Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (US20150198540A1 published 07/16/2015; hereinafter Zheng) in view of Wang et al (CN111747561A published 10/09/2020; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhen teaches a method of measuring calcium hardness comprising:
extracting a sample of water (measurements of one or more analytes in a sample of water - paragraph 3) containing calcium from a process water system (Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, or total hardness in cooling water are important parameters – paragraph 3);
adding an indicator composition to the sample of water (a given amount of dry reagent – paragraphs 9 and 12) to form an optical analysis solution, the indicator composition comprising a calcium indicator (a dye – paragraph 12), a range extender (a chelating agent – paragraph 12), and a buffer (a buffer – paragraph 12);
optically analyzing the optical analysis solution (colorimetric measurement – paragraph 4) and determining therefrom a concentration of the calcium in the sample of water (measure calcium, magnesium (total hardness), and other analytes in water using colorimetric devices – abstract).
However, Zheng does not teach controlling addition of a calcium control agent to the process water system based on the determined concentration of calcium in the sample of water.
Wang teaches a water quality automatic control system controlling addition of a calcium control agent to the process water system (the output terminal of the fourth controller is connected to the control terminal of the scale inhibitor metering pump – paragraph 10) based on the determined concentration of calcium in the sample of water (pH value and calcium hardness (conductivity) are used as monitoring and control indicators for circulating water – paragraphs 7 and 14). Wang further teaches to use automate chemical dosing to save chemicals and water (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water testing method, as taught by Zheng, with the automatic scale inhibitor controls, taught by Wang, to automate the process and save chemicals. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Zheng and Wang teaches methods for monitoring calcium concentration.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng, modified by Wang, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the calcium indicator comprises chlorophosphonazo III (chlorophosphonazo III – paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng, modified by Wang, The method of claim 1, wherein the range extender comprises a chelating agent (a chelating agent – paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the range extender comprises an alkali metal citrate (Trisodium Citrate – Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the range extender is a chelating agent selected from the group consisting of ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid disodium salt (EDTA) (EDTA – paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the buffer is glycine (the buffer comprises glycine – paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the buffer comprises citric acid and an alkali metal citrate (Citric acid and trisodium citrate – Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator composition is provided as a solid composition (a given amount of dry reagent – paragraph 9) comprising a powder (The dry reagent may be in the form of a powder – paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator composition is diluted with water to form a use solution (The components of the test may be stable for long term storage and easily dissolved into water samples – paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the optical analysis solution has a pH of less than 7.0 (buffer of triethanolamine or citric acid/phosphate maintains pH 5.6 – paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 11, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator composition consists essentially of the calcium indicator chlorophosphonazo III (chlorophosphonazo III – paragraph 4), the range extender an alkali metal citrate (Trisodium Citrate – Table 1), the buffer citric acid and an alkali metal citrate (Citric acid and Trisodium Citrate – Table 1), and water to form an indicator solution (The components of the test may be stable for long term storage and easily dissolved into water samples – paragraph 33), and wherein the indicator solution has a pH less than 7.0 (buffer of triethanolamine or citric acid/phosphate maintains pH 5.6 – paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein:
the calcium indicator comprises less than about 0.5 wt % of the indicator composition (the dye, in this example OCPC, is 0.29% by weight (0.153mg dye/ total 53.437mg) – Table 1);
the range extender ranges from about 0.1 wt % to about 10 wt % of the indicator composition (the chelating agent, in this example citric acid, is 5.7% by weight (3.057mg citric acid/ total 53.437mg) – Table 1); and
the buffer ranges from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % of the indicator composition (the buffer, in this example boric acid, is 3.1% by weight (1.66mg boric acid/ total 53.437mg) – Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein a concentration of calcium in the sample of water ranges from about 1 ppm to about 1000 ppm (moderate concentrations of calcium 500 ppm – paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein the process water system comprises at least one of a boiler water system, a wastewater system (Heating, cooling, and ventilation consume large amounts of water in industrial plants – paragraph 3), and a cooling water system, the cooling water system comprising a cooling tower that reduces a temperature of a cooling water stream through evaporative cooling (Scaling can impede the flow of water in pipes and through the cooling tower, and coat surfaces which prevents the efficient transfer of heat – paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein optically analyzing the optical analysis solution comprises measuring at least one of absorbance and transmittance of the optical analysis solution (The analysis includes measurements of one or more of the radiation's absorption, emission, fluorescence, colorimetric, color changes, reflection, scattering, impedance, refraction, and resonance by the sample of matter – paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein optically analyzing the optical analysis solution comprises optically analyzing the solution at one or more wavelengths within a range from 500 nm to 700 nm (The visible spectrum showed two peaks with the maximum absorbance at 650 nm and a weaker absorption at 540 nm – paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 17, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 1, wherein:
extracting the sample of water comprises drawing a side stream from the process water system (the water sample is cooling water – paragraph 33), and
adding the indicator composition to the sample of water and optically analyzing the optical analysis solution comprises adding the indicator composition to the sample of water (direct interaction between reagent and analyte in water without presence of a medium – paragraph 38) and optically analyzing the optical analysis solution using an automated online analysis device (Results will be generated from pre-determined calibration curves built in software of the measurement device – paragraphs 41-42).
Regarding claim 18, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 17, wherein the automated online analysis device extracts the sample of water (the water sample is cooling water – paragraph 33), adds the indicator composition (direct interaction between reagent and analyte in water without presence of a medium – paragraph 38), and optically analyzes the optical analysis solution at least once per day (Results will be generated from pre-determined calibration curves built in software of the measurement device – paragraphs 41-42).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, modified by Wang, in view of Derham et al (US Pat No. 4,931,187A published 06/05/1990; hereinafter Derham).
Regarding claim 19, Zheng, modified by Wang, the method of claim 18, wherein controlling addition of a calcium control agent to the process water system based on the determined concentration of calcium in the sample of water comprises comparing the determined concentration of calcium to at least one calcium threshold (Using pH value and calcium hardness (conductivity) as the main online monitoring – Wang paragraph 19 ).
However, Zheng, modified by Wang, does not teach at least one of starting addition of the calcium control agent and increasing an addition rate of the calcium control agent if the determined concentration of calcium exceeds the threshold, and at least one of stopping addition of the calcium control agent, decreasing the addition rate of the calcium control agent, or keeping the amount of the calcium control agent the same if the determined concentration of calcium is less than the threshold.
Derham teaches a calcium control system wherein at least one of starting addition of the calcium control agent and increasing an addition rate of the calcium control agent if the determined concentration of calcium exceeds the threshold (a computer 30 determines calcium content and controls valve 26 based on balanced Langelier Saturation Index to regulate the calcium level of the make-up water LS passing through water softening device 22 – column 4 line 35-45), and
keeping the amount of the calcium control agent the same if the determined concentration of calcium is less than the threshold (computer 30 calculates the numerical indicator value of calcium (C) necessary to maintain a zero level Langelier Index (Sl=0) and, by conversion using the associated tabular data, determines the amount of calcium required of the system coolant to maintain it in chemical balance without either scale-forming or corrosive tendencies – column 6 lines 13-19). Derham teaches to use a computerize Langelier Saturation Index to minimize corrosion and scale-forming that may otherwise occur upon heat transfer surfaces (column 2 lines 54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method, as taught by Zheng, modified by Wang, with the computerize Langelier Saturation Index, taught by Derham, to minimize corrosion and scale-forming that may otherwise occur upon heat transfer surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights