DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending
Claims 1-23 are subject to a restriction requirement
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn
Claims 1-6 and 11-23 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 1, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 11-14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the gel” to “the inorganic ferromagnetic gel” in claim 1 - line 7, claim 1 - line 8, claim 1, line 9, claim 5 - line 2, claim 5 -line 3, claim 6 - line 2, claim 17 - line 4, claim 17 - line 6, claim 17 - line 8, claim 17 - line 12, claim 17 - line 16, and claim 17 - line 20.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the contaminant species” to “the at least one contaminant species” in claim 1, line 9, claim 11 - line 2, claim 12 -line 2, claim 13 - line 1, and claim 14 - line 2.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “said contaminant species” to “said at least one contaminant species” in claim 1, line 10, claim 1 - line 11, and claim 1 -line 12.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “said surface” to “said at least one surface” in claim 1 - line 2, claim 1 - lines 2-3, claim 1 - line 3, and claim 1 - line 6.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the surface” to “the at least one surface” in claim 1 - line 7, claim 1 - lines 8, claim 1 - line 10, claim 1 - line 12, claim 3 - line 2, claim 3 - line 5, claim 4 - line 2, claim 5 - line 2, claim 5 - line 3, claim 6 - line 2, and claim 6 - line 3.
In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the inlet” to “an inlet” in claim 6 - line 3.
In order to provide further clarity and proper Markush group language in the claim, it is suggested to amend “the contaminant species is selected, or the contaminant species are selected, from ionic, chemical, biological, nuclear or radioactive contaminant species” to “the at least one contaminant species is selected from ionic, chemical, biological, nuclear and radioactive contaminant species” in claim 11 - lines 2-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 2-3 and 13-23 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.
14. Regarding claims 2, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The examiner interprets the limitations following the phrase “such as” being optional and not required in the claim. Clarification is requested.
15. Regarding claims 2, and 16-17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The examiner interprets the limitations following the phase “in particular” being optional and not required in the claim. Clarification is requested.
16. Regarding dependent claims 19-20 and 22, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 16 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
17. Claim 3 further recites, “generally corresponds to”. It is unclear what the term “generally corresponds” encompasses. The examiner interprets the “g of gel per m2 of area, corresponds to a thickness of gel deposited onto the at least one surface of between 0.5 mm and 2 mm”. Clarification is requested.
18. Regarding claims 3, 14, and 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The examiner interprets the limitations following the phrase “preferably” being optional and not required in the claim. Clarification is requested.
19. Regarding claims 13-15, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The examiner interprets the limitations following the phase “for example” being optional and not required in the claim. Clarification is requested.
20. Regarding claim 14, the phrase "etc." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “etc.” encompasses. The examiner interprets “etc.” being optional and not required in the claim. Clarification is requested.
21. Claim 14 recites, the term “so-called “heavy metals” however, it is unclear what the term “so-called “heavy metals” means. Specifically, the term “so-called “heavy metals”” is not defined by the claim or in the specification. The examiner interprets the term as “heavy metals” Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
24. Claims 1-3, 11-12, 14-20, and 22-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cuer et al. (FR 2984170 A1) (Cuer) in view of Namiki et al. (JP 2019141836 A) (Namiki).
The Examiner has provided an additional machine translation of FR 2984170 A1 in this office action. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to this machine translation.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2019141836 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
25. Regarding claim 1, Cuer teaches a decontamination process for a part by coating the part with a decontamination gel (Cuer, Abstract) that is contaminated (Cuer, p. 1, line 25)
wherein contaminants are located on a surface and possibly under the surface (i.e. below said surface) of the contaminated part (Cuer, p. 1, lines 38-40)
wherein the decontamination gel is applied to a surface made of a solid material (Cuer, p. 17, line 17).
Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel consisting of a colloidal solution comprising an inorganic viscosifying agent, a viscosity-variation agent (Cuer, Abstract) that is ferromagnetic (i.e. a ferromagnetic compound) (Cuer, p. 6, line 15) and a solvent (Cuer, Abstract).
Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel is applied to the surface made of the solid material of the part (Cuer, p. 17, line 17)
wherein the part coated with a film of the gel is subjected immediately to at least one stimulus which causes a rapid increase in the viscosity of the gel and its passage to a gelled state (Cuer, p. 26, lines 16-18)
wherein the at least one stimulus is a magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3).
Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel is maintained on the contaminated surface at least for a period of time sufficient for the gel to destroy and/or inactivate and/or absorb the contaminating species to form a dry and solid residue containing said contaminating species and the dry and solid residue containing said contaminating species is eliminated. (Cuer, p. 15, Claim 15).
However, Cuer does not teach the gel applied to the surface is moved and spread at a distance using a magnet and the at least one contaminant species is moved and gathered on the surface using a magnet.
With respect to the difference, Namiki teaches a substance recovery system with a capturing hydrogel that captures a target substance (Namiki, Abstract) such as harmful ions (i.e. at least one contaminant species) (Namiki, [0014])
wherein the capturing hydrogel contains a magnetic powder (i.e. an inorganic ferromagnetic gel) (Namiki, Abstract)
wherein a magnetic force is a moving mechanism (i.e. moved and spread at a distance) via a permanent magnet (Namiki, [0057])
wherein the trapping (capturing) hydrogel trapping the target substance (i.e. one or more contaminant species) is collected (i.e. moved and gathered) by the magnetic force (Namiki, [0054]).
Namiki expressly teaches the target substance (i.e. one or more contaminant species) is recovered by turning on and off the magnetic force (Namiki, [0066])
wherein control of the ON / OFF of the magnetic force by the permanent magnet is achieved (Namiki, [0057])
wherein the use of magnetic force has merit in that it can be used many times without the introduction of special facilities (Namiki, [0066]).
Cuer and Namiki are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of decontaminating contaminant species with a gel.
In light of the motivation for recovering contaminant species by turning on and off the magnetic force as disclosed by Namiki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a permanent magnet as the moving mechanism (i.e. moved and spread at a distance) and the method of collection (i.e. moved and gathered) of the target substance (i.e. at least one contaminant species) by the magnetic force in the decontamination process of Cuer, in order to achieve control of the ON / OFF of the magnetic force, and contaminant substance recovery without the introduction of special facilities, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
26. Regarding claim 2, Cuer further teaches the solid material is chosen from metals and alloys such as stainless steel, aluminum and lead; polymers such as plastics or rubbers, among which mention may be made of PVC, PP, PE, in particular HDPE, PMMA, PVDF or PC; glasses; cements and cement materials; mortars and concretes; plasters; bricks; natural or artificial stone; ceramics (Cuer, p. 17, lines 37-41).
27. Regarding claim 3, Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel is applied to the surface to be decontaminated at a rate of 100 g to 2000 g of gel per m2 of, preferably from 500 to 1500 g of gel per m2 of surface, more preferably from 600 to 1000 g per m2 of surface, which corresponds to a thickness of the decontamination gel deposited on the surface of between 0.5 mm and 2 mm (Cuer, p. 14, lines 25-29), which encompass the cited ranges.
28. Regarding claim 11, Cuer further teaches the contaminant species are chemical, biological, nuclear or radioactive material (Cuer, p. 9, lines 1-2).
29. Regarding claim 12, given Cuer in view of Namiki teaches a process with the steps in the process that are identical or substantially identical with those of the presently claimed (i.e. process of decontamination of contaminant species that are chemical, biological, nuclear or radioactive material), therefore, it is clear that the decontamination process of Cuer in view of Namiki would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed “the contaminant species is, or the contaminant species are, radioactive and/or chemically toxic and/or toxic contaminant species due to its (their) shape and/or size”.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Alternatively, given Cuer teaches the method and the gel allowing the removal of all kinds of contaminants and in particular radioactive chemical, biological or nuclear contaminants (Cuer, p. 1, lines 30-35), it is clear that the contaminant species in Cuer in view of Namiki is, or the contaminant species are, radioactive and/or chemically toxic and/or toxic contaminant species due to its (their) shape and/or size.
30. Regarding claim 14, Cuer further teaches the radioactive material contaminant species (i.e. at least one contaminant species) are be chosen from examples such as, from metal oxides and hydroxides (i.e. metals in ionic form).
31. Regarding claim 15, Cuer further teaches the magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) stimulus applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3)
wherein the dry and solid residue is removed from the solid surface by brushing and/or suction (Cuer, p. 14, lines 36-37).
Namiki further teaches the magnetic force is a moving mechanism (i.e. moved and spread at a distance) via a permanent magnet
wherein the trapping (capturing) hydrogel trapping the target substance (i.e. one or more contaminant species) is collected (i.e. moved and gathered) by the magnetic force (Namiki, [0054]).
32. Regarding claim 16, Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel consisting of a colloidal solution comprising at least one surfactant, one active decontamination agent, and one superabsorbent polymer (Cuer, Abstract).
33. Regarding claim 17, Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel consists of a colloidal solution comprising;
0.1% to 30% by weight of at least one inorganic viscosity agent (Cuer, p. 4, lines 16-18) (i.e. at least one inorganic viscosifier), which overlaps with the claimed ranges;
0.01% to 5% by weight of at least one viscosity-varying agent (Cuer, p. 4, lines 18-19) (i.e. at least one ferromagnetic compound) which overlaps with the claimed ranges;
0.1% to 2% by weight of at least one surfactant (Cuer, p. 4, lines 22-23), which falls within the claimed range;
0.1 to 10 mol/L of gel of at least one decontamination active agent (Cuer, p. 4, lines 21-22), which overlaps with the claimed range;
0.05% to 5% by weight of at least one super-absorbent polymer, which encompasses the claimed range (Cuer, p. 4, lines 23-24);
and the remainder of solvent (Cuer, p. 4, line 25).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of solvent being at least 20% by mass, relative to the mass of the gel., relative as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of solvent, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve a desired drying time necessary for inactivation of the contaminating specie (Cuer, p. 15, lines 27-28) to obtain a dry and solid residue after evaporation (Cuer, p. 19, lines 19-20).
34. Regarding claim 18, Cuer further teaches the inorganic viscosity agent (i.e. inorganic viscosifier) is chosen from silicas, aluminosilicates, clays such as smectite, and mixtures thereof (Cuer, p. 8, lines 9-11).
35. Regarding claim 19, Cuer further teaches the surfactant makes it possible in particular to avoid the risks of spreading or of running (i.e. changing the degree of wetting or wetting property) (Cuer, p. 17, lines 15-16)
36. Regarding claim 20, Cuer further teaches the surfactant is chosen from block copolymers of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, ethoxylated fatty acids (i.e. ethoxylated acids), and mixtures thereof (Cuer, p. 26, claim 13).
37. Regarding claim 22, Cuer further teaches the decontamination active agent is selected from bases such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and mixtures thereof; acids such as nitric acid, phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, hydrogenoxalates such as sodium hydrogenoxalate, and mixtures thereof; oxidizing agents such as peroxides, permanganates, persulphates, ozone, hypochlorites, cerium IV salts, and mixtures thereof; quaternary ammonium salts such as hexacetylpyridinium salts such as hexacetylpyridinium chloride; reducing agents; and mixtures thereof (Cuer, p. 25, Claim 11).
38. Regarding claim 23, Cuer further teaches from water, organic solvents, and mixtures thereof (Cuer, p. 13, lines 29-30).
39. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuer in view of Namiki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gossard et al. (WO 2018024990 A1) (Gossard1).
40. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO 2018024990 A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
41. Regarding claim 4, Cuer further teaches the magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) stimulus applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3)
wherein the decontamination gel is maintained on the contaminated surface (Cuer, p. 13, lines 38-39).
Namiki further teaches the magnetic force is a moving mechanism via a permanent magnet (Namiki, [0057]).
However, Cuer in view of Namiki, do not teach a thickness of gel of from 2 mm to 2 cm is maintained on the surface.
With respect to the difference, Gossard1 teaches a decontamination method using a vacuumable gel for eliminating a contaminating species (i.e. at least on contaminant species) (Gossard1, Abstract) on the surface of a solid substrate (Gossard1, Title)
wherein the thickness of the vacuumable gel is preferably 0.5 mm to 1 cm (Gossard1, p. 19, line 24), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Gossard1 further teaches the gel is then maintained on the surface to be treated for the entire duration necessary for its drying (Gossard1, p. 25, lines 7-8).
Gossard1 expressly teaches the thickness of the vacuumable gel deposited that is preferably greater that 500 µm (i.e. 0.5 mm) is the fundamental parameter that influences
size of the dry residues formed after drying of the gel therefore ensuring that dry residues
millimetre size and not of pulverulent residues are formed (Gossard1, p. 24, lines 48-50 and p. 25 line 1)
therefore, the pulverulent residues are easily removable (Gossard1, p. 25, lines 1-2).
Cuer, Namiki, and Gossard1 are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of decontaminating contaminant species with a gel.
In light of the motivation for the thickness of the vacuumable gel deposited that is preferably greater that 500 µm as disclosed by Gossard1, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a thickness of the vacuumable gel is preferably 0.5 mm to 1 cm in the decontamination process of Cuer in view of Namiki, in order to ensure he pulverulent residues are easily removable, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
42. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cuer in view of Namiki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gossard2 et al. (WO 2020012125 A2) (Gossard2).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO 2020012125 A2. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
43. Regarding claim 5, Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel is applied to the surface made of the solid material of the part (Cuer, p. 17, line 17)
wherein the at least one stimulus is a magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3)
wherein the magnetic force is a moving mechanism (i.e. moved and spread at a distance) via a permanent magnet (Namiki, [0057]).
However, Cuer and Namiki do not further teach the gel is applied to the surface by spraying, brushing or trowelling.
With respect to the difference, Gossard2 teaches fine droplets of an inorganic gel consisting of a colloidal solution comprising an inorganic viscosifying agent and a solvent are sprayed into said volume of a gaseous medium, thus forming a mist (Gossard2, [0042])
wherein the suspended contaminant species are captured by the fine droplets of the inorganic gel (Gossard2, [0043]).
Gossard2 expressly teaches the fine droplets possess a significant flight time, allowing them to remain suspended in a gaseous medium, such as the atmosphere, for a longer period than during a spray (Gossard2, [0085])
wherein a spraying device is generally adapted to form a sufficiently dense fog so that all that all the contaminating species are decontaminated (Gossard2, [0087])
wherein the dense fog is advantageous for the decontamination of gaseous media, particularly in atmospheric decontamination (Gossard2, [0089]).
Cuer, Namiki, and Gossard2 are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of decontaminating contaminant species with a gel.
In light of the motivation for suspending fine droplets of the inorganic gel in the atmosphere as disclosed by Gossard2, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include spraying fine droplets of the inorganic gel in the decontamination process of Cuer and Namiki, in order to achieve decontamination of gaseous media, particularly in atmospheric decontamination, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
44. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuer in view of Namiki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nunez et al. (US 20060217584 A1) (Nunez).
45. Regarding claim 6, Cuer further teaches the decontamination gel is able to adhere to the part to be treated or decontaminated regardless of their geometry, their shape, their size, and where the contaminants to be eliminated are located (Cuer, p. 8, lines 6-8)
wherein the magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) stimulus is applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3).
Namiki further teaches the magnetic force is a moving mechanism (i.e. moved and spread at a distance) via a permanent magnet (Namiki, [0057]).
However, Cuer in view of Namiki do not teach the surface is an inner surface of a pipe or duct, the gel is deposited onto the inner surface at the inlet of the pipe or duct, and is then moved and spread on the surface by means of a magnet placed in the vicinity of the outer surface or on the outer surface of the pipe or duct.
With respect to the difference, Nunez teaches gel and foam based diphosphonic acid (HEDPA) chemical solutions that allow for decontamination of difficult to reach surfaces that are unmanageable with traditional aqueous process methods (Nunez, Abstract)
wherein magnetite is dissolved in a HEDPA gel (i.e. inorganic ferromagnetic gel) (Nunez, [0027]).
Nunez further teaches that the HEDPA gel is removed from a contaminated facility, such as reactor coolant pipes (Nunez, [0055]) in a nuclear decontamination situation (Nunez, [0054])
wherein it is known in the art that HEDPA gels dissolve oxide scales and film containing contaminants on equipment such as the interior surfaces of pipes (Nunez, [0004])
wherein the magnetic field (i.e. a magnet) stimulus is applied around the part coated with the film of the gel (i.e. placed in the vicinity of the outer surface of the pipe or duct) (Cuer, p. 14, lines 2-3).
Nunez expressly teaches that HEDPA gel is removed from a contaminated facility, such as reactor coolant pipes (Nunez, [0055]) in a nuclear decontamination situation (Nunez, [0054]) wherein decontamination of nuclear facilities is necessary in order to achieve to achieve a reduction in radiation fields during daily operation, to facilitate eventual equipment handling and repairs, for decommissioning and release of equipment, and reuse of components (Nunez, [0004]).
Cuer, Namiki, and Cuer are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of decontaminating contaminant species with a gel.
In light of the motivation for decontaminating reactor coolant pipes in a nuclear reactor as disclosed by Cuer, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a gel that dissolves oxide scales and film containing contaminants on equipment such as the interior surfaces of pipes in the decontamination process of Cuer and Namiki, in order to achieve reduction in radiation fields during daily operation, to facilitate eventual equipment handling and repairs, for decommissioning and release of equipment, and reuse of components in a nuclear reactor, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
46. Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cuer in view of Namiki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gossard2.
47. Regarding claim 13, Gossard2 further teaches the contaminant species in the atmospheric decontamination (Gossard2, [0089]) are in the form of solid particles such as microparticles, or nanoparticles, for example in the form of fibers such as microfibers or nanofibers, in the form of nanotubes, or in the form of crystals such as nanocrystals (Gossard2, [0096]).
48. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuer in view of Namiki as applied to claim 1 above in view evidence by gme-magnet.com, Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnets (gme-magnet.com).
49. Regarding claim 21, Cuer further teaches the viscosity-varying agent (i.e. ferromagnetic compound) (Cuer, p. 6, line 1) is chosen as magnetic iron oxide core particles (Cuer, p. 6, line 13).
Namiki further teaches the magnetic powder of the capturing hydrogel includes iron oxide, cobalt, nickel, ferrite powders, and iron neodymium boron alloys that are able to form permanent magnets (gme-magnet.com, paragraph 1).
In light of the disclosure of Namiki of the equivalence and interchangeability of using iron oxide as disclosed in Cuer, with cobalt, nickel, ferrite powders, and iron neodymium boron alloys as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use cobalt, nickel, ferrite powders, and iron neodymium boron alloys as the viscosity-varying agent in Cuer.
Conclusion
50. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights