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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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 recites the limitation "the matrix" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the matrix” as “a matrix”. Note that, instant claims 2-14 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1,433,487.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘487 teaches a method of cleaning large storage tanks such for example as marine cargo oil tanks, land based tanks used for the storage of offloaded cargo oil, and tanks used for the bulk storage of chemical substances in the petrochemical and other industrial fields. According to the present invention, there is provided a method of cleaning a tank interior comprising the step of forcibly ejecting streams of acid solution containing acid inhibitor onto the interior surface or surfaces of the tank via orifices in at least one discharge head which is introduced into and supported within the tank via an opening in the top thereof, such head being displaced during the ejection of the said streams to cause them to sweep over said surface or surfaces. Rotating nozzle devices are presently commercially available and used for washing oil residues from the interior of marine oil cargo tanks, using aqueous washing media containing surfactants. Oil tankers and various other types of cargo vessels carrying cargo oil are often equipped with a tank washing system incorporating such rotating nozzle devices to enable cargo tanks to be washed out while the vessel is at sea. Rotary nozzle devices of the kind in question can be used in carrying out an acid cleaning method. Rust or scale are removed from the interior tanka surfaces. Another known method which is frequently used is an acid soak method involving filling of the tanks with an acid solution and leaving the acid in the tank for sufficient time to enable it to remove the rust or scale. See columns 1 and 2 and column 4, lines 70-100.
The treatment medium is a solution of hydrochloric or sulfuric acid of at least 2N concentration, to which a suitable acid inhibitor has been added. See column 5, line 60 to column 6, line 70.
A particularly interesting potential field of use of method is the cleaning in situ of marine cargo tanks whether they be separately fabricated and removably or permanently fitted into the hull structure, or an integral part of that structure. The method can be carried out by using tank washing equipment with which some vessels are already equipped, with the proviso that it may on occasions be necessary to employ pumping gear of higher power than that used in ordinary washing treatments. In some chemical carriers and other cargo vessels having fitted tanks, the cargo pumping equipment often comprises fitted deep- well pumps and in suitable cases these may be employed for recycling the acid treatment medium to the higher pressure pump or pumps responsible for feeding the rotary discharge head within the tank. an integrated tank cargo vessel, recycling can be achieved by using one or more submersible pump(s) lowered into the bottom portion of the tank. See column 4, lines 70-100. ‘487 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘387 anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (US 5,273,591).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Perkins teaches that deposits are removed from cargo tanks of marine crude oil tankers and the like by introducing into the tanks a solvent for the deposits which are formed on the interior surfaces of the tanks, including those surfaces which cannot be reached by crude oil washing machines and the like. The solvent is caused to contact all of the interior surfaces of the tanks by pumping ballast water sequentially into and out of the tanks to cause the solvent to rise and fall in each of the tanks. The method may be carried out during return trips of tankers from the point of discharge of cargo to the point of loading new cargo. See Abstract. Plural cargo tanks of a tanker may be sequentially cleaned in a timely and efficient manner through a series of transfers of solvent and water between tanks. See column 1, lines 50-69. Certain water-immiscible solvents are effective in removing the aforementioned deposits from vertical, horizontal and other surfaces exposed to the interiors of the tanks. Solvents such as motor gasoline, turbine fuel and certain condensates reclaimed from the production of crude oil and the like are capable of removing deposits such as waxes and asphaltenes at a rate of up to about 0.16 inches per hour with reference to the thickness of the deposit on a metal surface. Such solvents will slowly dissolve the deposits when exposed to the deposits in a stagnant condition or when moving slowly past the deposit/solvent interface. See column 2, lines 55-69. Perkins discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Perkins anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1,433,487 as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Soontravanich et al (US 11,421,191).
‘487 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘487 does not teach a solution containing 5% by volume of acid, a nonionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition used in the method as recited by the instant claims.
Soontravanich et al teach method and compositions for cleaning industrial equipment. See Abstract. The compositions contain, in one embodiment, methane sulfonic acid, formic acid, phosphoric acid, a nitrogen-containing species, and a nonionic surfactant, and a pH of less than 4. See column 1, lines 40-62. The inorganic acid may be used in amounts from about 1 to about 20% by weight and suitable acids include nitric, sulfuric, etc. See column 5, lines 1-30. Nonionic surfactants improve soil removal and can reduce the contact angle of the solution on the surface being treated. Examples of nonionic surfactants include low foaming nonionic surfactants, etc. See column 5, lines 55-65. The compositions and methods are useful in clean-in-place applications in the food manufacturing, industrial, agriculture, biofuel, ethanol industries, etc. In some embodiments, the compositions can be applied to the equipment surface by circulating the compositions through the clean-in-place equipment, spraying, impingement, flowing, or soaking. See column 9, lines 45-69 to column 10, line 69.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an acid such as sulfuric acid in an amount of greater 5% by volume in the composition taught by ‘487, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Soontravanich et al teach the use of compositions containing, for example, sulfuric acid in amounts of greater than 5% volume to clean industrial substrates and further, ‘487 teaches the use of sulfuric acid in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a low foaming nonionic surfactant in the composition taught by ‘487, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Soontravanich et al teach that the use of a low foaming nonionic surfactant in a similar composition improve the soil removal properties of the composition and further, such enhanced soil removal properties would be desirable in the composition taught by ‘487.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 5,273,591) as applied to claims 1 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Ruhr et al (US 2003/0109394).
Perkins is relied upon as set forth above. However, Perkins does not teach the use of a caustic solution and/or a nonionic surfactant to clean impurities from the surface of a cargo tank as recited by the instant claims.
Ruhr et al teach cleaning compositions for metal surfaces, including both concentrates and ready to-use solutions. These compositions include a source of calcium ion, a source of alkalinity, a chelating agent, and a surfactant. In some embodiments, a water-soluble or water-dispersible acid-substituted polymer is also included. Additionally, in some embodiments, specific surfactants or chelating agents are used to enhance the performance of the composition. See Abstract. Suitable sources of alkalinity include alkali metal hydroxides, etc. See paras. 23-26. The surfactant of the present invention may be any surfactant generally known in the art, such as an anionic surfactant, non-ionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, amphoteric surfactant, or zwitterionic surfactant. In one embodiment, the surfactant has only one surfactant functional group. In a preferred composition of such an embodiment, the surfactant is primary or secondary alcohol ethoxylate, secondary alkane sulfonate, linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, primary alcohol ethoxy carboxylate, sarcosinates, or mixtures thereof. See paras. 30-33.
The metal cleaning compositions of the present invention are useful for removing any type of contaminant from a metal surface including greases, cutting fluids, drawing fluids, machine oils, antirust oils such as cosmoline, carbonaceous soils, sebaceous soils, particulate matter, waxes, paraffins, used motor oil, fuels, etc. Any metal surface can be cleaned including iron-based metals such as iron, iron alloys, e.g., steel, tin, aluminum, copper, tungsten, titanium, molybdenum, etc., for example. The structure of the metal surface to be cleaned can vary widely and is unlimited. Thus, the metal surface can be as a metal part of complex configuration, sheeting, coils, rolls, bars, rods, plates, disks, etc. Such metal components can be derived from any source including for home use, for industrial use, etc. See paras. 44-46. The aqueous alkaline metal cleaning solutions of this invention comprising the cleaning composition in water have a pH above 7.5, above 9.0, above 10.0, above 11.0, and even up to 13.5. See para. 47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a caustic solution containing a base such as sodium hydroxide and a nonionic surfactant as the cleaning composition in the process taught by Perkins, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Ruhr et al teach that the use of a caustic solution containing a base such as sodium hydroxide and a nonionic surfactant is effective in cleaning a wide variety of industrial surfaces and contaminants and further, Perkins teaches the use of cleaning a contaminated metal surface in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/December 6, 2025