as filed describes “preparing” the solution at this temperature, but not that it is the introducing temperature (note 0090-0092 of the specification). Therefore, the claim contains new matter.
Claim 1, “normal power operation at a primary coolant temperature of at least 260oC” is not supported by the disclosure as filed, which describes a temperature range of 260-275 degrees C for a BWR plant and a temperature of about 300 degrees C for a PWR plant. These give specific temperatures, not an open ended range. Therefore the claim contains new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-19 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 ius withdrawn due to the amendments filed May 20, 2026 clarifying the claim language.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 because “SHE” should be spelled out for first usage is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claim 1 remove “SHE”.
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.
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 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al (US 2015/0284854) in view of Japan 2012-225711 (hereinafter ‘711), Little et al (US 2018/0286526) and Japan 07-252669 (hereinafter ‘669), EITHER alone OR further in view of Admitted Prior Art (APA).
Claims 1, 5, 7: Ozcan describes a process for treating a surface of a metal substate to deposit zinc oxide on the surface to provide corrosion protection (note 0001). The metal can be steel, for example (note 0013, 0099). The process includes providing/selecting an article/component to be treated (note 0106, for example). An aqueous treatment solution is prepared and provided in which the article can be immersed (so contacting all exposed surfaces) (note 0068, 0083, 0104), where the treatment solution comprises a source of divalent metal ions/cations (Zn2++, as desired by claim 3, as they come from zinc acetate hydrate (metal acetate) or zinc nitrate hydrate (metal nitrate) as desired by claim 5) (note 0016, 0019), a source of oxygen/oxygen bearing species (water) (note 0018), and a pH controlling agent, which can be ammonia (as desired by claim 7) (note 0031), and the pretreatment solution is aqueous (note 0001). The preparing can provide an aqueous chemical solution for use for the immersion at a temperature of 40-98 degrees C, for example (initial temperature) (note 0083, where since this is the temperature at initial dipping would be suggested to be the temperature for providing the solution to the component), overlapping the claimed range, where since the temperature is above room temperature, it is understood that it would be predictably acceptable to use heating to provide this temperature. The substrate can also have an initial temperature of 5-400 degrees C (note 0083, so it would have been obvious to optimize the temperature within this range, providing a temperature of the component at contact at a temperature below 100 degrees C). As well, after the substrate immersed, it is understood that heating can further occur to a temperature of 120 degrees or less, since the substrate can have an initial temperature of 5-400 degrees C, so can be above the solution temperature, such that heat would be expected to predictably and acceptably transfer to the solution (leading to temperature equalization), or from the overlap the temperature can be the same, and it would be suggested to heat to maintain the temperatures indicated as desirable (note 0083). The heated treatment solution is maintained in contact with the surface of the substrate for a selected time (note 0088), where the time would be sufficient to allow formation of a divalent metal oxide (zinc oxide) on the surface of the component/substrate (note 0087-0088). It is also not prevented that the substrate and solution are the same temperature during the immersion when heated since there is described initial bath temperature and substrate temperature that overlap (note 0083), and while quenching described as an option (such that initial substrate and solution temperatures are different, 0014), it is specifically indicated that the option of no quenching can be used in immersion (note 0089) or as noted above, if there is some difference at the start the temperature can equalize. It further would have been at least suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the component from contact with the solution after treatment with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the article would need to be removed from the immersion bath to allow for use.
(A) As for providing the metal substrate to be a nuclear power plant component with a surface to be treated contacting primary coolant (water) during normal power operation, after the treatment the plant would be returned to normal power operation,
‘711 teaches a method for treating a water-contacting surface of a nuclear power plant component (note abstract, and page 2, translation noting contamination on parts in contact with reactor water), where the component is for use in the primary coolant system, where the surface contacts primary coolant (water) during normal operation (note page 2, translation). The primary coolant system includes a reactor vessel (reactor), pump, heat exchanger (note steam generator 53), interconnecting piping and other components (note pages 2-3, translation). The nuclear power plant can have a PWR (note page 2, translation) or BWR (note page 5, translation). For treatment, the component is removed from the nuclear power plant for or the treatment liquid can be provided in the line where the primary coolant passes (note page 5, translation). The process includes selecting a component to be treated (note page 2, translation, part/component is cleaned and oxide film formed, which part would therefore have to be selected in order to have the treatment actions performed, and would be a component having a surface to be treated that contacts primary coolant during normal power operation, because as discussed above, that is what is to be treated). As to the material of the component, ‘711 notes materials of stainless steels, nickel base alloy, etc. (pages 2-3, translation), which are understood to have metal surfaces (noting indicating of metal of the components dissolving/so contact from reactor water, page 3, translation). The process includes a step (S6) of film forming a zinc oxide film on the component, where the example film formation occurs by preparing and introducing an aqueous treatment solution into contact with the water contacting surface of the component, where the solution comprises a source of divalent metal (zn2+) cations, (such as zinc acetate), a source of oxygen (water), and a pH controlling agent (ammonia) (note page 2, translation, page 4, translation, note the electrolytic solution where the component is placed in the bath of the electrolytic solution), the solution is heated to a preselected temperature (example of 80 degrees C) (note page 4, translation), and note a range of 20 degrees C to less than 100 degrees C (note page 4, translation), where since this temperature indicated as desirable, it is understood that this temperature can be used throughout the process, and this would suggest maintaining heating of the solution to keep at the desired temperature range, since cooling would occur if no heating provided, or at least suggest to heat if the temperature begins to cool to keep at the desired temperature. The solution would be maintained in contact with the water contacting surface for a period of time until the zinc oxide (divalent metal) coating formed on the surface of the component in contact with the primary coolant during normal operation (note page 4, translation, would be maintained until desired film thickness formed), and then the component is pulled up from the electrolytic solution and film formation step S6 completed (page 4, translation), where it is understood that the substrate can predictably and acceptably have the same temperature since no separate conditions described. ‘711 also generally teaches the desire to have a zinc oxide coating after the decontamination (note page 2, translation, and note also in the claims of ‘711, there is simply the broad step of providing an oxide film on the surface of the component after the reduction step, note page 1, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan to provide that the metal substrate is a nuclear power plant component for use with a plant having a BWR or PWR, where a water contacting surface is to be treated, where the component has a surface that contacts primary coolant (water) during normal power operation which operation would be provided after the treatment as suggested by ‘711 with an expectation of providing a desirable use for the coating of Ozcan, since Ozcan indicates how zinc oxide can be provided on a metal surface, and ‘711 indicates that metal surfaces/components on which a zinc oxide surface is desirably provided using liquid solution is a nuclear power plant component for use having a BWR or PWR, where a water contacting surface is to be treated, where the component has a surface that contacts primary coolant (water) during normal power operation. Additionally, as discussed above, ‘711 also suggests heating the solution to provide a desirable temperature throughout (20 degrees C to less than 100 degrees C) that overlaps with the initial temperature of Ozcan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the initial/preparation temperature and heating temperature (step c) from the possible temperatures taught by Ozcan and ‘711, and provide a temperature in the claimed range for steps b) and c) where for step c) the solution and substrate/component have the same temperature, given the possible temperatures of Ozcan and ‘711 as discussed above. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, as to removing the solution from contact with the component, as noted above Ozcan notes immersing the substrate for treatment, and ‘711 also describes this and, ‘711 describes that after the desired thickness of coating provided, the component is pulled up from the solution, which would thus remove the solution from contact with the component, further suggesting the removal step.
(B) Additionally, as to having a normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of least 260 degrees C, and providing that the component to be treated is not in service because the plant is offline, and returning the component and the power plant to normal operation after the treatment steps to incorporate divalent metal cations from the divalent metal oxide into tetrahedral sites of a spinel compound on the surface of the component so that the uptake of cobalt by the spinel compound is reduced, ‘711 notes that the component is removed from the nuclear power plant for or the treatment liquid can be provided in the line where the primary coolant passes.
Little further describes that nuclear power plants are provided with a primary coolant loop, which would have a high temperature during operation (so understood to be temperature of the primary coolant), where the temperature would be 260 degrees C or higher for BWR and about 300 degrees C for PWR (note 0003). It is further described that the plants are periodically shut down for maintenance (note 0004), and describes how treatment can be provided to the plant piping and surfaces at nuclear power plants at low temperature such as during refueling outages or during other non-power operation periods that provides films on the surfaces (note 0007-0008), with taking the plant from a power generating mode to a non-power generating mode and then providing the surface treatment (note 0011). It is noted that a nuclear power plant can include primary coolant loops, pumps, heat exchangers, piping and other surfaces exposed to the primary coolant (note 0043). It is indicated that after the surface treatment, the power plant and component are returned to normal power operation (note 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711 to provide that the power plant for use of the component has a BWR with a normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of 260 to 275 degrees C or a PWR with normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of about 300 degrees C, and if the component is already in service then removing the component from service when the power plant offline as suggested by Little with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘711 notes nuclear power plant components for use in a primary coolant system where the power plant can have a BWR or PWR, and Little notes that with similar components, the power plant operating primary coolant temperatures can conventionally be 260 degrees C or more for BWR, or about 300 degrees C for PWR, and as to if the component is already in service then removing the component from service when the power plant is offline, ‘711 notes that the component can be removed from the plant for treatment (so already in service) or the treatment liquid run through the system, and Little indicates that when providing liquid treatment on similar parts, it is conventional to have the treatment occur with the component removed from service when the power plant is not operating such that it would be offline, and the PWR temperature would be in the claimed range, and for the BWR temperature, it would have been obvious to optimize from the range given, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, as to returning the power plating and component to normal power operation after the treatment to provide the zinc oxide coating, this would further be suggested by Little, which indicates restoring the plating to normal power operation after treatment, which would further give used to the treated parts of Ozan and Little, and when returning to normal operation, the primary coolant temperature will be at least 260 degree C. Additionally as to the returning the component and the power plant to normal operation after the treatment steps further providing to incorporate by ion exchange divalent metal from the divalent metal oxide into tetrahedral sites of a spinel compound that form on the surface of the component so that the uptake of cobalt by the spinel compound is reduced, since the same zinc oxide coating claimed on the same BWR or PWR components, it would be understood to provide such incorporation in use, since the same materials for such an effect are provided. Note 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
(C) Optionally, further using APA, APA further describes that nuclear power plants that use water as the primary coolant include PWR and BWR, where PWR typically operate with a reactor coolant temperature of about 300 degrees C and BWR typically operate with a reactor coolant temperature of about 260-275 degrees C (note 0005 of the specification as filed), where both systems can be brought “off line” for maintenance (note 0005 of the specification as filed), where the components can be stainless steel or nickel alloy (note the specification as filed at 0006). It is noted that the components over time can be form a spinal type oxide film (note 0006, 0008 of the specification as filed). It is noted that for normal spinels, divalent ions such as Zn2+ can diffuse into the existing passive film replacing the existing ions at the tetrahedral sites by ion exchange, where Zn2+ has a very high affinity for tetrahedral sites, higher than Co2+ and as such can displace these species (note 0014 of the specification as filed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711 to provide that the power plant for use of the component has a BWR with a normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of 260 to 275 degrees C or a PWR with normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of about 300 degrees C, and if the component is already in service then removing the component from service when the power plant offline as suggested by Little and APA with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘711 notes nuclear power plant components for use in a primary coolant system where the power plant can have a BWR or PWR, and Little notes that with similar components, the power plant operating primary coolant temperatures can conventionally be 260 degrees C or more for BWR, or about 300 degrees C for PWR, and as to if the component is already in service then removing the component from service when the power plant is offline, ‘711 notes that the component can be removed from the plant for treatment (so already in service) or the treatment liquid run through the system, and Little indicates that when providing liquid treatment on similar parts, it is conventional to have the treatment occur with the component removed from service when the power plant is not operating such that it would be offline, and additionally APA would indicate that for a power plant system with BWR or PWR, the power plant operating primary coolant temperatures can conventionally be 260 degrees C to 275 degrees C for BWR, or about 300 degrees C for PWR, further giving suggested components with temperatures in the claimed range to use. Additionally, as to returning the power plating and component to normal power operation after the treatment to provide the zinc oxide coating, this would further be suggested by Little, which indicates restoring the plating to normal power operation after treatment, which would further give used to the treated parts of Ozan and Little. Additionally as to the returning the component and the power plant to normal operation after the treatment steps further providing to incorporate by ion echange divalent metal from the divalent metal oxide into tetrahedral sites of a spinel compound on the surface of the component so that the uptake of cobalt by the spinel compound is reduced this would be further suggested by APA, which indicates that it would be conventional for the surfaces to form spinel coatings where Zn2+ would preferentially replace existing ions in the tetrahedral sites of a spinel compound on the surface of the component, and this would reduce uptake of Co since Zn is preferentially used for replacement over Co. As well, since the same zinc oxide coating claimed, it would be understood to provide such incorporation in use, since the same materials for such an effect are provided. Note 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
(D) furthermore, as to the chemical solution include hydrogen peroxide as well as the divalent metal cations and the pH control agent,
‘669 further describes providing treatment of stainless steel or nickel with treatment with water containing oxygen and also zinc ion, where the material to be treated can be pipes for a reactor water supply system before nuclear heating (note page 2, translation), when provides a surface oxide film, where zinc is taken into the oxide film (note page 3, translation) and where it is indicated to provide oxygen by injecting oxygen or hydrogen peroxide (note pages 3-4, translation), where hydrogen peroxide decomposes into oxygen in the water and helps the oxidation (note page 5, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711 in view of Little, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to provide an oxidizing agent of hydrogen peroxide in the solution as suggested by ‘669 with an expectation of predictably providing desirable oxidizing, since Ozcan indicates treating a surface such as steel with an aqueous solution with zinc to form a zinc oxide coating, and ‘669 indicates that when desiring to oxidize a stainless steel or nickel alloy surface using a solution with water and zinc, it is desirable to further add hydrogen peroxide to the solution to help with oxidation.
Claim 3: as to the use of salts of Zn2+, this is suggested as discussed for claim 1 above. As to the concentration of the Zn2+, Ozcan suggests 0.001 to 100 g/l (with respect to the zinc amount) can be used, which with a Zn mol. weight of about 64.4 g/mol, would give about 1.5 x 10-5 to 1.5 mol/l (note 0020), giving an amount overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 8: As to the pH greater than 8, Ozcan provides that a pH of 4-13 can be used, overlapping the claimed rang e(note 0021). Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9: as to the temperature range, Ozcan notes using temperatures of 40-98 degrees C to start, for example (note 0083), and ‘711 also notes temperatures to use as discussed for claim 1 above, and optimizations of such temperatures would give values in the claimed range. Furthermore, selected times can be 10 minutes to 36 hours, in the claimed range (note 0088 of Ozcan).
Claim 13: ‘711 indicates that the selected component is an existing component that has been removed from use at what can be considered a high temperature (note parts on pages 2-3, translation, including steam generator parts, etc., and note page 5, translation), and treated at what can be considered lower temperature (note page 4, translation, with solution temperatures as low as room temperature or 80 degrees C example), and the parts will be returned to the high temperature service, since the treatment would allow reuse, where as discussed for claim 1 above, the high temperature service would be suggested to be in the 260-275 degrees C or about 300 degree C range, and the treatment suggested to be in the 40 to less than 100 degree C range, for example, from the ranges in Ozcan and ‘711, as suggested for claim 9 above. This would give suggest treatment and reuse for the process.
Claim 15: ‘711 provides decontaminating the water/primary coolant contacting surface before the solution treatment/step b), note step S2, for example (pages 3-4, translation), giving a suggested treatment.
Claim 17: in ‘711, the decontaminating step can include chemical cleaning at a selected temperature of 90 degrees C, for example, in the claimed range, and using oxalic acid, for example (note pages 3-4, translation).
Claim 18, 19: as to repeating steps b)-f) with two different sources of divalent metal cation to deposit first and second oxide films, each of a selected thickness, ‘711 describes providing zinc oxide film on the component using one solution, so forming one layer of zinc oxide (note page 4, translation). Ozcan notes that a layer can be provided by the process (note 0087), but also notes that the coating process can be repeated to give a thicker coating (note 0091), and thus suggesting that steps (b)-(e) can be repeated. Ozcan further describes how there can be a sequence of doping the zinc oxide coating with other compounds/metals, such as zinc using manganese, etc. which can be provided a salts (note 0027-0030), where since the same process for oxidizing of the zinc would be provided, it is understood that further, different metal oxide will be provided, and since the providing of the additional compounds can be in sequence, it is understood to be predictably acceptable to deposit a first metal oxide film, such as zinc oxide and then repeat the process of steps b) to f) with a second metal oxide film to a selected thickness of a second different metal, such as manganese oxide. For claim 19, when a layer of Zn oxide and a layer of Mn oxide suggested, then obvious to use the first and second metals from a salt of natural Zn2+ (noting the describes salts of Ozcan, 0019), and similar compounds when using manganese (since in Ozcan generally water soluble compounds of manganese can be used, which can be various salts, and manganese would have natural salts of Mn2+ corresponding to the zinc, note 0027-0029, and note dopant examples in Table 1).
Claim 20: as to the substrate material, Ozcan notes metallic surfaces in general (note 0009) and notes alloys and steel surfaces (note 0099). ‘711 further indicates that the surfaces can be stainless steel or nickel base alloy (page 3, translation). ‘669 also notes using stainless or nickel base alloy (page 3, translation), giving at least the suggestion to use nickel base alloy.
Claims 2 and 12 and optionally claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Devito, et al (US 2016/0035442).
Claims 2, 20: As to the material of the component, ‘711 notes component parts of a nuclear power plant of a pressured water reactor, and materials of stainless steels, nickel base alloy, etc. (pages 2-3, translation). Ozcan notes using steel, for example (note 0099).
Devito teaches that components for nuclear pressurized water reactors (note 0005, 0007), can be made with Alloy 690 and 304 stainless steel (note 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to use Type 304 stainless steel or Alloy 690 as suggested by Devito with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘711 notes a pressurized water reactor and stainless steel and nickel base alloy materials, and Devito teaches that components for nuclear pressured water reactors, can be made with Alloy 690 and 304 stainless steel. Type 304 would be an austenitic stainless steel as noted by the claim, so meeting substrate requirements of claim 20.
Claim 12: As to the component being a new component prior to installation, ‘711 has removed an existing component for treatment (note discussion of claim 13 above). However, Devito indicates that it is also desired to protect new component surfaces with zinc oxide (note 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to treat new components before installation with the zinc solution as suggested by Devito with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘711 notes treating removed components, and Devito teaches that components for nuclear pressured water reactors can desirably have zinc treatment before use, and therefore by treating a new separated (so removed from the system) component, it can also be protected with the zinc oxide before being installed in the reactor system.
Claim 4 and optionally claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Henzel, et al (US 6314153).
Claim 4: as to divalent metal cation of Zn, where the Zn is depleted in Zn64, Ozcan and ‘711 indicates using divalent metal cation of Zn as discussed above.
Henzel describes providing zinc compounds to treat nuclear power plant components (note column 2, lines 15-40), and where it is indicated to provide that the zinc compound contains a depleted level of Zn64 to reduce the sources of radioactive radiation in oxide layers of the component (note column 3, lines 45-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to use zinc compounds depleted in Zn64 (giving Zn cations depleted in Zn64) as suggested by Henzel with an expectation of desirable protective results, since ‘711 and Ozcan note using divalent Zn cations and Zn compounds and Henzel suggests using zinc compound that contain a depleted level of Zn64 to reduce the sources of radioactive radiation in oxide layers of the component.
Claim 19: when using the Zn compounds depleted in Zn64 as discussed for claim 4, the suggested first divalent metal cations for the process of claim 18 would be depleted Zn2+ as well, and manganese cations would be suggested for the second layer from the use of manganese as discussed for claim 18+ above.
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Japan 2015-158486 (hereinafter ‘486).
Claims 10-11: as to further depositing a noble metal compound on the primary coolant/water contacting surface, where the noble metal comprises Pt, and the deposition uses an aqueous solution of 0.2 to 15 ppm sodium hexaplatinate and 1-1000 ppm hydrazine, maintained at a temperature of 90 degrees C or less, ‘711, as discussed above, for claims 15, 17 has decontaminating the surface, including with oxalic acid.
‘486 notes providing nuclear power plating components and decontaminating with oxalic acid, and further applying platinum to the component using reduction decontamination liquid (note abstract), where use of platinum helps reduce C60 contamination (note page 5, translation). The Pt is deposited using an aqueous solution containing Pt ions and hydrazine (note page 5, translation), where a described solution would use sodium hexahydroxoplatinate (sodium hexaplatinate) giving platinum ion concentration of 1 ppm and hydrazine added at 100 ppm, at a temperature of 90 degrees C or less, and further notes adding ammonia to complex (note page 6, translation, also note pages 7, 11 of translation, with ammonia and varying amounts of materials, such as 300 ppm hydrazine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to further deposit Pt to the primary coolant metal surface using a Pt solution of an aqueous solution with sodium hexaplatinate and 100 or 300 ppm hydrazine at a temperature of 90 degrees C as suggested by ‘486 with an expectation of desirable protective results, since ‘711 notes decontamination before the zinc oxide forming, and ‘486 notes the further benefits of providing Pt film forming using an aqueous Pt solution, and amounts of Pt (from sodium hexaplatinate) and hydrazine can be controlled, with examples of hydrazine of 100 and 300 ppm, and temperature controlled with an example of 90 degrees C, and notes Pt ion amount so up to 1 ppm, and thus it would be obvious to optimize the amount of sodium hexaplatinate, giving a value in the claimed range. Further, as to the noble metal applied after step e) and before step f), it would be obvious to provide the Pt deposition before returning the system to use, since the Pt deposition would affect the use. Further as to providing the Pt application after step e) so after the zinc oxide deposition, layers of Pt and zinc oxide would be desired. As per MPEP 22144.04((V)(C) with In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Japan 2002-062397 (hereinafter ‘397).
Claim 16: as to decontaminating with water jet or ultrasonic cleaning, ‘711 also notes washing after the initial decomposition step with acid solution, where the washing is with water (note S5) (note page 4, translation).
‘397 notes cleaning used equipment with radioactive contamination, where the decontamination includes multiple steps including treatment in acid solution, and also supersonic wave treatment, and squirting water (note abstract), where treatment in the acid can also include applying ultrasonic waves or also separate ultrasonic treatment while in water (note page 4, translation), and washing with pressurized water jet (note page 4, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozcan in view of ‘711, Little and ‘669, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to use water jet cleaning or ultrasonic cleaning as suggested by ‘397 with an expectation of desirable cleaning results, since ‘711 notes decontamination with acid and also water washing before the zinc oxide forming, and ‘397 notes for radioactive decontamination to provide acid decontamination and also with ultrasonic cleaning and/or water jet washing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner notes the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims.
It was argued that as to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Ozcan does not provide examples of ZnO onto stainless steel, and use of a strong oxidizing agent helps give a good ZnO deposit, and none of the references teach the use of such hydrogen peroxide.
The Examiner notes, however, that Ozcan, as noted by the applicant, would allow for steel. Note MPEP 2123(II), preferred embodiment/examples does not teach away from wider embodiments also taught. As to the use of hydrogen peroxide, the new reference to ‘669 has been provided as to this issue.
Applicant refers to benefits of the present invention allowing for the ion exchange to cause the divalent metal from the outside to be incorporated into tetrahedral sites of a spinel compound on the surface of the component, so cobalt uptake will be reduced.
The Examiner notes this argument, however, the rejection above is maintained.
Even if the motivation for using the formula/zinc deposition isn’t specifically for the ion exchange, the same results would be expected as the same process provided (note In Re Best as cited in the rejection above), and, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Similarly, as to the intended use of the coating as a controlled modification the reactor oxide chemistry, the process for the suggested zinc oxide coating would give the claimed steps, so the same action would be expected. As to Ozcan not teaching the method claimed, it is the combination of references that provides the suggestion of all features claimed.
As to claims 18, 19 as to the additional metal, this would be suggested by Ozcan as discussed in the rejection above, from the doping using different metal compounds, including manganese for claim 19.
As to the use of Devito, the suggestion for nuclear power components is provided by ‘711, etc. Ozcan generally teaches the use of metallic substrates, including steel, so it would be expected that the process would work on the metallic substrates of Devito.
As to the use of Henzel, as to the use of manganese oxide, this would be suggested by Ozcan as discussed in the rejection of claim 18 above. Henzel further provides the suggestion as to the depleted Zn option. Further as to Henzel not suggesting that depleted Zn can be used for a zinc oxide coating, the Examiner disagrees. Henzel describes that oxide layers are formed (note column 2, lines 30-35 and 20-25) and notes zinc introduced into oxide layers (note column 2, lines 45-50) and further describes using dissolved zinc compounds (indicting zinc ions), which would therefore be understood to react with the oxygen present to form zinc oxide (note column 3, lines 5-10), and this would also be suggested from Ozcan, which indicates how zinc oxide formed from zinc ions in water.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights