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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goddard et al (US 2006/0180794). No distinction is seen between the composition disclosed by Goddard et al, and that recited in claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17. Goddard et al disclose a corrosion inhibitor formulation comprising 4-40 % of a neutralizing amine such as ammonia or morpholine and 0-20% of a film-forming amine, and glycol ether as the solvent. (See Paragraphs [0024] through [0028], and [0036].) Accordingly Goddard et al anticipate claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide 40% of the neutralizing amine, 20% of the film-forming amine and glycol ether as the solvent, as the corrosion inhibitor of Goddard et al, since Goddard et al suggests such combination of components at the aforementioned passages.
Regarding claim 2, Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0026] that the neutralizing amine can be morpholine.
Regarding claim 7, Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0036] that the solvent can be present in an amount of 20-99%.
Regarding claim 11, Goddard et al disclose additional solvents in Paragraph [0036].
Regarding claim 12, Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0031] that the corrosion inhibitor can be present in an amount of from 1-20%.
Regarding claim 16, the property recited therein would be inherent in the composition of Goddard et al, since the composition recited in claim 11 is anticipated by Goddard et al.
Regarding claim 17, Goddard et al disclose a stainless-steel reactor in Paragraph [0043].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard et al. Goddard et al is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 4, Goddard et al disclose fatty alkylamines as corrosion inhibitors in Paragraph [0038]. It would have been obvious to provide the fatty amines as recited in applicant’s claim 4 as such fatty amines.
Regarding claim 5, Goddard et al disclose glycol ethers as solvents in Paragraph [0036]. It would have been obvious to provide the glycol ethers as recited in claim 5 as such glycol ethers.
Claims 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard et al as applied to claims 8, 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Cassidy et al (US 2011/0155959).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to provide butyl cellosolve as the solvent in the composition of Goddard et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Cassidy et al disclose butyl cellosolve as a solvent for nitrification inhibitors in Paragraph [0024], and Goddard et al suggest ion Paragraph [0036] that any solvent suitable for corrosion inhibitors can be used, Also regarding claim 9, Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0033] that alkanolamines can be used as the neutralizing compound.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been further obvious from Cassidy to employ propylene glycol 3350 as a solvent for the composition of Goddard et al, since Cassidy et al disclose polyethylene glycol as a solvent for corrosion inhibitors in Paragraph [0024] and Goddard et al suggest ion Paragraph [0036] that any solvent suitable for corrosion inhibitors can be used,
Claims 23, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave et al (US 2016/0332930) in view of Goddard et al. Dave et al disclose a non-corrosive nitrification inhibitor polar solvent formulation comprising nitrapyrin as the inhibitor. (See the Abstract and Paragraph [0006].) The differences between the method disclosed by Dave et al, and that recited in claims 23, 26 and 29, are that Dave et al do not disclose a corrosion inhibitor as recited in applicant’s claim 1, and that the mild surface comprises mild steel or aluminum. Goddard et al disclose a corrosion inhibitor formulation comprising 4-40 % of a neutralizing amine such as ammonia or morpholine and 0-20% of a film-forming amine, and glycol ether as the solvent. (See Paragraphs [0024] through [0028], and [0036].) Cassidy et al disclose polar solvents such as propylene glycol as a suitable solvent for corrosion inhibitors in Paragraph [0024].) It would have been obvious from Goddard et al to employ the corrosion inhibitor of Goddard et al to reduce corrosion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Dave et al suggest in Paragraph [0007] that the liquid formulations should exhibit relatively non-corrosive properties to make then suitable for use in metal storage tanks and metal application equipment, and Goddard et al teach in Paragraph [0023] that the inhibitors can provide protection against corrosion to metals. It would have been further obvious from Goddard et al to employ low carbon steel in the equipment of Dave et al, since Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0043] that a stainless steel reactor was used.
Regarding claim 26, Goddard et al disclose in Paragraph [0047] that the mixture was heated to 60 C and then cooled to room temperature. Such disclose would suggest a temperature of about 40 C for contacting the metal surfaces.
Regarding claim 29, the property recited therein would be inherent in the formulation of Goddard et al, since the corrosion inhibitor recited in applicant’s claim 1 is disclosed by Goddard et al.
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 11, 12, 16, 17, 23, 26 and 29 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.
In claim 11, it is indefinite as to whether the “organic solvent” is required to be in addition to the solvents recited in claim 1, or whether they could be the same.
Claims 12, 16 and 17 are also rejected, since they depend from claim 11 but fail to remedy the objection to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the terms Agnique AMD3L, and Rhodiasol PolarClean are indefiniote since they are trademarks and therefor represent the source of the goods, rather than their compositions.
In claims 23, 26 and 29, there is no antecedent basis for “the noncorrosive nitrapyrin formulation”.
Conclusion
,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights