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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 3, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of October 3, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 14 is canceled, and claims 1-13 and 15-19 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 1-13 and 15-19 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, part c) heating the chemical solution “and said component” to a selected temperature of 120 degrees C or less is not supported by the disclosure as filed which indicates heating the treatment solution to a selected temperature of 120 degrees C or less (note claims 1, 9), but not that the component is heated to this same temperature. Therefore the claim contains new matter. The dependent claims are also rejected as not correcting the defects of claim 1.
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 1-13 and 15-19 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.
Claim 1, part b), “preparing an aqueous chemical solution at 20 to 40oC” is confusing as worded as to whether this means that (1) the aqueous solution is prepared and given a temperature of 20-40 degrees C to start the process, or (2) when making/preparing the solution, such as by mixing the materials, the temperature is 20-40 degrees C, but then can be used at any temperature below 120 degrees C, as in step c), or (3) something else? For the purpose of examination, either (1) or (2) is understood to meet the claimed requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, part f), “said divalent metal cations” lacks antecedent basis. Note that in part b), “divalent metal cations” was changed to “divalent metal salt”.
Claim 4, line 1 now has “divalent metal cation”, where in parent claim 3, “cation” was changed to “salt”. Is applicant intending to refer to the cation in part f) of claim 1, or the salt of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the claimed requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 15, line 2, “said water contacting surface” now lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant mean “the primary coolant contacting surface” (note claim 10, for example). For the purpose of examination, this is understood to meet the claimed requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure all the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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, 5-9, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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), EITHER alone OR further in view of Admitted Prior Art (APA).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 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/metal salt (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 as desired by claim 6) (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), 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). 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 where the nuclear power plant comprises either a boiling water reactor (BWR) or pressurized water reactor (PWR) for use in the primary coolant system,
‘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 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 BWR having a normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of 260-275 degrees C and the PWR having a normal primary coolant temperature during power operation of about 300 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. Additionally as to the returning the component and the power plant to normal operation after the treatment steps further providing 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, 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 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 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).
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 contacting surface before the solution treatment, 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: 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, and further, as noted by In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), duplication of parts would be obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and therefore, the same results would be expected by providing two solutions (which can have different sources of zinc, such as the option of zinc nitrate and zinc acetate, from the different zinc sources) for deposition one after another of zinc oxide films to give a first and second selected thickness, where this thickness totaled the desired thickness from using one solution.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711 and Little, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Devito, et al (US 2016/0035442).
Claim 2: 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 and Little, 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.
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 and Little, 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 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711 and Little, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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 notes 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 and Little, 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 and second divalent metal cations for the process of claim 18 would be depleted Zn2+ as well.
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711 and Little, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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 and Little, 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan in view of ‘711 and Little, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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 and Little, 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 October 3, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Examiner notes the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, with the new optional reference to the admitted prior art APA, and new 35 USC 112 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 with only zinc salts. The Examiner notes, however, the ranges of 0039. Note MPEP 2123(II), preferred embodiment does not teach away from wider embodiments also taught.
It is further argued that Ozcan relies on a temperature difference between the hotter substrate and the chemical solution, where applicant provides in the claim 1 that the substrate and solution are held at common temperatures for the treatment period. The Examiner disagrees with this position as to Ozcan. As to the present claims they indicate heating the chemical solution and component to a selected temperature in the range of 120 degrees C or less. This is not prevented by Ozcan because (1) Ozcan does not require a temperature differential. Note 0014 describes the option of quenching/temperature differential, but in 0089 as to immersion specifically notes quenching not required (no quenching) and describes initial temperature of the solution and substrate overlapping (note 0083), so could be the same, or (2) even if there is an initial temperature differential between the substrate and solution, during immersion time, the temperature could equalize and the heating thereafter can be at the same temperature. Note the discussion in the rejection above, where ‘711 would also indicate that a single temperature can be used. As to the present claims not preheating the substrate component, there is no limitation as to this.
As to the argument that in Ozcan at 0089, the substrate temperature should be 120 to 400 degrees C, even if this is the case, this is merely an option of a temperature differential, note 0089 and 0083 describe using other, lower temperature.
As to the argument that Ozcan describes zinc free solutions at 0085, this is an option not required. As to the argument that Ozcan teaches away from pH greater than 8 at 0021, a preferred embodiment does not teach away from wider embodiments also taught. Note MPEP 2123(II).
As to the argument that Ozcan is limited to zinc metal or zinc plated metal substrate, the Examiner disagrees. While a galvanized substrate may be exemplified (note 0106), the broad teaching is coating metallic surfaces in general (note claim 1, 0007, 0009) and note 0013 that specifically says a metallic aluminum, aluminum alloy, steel, zinc or zinc alloy surface can be contacted with the composition. There is no limitation that a zinc/zinc alloy surface must be present. Again Note MPEP 2123, where a preferred embodiment does not teach away from wider embodiments. This is also supported by ‘711 which would indicate the application of zinc oxide to steel surfaces, for example.
As to thermal diffusion to incorporate deposited Zn2+ into a spinel compound to inhibit uptake of Co, step f) as claimed is suggested by the combination of references for the reasons discussed in detail in the rejection above. Note also the optional reference to APA as to this issue.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
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