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 Species B in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because of their mutually exclusive characteristics and the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 17, 2026.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 will be examined on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0072418 to Ishihara et al. in view of JP2000-263088A to Tsuji et al. (see machine translation) and CN111733423A to Chen et al. (see machine translation).
As to claims 1, 2, 12 and 13, Ishihara discloses a method for treating scale on a metal member of nuclear power plant facilities (see Ishihara paragraph [0001]), the method comprising: bringing a treatment solution comprising 0.5-3.5% by weight of an organic acid, such as acetic acid, into contact the scale with the acetic acid and the temperature of the solution can be in a range of 20-40 degrees C (see Ishihara paragraphs [0023]-[0025] where it is understood that the acetic acid is in an aqueous solution).
While Ishihara discloses that the method can be used for treating scale on a metal member in a nuclear power plant facility (see Ishihara paragraph [0001]), Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the metal surface is a surface of an offline condenser and that the scale includes calcium carbonate. Tsuji discloses that it is known in the art that the cooling water systems of nuclear power plants need to be descaled and that the scale includes iron oxide and calcium carbonate (see Tsuji paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0015]-[0016]). Applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)). It would have been obvious to apply the treatment solution disclosed by Ishihara to the scale on the offline condenser as known in the art in order to remove the scale, which includes both iron oxide and calcium carbonate, as disclosed by Tsuji, and the results would have been predictable (treatment of the scale on the metal surface of a nuclear power plant facility). Furthermore, it is known in the art that acetic acid treatment solutions are known to remove both rust (iron oxide) and calcium carbonate scale (see Chen paragraphs [0014]-[0016]).
As to claims 3 and 4, while Ishihara discloses that the treatment solution comprises 0.5-3.5% by weight of acetic acid, Chen discloses a similar treatment solution with 10-50% by weight of acetic acid (see Chen paragraphs [0014] and [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the acetic acid concentration to up to 50% by weight of acetic acid as disclosed by Chen and the results would have been predictable (treatment of scale comprising iron oxide and calcium carbonate) (see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) where differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concertation is critical).
As to claims 5-7, the combination of Ishihara, Tsuji and Chen does not require a strong acid, a chloride or a dibasic acid (see Ishihara paragraph [0025] and claim 1).
As to claims 8 and 9, Chen discloses that the treatment solution can include 0.5-2% by weight of a corrosion inhibitor (see Chen paragraph [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a corrosion inhibitor as disclosed by Chen in order to slow down the corrosion of equipment and pipeline metal materials by the acid (see Chen paragraph [0015]).
As to claim 10, Ishihara discloses that oxalic acid can also be used (see Ishihara paragraph [0025] disclosing also the use of mixtures of acids in the treatment solution).
As to claim 14, Ishihara discloses that the treatment solution contacts the scale for 2 to 30 days (see Ishihara paragraph [0023]). It is noted that the use of pumps to deliver treatment solution is well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance.
As to claim 20, Ishihara discloses a method for treating scale on a metal member of nuclear power plant facilities (see Ishihara paragraph [0001]), the method comprising: bringing a treatment solution comprising 0.5-3.5% by weight of an organic acid, such as acetic acid, into contact the scale with the acetic acid and the temperature of the solution can be in a range of 20-40 degrees C (see Ishihara paragraphs [0023]-[0025] where it is understood that the acetic acid is in an aqueous solution).
While Ishihara discloses that the method can be used for treating scale on a metal member in a nuclear power plant facility (see Ishihara paragraph [0001]), Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the metal surface is a surface of an offline condenser and that the scale includes calcium carbonate. Tsuji discloses that it is known in the art that the cooling water systems of nuclear power plants need to be descaled and that the scale includes iron oxide and calcium carbonate (see Tsuji paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0015]-[0016]). Applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)). It would have been obvious to apply the treatment solution disclosed by Ishihara to the scale on the offline condenser as known in the art in order to remove the scale, which includes both iron oxide and calcium carbonate, as disclosed by Tsuji, and the results would have been predictable (treatment of the scale on the metal surface of a nuclear power plant facility). Furthermore, it is known in the art that acetic acid treatment solutions are known to remove both rust (iron oxide) and calcium carbonate scale (see Chen paragraphs [0014]-[0016]).
While Ishihara discloses that the treatment solution comprises 0.5-3.5% by weight of acetic acid, Chen discloses a similar treatment solution with 10-50% by weight of acetic acid (see Chen paragraphs [0014] and [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the acetic acid concentration to up to 50% by weight of acetic acid as disclosed by Chen and the results would have been predictable (treatment of scale comprising iron oxide and calcium carbonate) (see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) where differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concertation is critical). It is noted that the use of pumps to deliver treatment solution is well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0072418 to Ishihara et al. in view of JP2000-263088A to Tsuji et al. (see machine translation) and CN111733423A to Chen et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0315168 to Laffitte et al.
Ishihara, Tsuji and Chen are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, Chen discloses the benefits of including a surfactant in the treatment solution (see Chen paragraph [0015] and [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a surfactant into the treatment solution in order to improve the ability of the cleaning agent to remove scale (see Chen paragraph [0015]). While the combination of Ishihara, Tsuji and Chen does not explicitly disclose that the surfactant is an ethoxylated amine, Laffitte discloses that ethoxylated amine surfactants are known in the use of acid descaling compositions (see Laffitte paragraph [0035]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an ethoxylated amine surfactant and the results would have been predictable (oil dispersion in a water based system) (see also MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0072418 to Ishihara et al. in view of JP2000-263088A to Tsuji et al. (see machine translation) and CN111733423A to Chen et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2017/140715A1 to Sanchayan et al. (see machine translation).
Ishihara, Tsuji and Chen are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 15, 18 and 19, the combination of Ishihara, Tsuji and Chen does not explicitly disclose measuring a property of the mixture as it is pumped through the offline condenser and removing the mixture from the offline condenser when the measured property satisfies a predetermined threshold change in value wherein the property is the calcium harness of the mixture as measured by ppm CaCO3 and the predetermined threshold change in value is when the calcium hardness of the mixture changes by less than 5000 ppm or 2000 ppm over the course of 5 hours. Sanchayan discloses that it is known in the art of cleaning calcium scale to monitor the calcium concentration in the cleaning solution at predetermined intervals and to stop the cleaning when the calcium concentration does not increase or has not increased by more than 3% compared to the last measured value (see Sanchayan paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0035], [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include monitoring the calcium concentration in the cleaning solution at predetermined intervals and to stop the cleaning when the calcium concentration does not increase or has not increased by a predetermined threshold as disclosed by Sanchayan in order to automate and optimize the cleaning process as is known in the art. The specific threshold is considered an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the cleaning process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights