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 .
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 18, 23-26, 28, 38, 43, 44, 46-50, and 52-54 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 18 in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 23-26, 28, 38, 43, 44, 46-50, and 52-54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 18 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.
With regards to claim 1, the third conduit is recited as fluidly couped to a stainless-steel vessel to be treated. The system, however, does not positively recite the stainless-steel vessel as part of the system. This makes it unclear if one is required or not.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost (US 6,652,660).
With regards to claim 1, Frost teaches a system for treating a stainless steel vessel for prevention of stress corrosion cracking (Abstract "The method is particularly useful in preventing stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel"; col 4 in 6 "useful to decontaminate and clean a vessel"; ), the system comprising: a pre-mix treatment solution; a water source; wherein, when the system is in use, the pre-mix treatment solution and the water mix to form a diluted treatment solution (col 7 In 43-45 "an oxidizer useful herein, such as Sodium perborate or Sodium percarbonate, is dissolved in the solution to prepare a concentrate which can thereafter be diluted prior to use."; col 8 in 29-30 "concentrate must be diluted with water"; it is understood some type of water source would need to be used), the diluted treatment solution receivable by the stainless steel vessel (col 8 In 42-45 "the concentrate, which can be diluted in place, or the diluted concentrate, is introduced into the vessel to establish contact with the hazardous sulfur containing compounds therein.").
Frost does not explicitly state there are containers and conduits, however, Frost teaches the required flows. It would be obvious to have used the recited containers and conduits to hold and deliver the taught flows.
Frost teaches draining the stainless-steel vessel of the treating solution (column 11, lines 20-29). Frost does not expressly teach a waste vessel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have drained the used treating solution into some type of vessel in order to transport it away from the treated stainless-steel vessel for disposal.
The modifications result in a storage container (undiluted treatment solution) connected by a first conduit (to mix for dilute), a water source (to dilute) connected to a second conduit (from source to the mixer to dilute), a third conduit (to deliver the diluted treatment solution to the vessel) coupled to the first and second conduit and a stainless-steel vessel (vessel to be treated), and a waste vessel coupled to the stainless-steel vessel (from the drain). It is noted that the specific treatment solution is an intended use and such a system is capable of the claimed use.
With regards to claims 8 and 18, the claims recite mostly intended use. The only structural limitation appears to be that the system is sized to be able to store the desired amount of solution to achieve the desired flows. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the system as desired in order to achieve the desired treatment of the desired vessel. The specific treatment solution stored and the concentration are intended uses. The system is capable of such use.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost (US 6,652,660) in view of Denvir et al. (US 2016/0354727).
With regards to claim 2, 3, 5, and 6, Frost does not teach the specific injection pump, control valves, and flow meter. Denvir et al. teaches a system for adding a treatment solution including corrosion inhibitors (para [0016], [0017]) to a metal system that can be steel (para [0023]) (fig 1). Denvir et al. teaches that pumps, valves, and flow meters can be added to the treatment system which is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art (para [0053]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added pumps, valves, and flow meters on the various conduits in order to achieve the desired follow and flow control as is well understood in the art.
A pump sending the flow into something is taken to be an injection pump and a valve controls the injection rate (open, closed, partially open, etc.).
The combination teaches the pumps, valves, and flow meter as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights