DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 7, 10 and 16 are amended to depend from claim 1… amended claim 7 (Group II) requires the particulars of the subcombination of the overspray treatment composition of claim 1 (Group I) as claimed… amended claim 10 (Group III) is drawn to a process of use of the overspray treatment composition of claim 1 (Group I) as claimed… amended claim 16 (Group IV) requires the particulars of the subcombination of the overspray treatment composition of claim 1 (Group I) as claimed (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6 paragraph 2 to page 7 paragraph 1). This is found persuasive.
The restriction requirement between Groups I to IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 06/18/2026, has been reconsidered and is withdrawn.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 reciting “between10 nm” appear to have a typographical error and should be “between 10 nm”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 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 7 reciting “A treated washwater” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the recitation is unclear. Is this water for washing, water from washing, or is this a composition comprising water?
Examiner is treating the claimed “treated washwater” as a composition.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) including “composition” after “washwater” such that the recitation reads “A treated washwater composition”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 8 reciting “a coagulant” is indefinite because it is not clear if the claimed coagulant in claim 8 is the same of different from the claimed coagulant in claim 1.
Examiner is treating the claimed “coagulant” in claim 8 as the same “coagulant” claimed in claim 1 based on specification at [00123]-[0028].
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “a” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 7.
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 1-2, 5, 7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2006102619 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Yoshida” hereinafter) in view of Monken (Water pollution control for paint booths, Metal Finishing, 1999) (“Monken” hereinafter) and Kuznetsov et al. (US 2017/0349461 A1) (“Kuznetsov” hereinafter);
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches an overspray treatment composition (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching there are no particular restrictions on the type of paint non-stick agent used in the present disclosure… anti-sticking agents are generally added directly to the circulating water in the paint booth). Paint non-stick agent is taken to meet the claimed overspray treatment composition based on the structure as outlined below, comprising
a detackifier comprising a colloidal silica (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching for example… silica… examples of silica include colloidal silica), and
a coagulant comprising an inorganic salt (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching for example… amphoteric metals… examples of amphoteric metals include… PAC (polyaluminum chloride)). PAC (polyaluminum chloride) is taken to meet the claimed inorganic salt based on specification at [0015] disclosing suitable coagulant include… inorganic aluminum… salt compounds… in embodiments, the coagulant comprises… polyaluminum chloride).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach that the colloidal silica is amine-functionalized. However, Yoshida teaches the present disclosure is particularly effective when the paint to be treated is an oil-based paint… there are no particular restrictions on the shape of the wet paint booth… but it can be used in a type of paint booth that collects overspray paint mist with a water curtain and circulates the water between the booth and a circulating water pit… furthermore, it is common practice to send some or all of the circulating water containing accumulated paint sludge to a solid-liquid separation unit, and then return the water from which the sludge has been removed to the circulating water pit (see Yoshida at [0008]).
Like Yoshida, Monken teaches wet paint booth (see Monken at page 450 paragraph 4 teaching the primary function of a paint booth, whether wet or dry, is to remove the paint overspray from the air of the work environment).
Monken further teaches a number of methods have been developed to chemically treat the sticky organic paint sludge collecting in waterwash paint booths… reviewing these detackification systems both historically and in terms of increasing effectiveness, they include… acid colloid programs (see Monken at page 451 paragraph 5)… the acid colloid treatments function on the principle that certain mixtures of hydrophilic (“water loving”) and hydrophobic (“water hating”) materials can form stable suspensions under acidic conditions but precipitate as associated complexes as pH increases… there are three detackification programs currently used based on this principle: silicate amine programs, silica amine programs… the basic principle is to feed the product into the system at a raised alkalinity level to form the associated complex… the hydrophobic end orients onto the hydrophobic paint particle, with the hydrophilic end sticking into the water phase… this effectively allows the paint particle to be coated with a thin film of water that prevents its surface from adhering to other surfaces (see Monken at page 453 paragraph 1)… the silica amine program is very similar to the silicate amine treatment… the primary difference is that it utilizes an aqueous colloidal silica sol as the hydrophobe (see Monken at page 453 paragraph 3). In summary, Monken teaches that silica amine program utilizing an aqueous colloidal silica sol as the hydrophobe (or hydrophobic (“water hating”)) and amine as the hydrophile (or hydrophilic (“water loving”)) can form stable suspensions under acidic conditions but precipitate as associated complexes as pH increases, the hydrophobic end orients onto the hydrophobic paint particle, with the hydrophilic end sticking into the water phase that effectively allows the paint particle to be coated with a thin film of water that prevents its surface from adhering to other surfaces.
Moreover, like Yoshida and Monken, Kuznetsov teaches a colloidal silica (see Kuznetsov at [0005] teaches silica nanoparticles can include an amine-terminated nanosilica colloid)… it has been found that certain nanoparticles can increase the settling rate of solids in produced water especially when combined with certain conventional flocculents (see Kuznetsov at [0013])… it is believed that the nanoparticle charges can neutralize the surface charges on the fine tailings or other solid materials without materially affecting the hardness of the water… for example, the nanoparticles can be dispersed into the suspension and adsorb onto the surface of the fines thus producing denser flocks with higher settling rates… the reduced charge on the fine tailings allows them to come into closer contact when interacting with flocculent, thus forming even larger flocks… thus, the settling time for fine tailings can be reduced at least twofold when flocculent is combined with nanoparticles (see Kuznetsov at [0016]). In summary, Kuznetsov teaches that amine-terminated nanosilica colloid can increase the settling rate of solids in water especially when combined with certain conventional flocculents. Amine-terminated nanosilica colloid is taken to meet the claimed “amine-functionalized colloidal silica”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Kuznetsov teaches that amine-terminated nanosilica colloid can increase the settling rate of solids in water especially when combined with certain conventional flocculents, and Monken teaches that aqueous colloidal silica sol can act as hydrophobe (or hydrophobic (“water hating”)) and amine can act as hydrophile (or hydrophilic (“water loving”)), which can form stable suspensions under acidic conditions but precipitate as associated complexes as pH increases, the hydrophobic end orients onto the hydrophobic paint particle, with the hydrophilic end sticking into the water phase that effectively allows the paint particle to be coated with a thin film of water that prevents its surface from adhering to other surfaces. And, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek those advantages by replacing the silica in the paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the silica in the paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida with the amine-terminated nanosilica colloid as taught by Kuznetsov so as to increase the settling rate of solids in water especially when combined with certain conventional flocculents. Furthermore, Monken teaches that aqueous colloidal silica sol can act as hydrophobe (or hydrophobic (“water hating”)) and amine can act as hydrophile (or hydrophilic (“water loving”)), which can form stable suspensions under acidic conditions but precipitate as associated complexes as pH increases, the hydrophobic end orients onto the hydrophobic paint particle, with the hydrophilic end sticking into the water phase that effectively allows the paint particle to be coated with a thin film of water that prevents its surface from adhering to other surfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yoshida further teaches wherein the coagulant is selected from… polyaluminum chloride (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching for example… amphoteric metals… examples of amphoteric metals include… PAC (polyaluminum chloride)).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kuznetsov further teaches wherein the amine-functionalized colloidal silica is an amine-functionalized silica sol having a particle size between 10 nm and 100 nm (see Kuznetsov at [0005] teaching the inorganic nanoparticles can have a diameter of 50 nanometers or smaller) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches a treated washwater composition comprising a water source… the water source disposed within a paint overspray waterwash system (see 112 rejection, see Yoshida at [0008] teaches that the present disclosure is particularly effective when the paint to be treated is an oil-based paint… there are no particular restrictions on the shape of the wet paint booth… but it can be used in a type of paint booth that collects overspray paint mist with a water curtain and circulates the water between the booth and a circulating water pit… furthermore, it is common practice to send some or all of the circulating water containing accumulated paint sludge to a solid-liquid separation unit, and then return the water from which the sludge has been removed to the circulating water pit, see Yoshida at [0009] teaching there are no particular restrictions on the type of paint non-stick agent used in the present disclosure… anti-sticking agents are generally added directly to the circulating water in the paint booth). Anti-sticking agents in circulating water is taken to meet the claimed “treated washwater composition”, and circulating water is taken to meet the claimed “water source” and “the water source disposed within a paint overspray waterwash system”, and
0.01 ppm to 10,000 ppm by weigh of an overspray treatment composition according to claim 1 (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching the amount of paint non-sticking agent added depends on the type and concentration of the paint, the type of non-sticking agent, etc., but generally it is 1 to 10,000 mg/L (or 1 to 10,000 ppm because eater density is about 1 kg/L) in terms of solid content of the non-sticking agent relative to the volume of circulating water (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and see claim 1 rejection based on Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches a method of treating a paint overspray, the method comprising adding an overspray treatment composition of claim 1 to a washwater located within a paint booth overspray waterwash system or operably connected to a paint booth overspray waterwash system, to form a treated washwater; and operating the paint booth overspray waterwash system while spraying a paint within the paint booth, wherein the treated washwater is contacted with a paint overspray to form a treated overspray (see Yoshida at [0001] teaching a method for treating water used to capture paint mist that was not applied to the object to be painted (overspray) in a booth for painting, see Yoshida at [0008] teaches that the present disclosure is particularly effective when the paint to be treated is an oil-based paint… there are no particular restrictions on the shape of the wet paint booth… but it can be used in a type of paint booth that collects overspray paint mist with a water curtain and circulates the water between the booth and a circulating water pit… furthermore, it is common practice to send some or all of the circulating water containing accumulated paint sludge to a solid-liquid separation unit, and then return the water from which the sludge has been removed to the circulating water pit, see Yoshida at [0009] teaching there are no particular restrictions on the type of paint non-stick agent used in the present disclosure… anti-sticking agents are generally added directly to the circulating water in the paint booth, and see claim 1 rejection based on Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and Yoshida further teaches further comprising adding a flocculant to the treated overspray (see Yoshida at [0015] teaching a flocculant can be used to facilitated the separation and recovery of the non-stick paint sludge obtained by the method… the flocculant is preferably added to the line that separates paint sludge),
to form a flocculated overspray (this recitation is being treated as being taught by Yoshida because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “to form a flocculated overspray” are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov to choose an appropriate flocculant so as to form a flocculated overspray).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claims 10-11 above, and Yoshida teaches further comprising subjecting the flocculated overspray to solid-liquid separation (see Yoshida at [0008] teaching it is common practice to send some or all of the circulating water containing accumulated paint sludge to a solid-liquid separation unit, and then return the water from which the sludge has been removed to the circulating water pit),
to obtain one or more associated complexes and an aqueous treatment residue (this recitation is being treated as being taught by Yoshida because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “to obtain one or more associated complexes and an aqueous treatment residue” are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov to choose an appropriate flocculant so as to obtain one or more associated complexes and an aqueous treatment residue).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claims 10-12 above, and Yoshida further teaches wherein the aqueous treatment residue is subjected to one or more cycles of use within the paint booth overspray waterwash system (see Yoshida at [0008] teaching there are no particular restrictions on the shape of the wet paint booth… but it can be used in a type of paint booth that collects overspray paint mist with a water curtain and circulates the water between the booth and a circulating water pit… it is common practice to send some or all of the circulating water containing accumulated paint sludge to a solid-liquid separation unit, and then return the water from which the sludge has been removed to the circulating water pit). It is within the ability of one skilled in the art, absent new and unexpected results, with the benefit of the teachings of Yoshida in view of Monken to choose the number of cycles the aqueous treatment residue is subjected to within the paint booth overspray waterwash system.
Regarding claims 14-15, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and Yoshida and Monken further teach wherein the paint is a solvent-based paint (claim 14), and wherein the paint is a water-based paint (claim 15) (see Yoshida at [0001] teaching a method for treating water used to capture paint mist that was not applied to the object to be painted (overspray) in a booth for painting, see Yoshida at [0009] teaching the amount of paint non-sticking agent depends on the type and concentration of the paint, the type of non-sticking agent, see Monken at page 450 paragraph 4 teaching the primary function of a paint booth, whether wet or dry, is to remove the paint overspray from the air of the work environment, see Monken at page 451 paragraphs 2-4 teaching in the case of either side-draft or downdraft systems, the recirculated water comes into contact with a wide variety of potential pollutants from the paint overspray… the organic resins making up the bulk of the paint coating are insoluble in water and tend to stay tacky if not treated with some additional material introduced into the water… if left untreated, tacky sludge can plug up recirculation pipes and pumps (as well as adhere to any and all surfaces of the booth), reducing overall efficiency… the key to reducing or removing any these pollutants is to find a way to either solubilize or detackify the paint solids and to collect and remove the dissolve solids (if possible)… water-based paints, unlike solvent-based formulations, dissolve or disperse readily in water… because of this dispersibility, caused in part by the relatively small particle size of the waterborne pigments and resin, water-based paints can often be difficult to physically remove from the system… the problem then is one of solids concentration and removal, rather than detackification). It is within the ability of one skilled in the art, absent new and unexpected results, with the benefit of the teachings of Yoshida in view of Monken to choose the paint (i.e., “wherein the paint is a solvent-based paint” (claim 14), and “wherein the paint is a water-based paint” (claim 15)) in the method for treating water used to capture paint mist in the paint booth.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches a kit comprising an overspray treatment composition in accordance with claim 1 (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching there are no particular restrictions on the type of paint non-stick agent used in the present disclosure… anti-sticking agents are generally added directly to the circulating water in the paint booth, and see claim 1 rejection based on Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov). Paint non-stick agent is taken to meet the claimed “kit” based on the structure as outlined below; and
separately a flocculant (see Yoshida at [0015] teaching a flocculant can be used to facilitate the separation and recovery of the non-stick paint sludge obtained by the method… the flocculant is preferably added to the line that separates paint sludge), and
add 0.01 ppm to 10,000 ppm by weight of the overspray treatment composition (see Yoshida at [0009] teaching the amount of paint non-sticking agent depends on the type and concentration of the paint, the type of non-sticking agent, etc., but generally it is 1 to 10,000 mg/L (or 1 to 10,000 ppm because eater density is about 1 kg/L) in terms of solid content of the non-sticking agent relative to the volume of circulating water (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), see Yoshida at [0016] teaching the efficiently carry out the method… it is preferable to stir the mixture when adding each agent),
instructions that direct a user to add… overspray treatment composition to either a water source located within a paint overspray waterwash system, or a water source that is subsequently applied to a paint overspray waterwash (see Yoshida at [0016] teaching the efficiently carry out the method… it is preferable to stir the mixture when adding each agent, see Yoshida at [0009] teaching the amount of paint non-sticking agent depends on the type and concentration of the paint, the type of non-sticking agent, see Monken at page 450 paragraph 4 teaching the primary function of a paint booth, whether wet or dry, is to remove the paint overspray from the air of the work environment, see Monken at page 451 paragraphs 2-4 teaching in the case of either side-draft or downdraft systems, the recirculated water comes into contact with a wide variety of potential pollutants from the paint overspray… the organic resins making up the bulk of the paint coating are insoluble in water and tend to stay tacky if not treated with some additional material introduced into the water… if left untreated, tacky sludge can plug up recirculation pipes and pumps (as well as adhere to any and all surfaces of the booth), reducing overall efficiency… the key to reducing or removing any these pollutants is to find a way to either solubilize or detackify the paint solids and to collect and remove the dissolve solids (if possible)… water-based paints, unlike solvent-based formulations, dissolve or disperse readily in water… because of this dispersibility, caused in part by the relatively small particle size of the waterborne pigments and resin, water-based paints can often be difficult to physically remove from the system… the problem then is one of solids concentration and removal, rather than detackification). It is within the ability of one skilled in the art, absent new and unexpected results, with the benefit of the teachings of Yoshida in view of Monken to choose to include instructions in the paint non-stick agent or the claimed “kit”.
Claims 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov as applied to claims 1 and 7 respectively above, and further in view of Rey (US 5,250,189) (“Rey” hereinafter); as evidenced by PubChem (Aluminum Chlorohydrate) (“PubChem” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov do not explicitly teach wherein the coagulant is Al2Cl(OH)5. As mentioned, Yoshida teaches examples of amphoteric metals include PAC (polyaluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate, polyaluminum hydroxide (see Yoshida at [0009]).
Like Yoshida and Monken, Rey teaches an overspray treatment composition (see Rey at C1 L7-12 teaching automobile bodies and many industrial and consumer articles are conventionally spray painted in areas called spray booths, wherein water is employed to cleanse the air of over-sprayed paint… the wash water is then treated water is recirculated, see Rey at C2 L64-66 teaching aluminum salts, in conjunction with specified polymeric flocculants, see Rey at C6 L35-37 teaching other additives commonly used for the treatment of water containing oversprayed paint may generally be in conjunction with the instant disclosure).
Rey further teaches while any aluminum salt can be used, the aluminum salts… preferably contain a chloride anion… the preferred aluminum salts are… aluminum chlorohydrate salt (see Rey at C4 L45-48). Aluminum chlorohydrate is taken to meet the claimed inorganic salt based aluminum chloride hydroxide, Al2Cl(OH)5. Aluminum chlorohydrate is aluminum chloride hydroxide as evidenced by PubChem (see PubChem at page 1 at Title evidencing Aluminum chlorohydrate, and Synonyms evidencing Aluminum hydroxide chloride.
Moreover, Rey teaches that it has been discovered that the polymeric aluminum salts form larger, more efficient floc than alum… the improved efficiency of these products reduces the chemical demand and results in less dissolved solid being added to the system… the preferred aluminum salts produce a better solids removal on an equivalent Al2O3 basis (see Rey at C4 L55-66).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Rey teaches that aluminum chlorohydrate salt forms larger, more efficient floc than alum which results in less dissolved solid being added to the system and better solids removal, and seek those advantages to use the aluminum chlorohydrate salt in the paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use aluminum chlorohydrate salt as taught by Rey in the paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov because the salt forms larger, more efficient floc than alum which results in less dissolved solid being added to the system and better solids removal.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov do not explicitly teach further comprising 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm by weight of a coagulant (see 112 rejection, and please see claim 3 rejection based on Rey as it applies here as well).
However, Rey teaches an effective amount of the aluminum salt is added… the “effective amount” refers to that amount of aluminum salt necessary to treat the paint solids present in a given system so as to yield a floc which floats, a clear subnatant and an acceptable level of suspended solids (see Rey at C4 L57 to C5 L4).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Rey teaches that the aluminum salt is a result effective variable that could be optimized with an effective amount so as to yield a floc which floats, a clear subnatant and an acceptable level of suspended solids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the effective amount of the aluminum salt as taught by Rey in the circulating water comprising paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov so as to yield a floc which floats, a clear subnatant and an acceptable level of suspended solids, and arrive at the claimed “0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm by weight of a coagulant”.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov do not explicitly teach wherein the pH of the treated washwater is between 6.5 and 10 (please see claims 3 and 7 rejections based on Rey as it applies here as well).
Rey teaches the pH of the water being treated should be maintained between about 5.0 and about 9.0… as the pH is lowered below about 5.0, corrosion in the system generally increases… paint treated at pH less than 5 tends to be more adherent and stringy… these characteristics are not conducive to good sludge recovery… on the other hand, a pH of greater than about 9.0 generally results in greater solids dispersion, thus creating less efficient solids capture, and causes greater foam generation (see Rey at C3 L62 to C4 L3). pH of the water being treated should be maintained between about 5.0 and about 9.0 is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the pH of the treated washwater is between 6.5 and 10” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the pH range as taught by Rey in the circulating water comprising paint non-stick agent as taught by Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed pH would be suitable, and paint treated at pH less than 5 tends to be more adherent and stringy which is not conducive to good sludge recovery, and a pH of greater than about 9.0 generally results in greater solids dispersion, creating less efficient solids capture, and causes greater foam generation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 6; and all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 16 and dependent claims 18 and 20.
Specifically, it is noted that Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov teach all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claims 1 and 16, as outlined above. However, Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov do not explicitly teach the claimed “wherein the amine-functionalized colloidal silica comprises about 0.1 µm to 15.00 µm of amine functionality per square meter of silica surface area (claim 4), wherein the weight ratio of amine-functionalized colloidal silica solids to coagulant is about 1:10 to 20:1 (claim 6), wherein the amine-functional colloidal silica and the coagulant are provided as a mixture thereof in a ratio of 1:10 to 20:1 by weight in the overspray treatment composition (claim 18), and wherein the instructions further direct the user to add the overspray treatment composition and the flocculant in a ratio of 1:10 to 200:1 by weight (claim 20). And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Yoshida in view of Monken and Kuznetsov as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 6; and all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 16 and dependent claims 18 and 20 as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 6; and all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 16 and dependent claims 18 and 20 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights