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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 2/17/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 16, 17, 19-23, 25-33 are pending.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 15-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (US2009/0082535).is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nakano et al. (US2009/0082535).is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfano et al. (US 5,368,830) in view of Nakano et al. (US2009/0082535).is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/069, 295 is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2026 has been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 27-33 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 27-33 are directed to a scale inhibitor composition, which comprises an acrylic acid polymer having the formula recited. These claims are distinct and independent from the previously presented claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 16, 17, 19-23, 25-26 because the previously claims do not require the formula recited in claim 26, or the formula cited in claims 27 and 32 does not necessary require to be of an aqueous polymerization reaction product of claim 1. There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited in show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown io have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art maybe shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions) (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses of electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (Macromol. React. Eng. 2019, 13, 1900007) as applied above, in view of S.C. de Morais et al. (Desalination 491 (2020) 114548) and Li et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 618 (2022) 507-517).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 23 and 25-26, Gutierrez discloses a composition for inhibiting the deposition of calcium carbonate, the composition comprising: an aqueous polymerization reaction product of an acrylic acid (AA) and a chain transfer agent comprises a bisulfite (sodium metabisulfite NaMBS), the reaction product comprising an acrylic acid polymer having a weight averaged molecular weight (Mw) of about 3,400 Da (example ES4, Table 2). The aqueous polymerization reaction is carried out in the absence of a phosphorus compound and a mercapto chain transfer agent. See Experimental section and Results and Discussions. The weight averaged molecular weight (Mw) of Gutierrez’s polymer is close to the claimed range. Gutierrez also discloses that further increment of NaMBS concentrations ([NaMBS]) in ES3 and ES4 produced extra reduction of Mn and Mw (Results and Discussions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adjust amount of NaMBS, such that it falls in the claimed range, in order to produce the polymer having the claimed Mw, and in the absence of new or unexpected results that are fully commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and for which objective evidence is offered across the entire ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The law also held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Gutierrez does not disclose the composition further comprises inorganic phosphate and/or organic phosphonate as claimed. S.C. de Morais discloses sodium hexametaphosphate as calcium carbonate scale inhibitor (abstract). Li discloses sodium hexametaphosphate, 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid, and diethylenetriamine penta(methylene phosphonic acid) are calcium carbonate scale inhibitor, used to interfere with the precipitation and scaling of calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is achieved through its chelating interaction with calcium ions (abstract). Sodium hexametaphosphate reads on the claimed chelant recited in claim 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to add sodium hexametaphosphate, 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid, and/or diethylenetriamine penta(methylene phosphonic acid) to the scale inhibitor composition of Gutierrez, in order to not only inhibit the formation of CaCO₃ precipitates but also remove existing scales efficiently in water treatment systems, as suggested by S.C. de Morais and Li (see the conclusions). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Also see MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 16, 17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfano et al. (US 5,368,830) in view of Gutierrez et al. (Macromol. React. Eng. 2019, 13, 1900007), S.C. de Morais et al. (Desalination 491 (2020) 114548) and Li et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 618 (2022) 507-517).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Alfano discloses a method for inhibiting the formation, deposition and adherence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) scale deposits, on various metallic, activated carbon and other surfaces of aqueous systems in a mining operation (abstract, col 1, ln 9-25), the method comprising adding a deposit control agent to the aqueous systems being treated, wherein the aqueous systems have a pH of at least 10 (claim 1). Alfano does not disclose the claimed scale inhibitor composition. Gutierrez in view of S.C. de Morais and Li discloses a composition for inhibiting the deposition of calcium carbonate, which comprise an acrylic acid polymer as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. These polymers show good activity over a wide range of pH, water hardness, and temperature conditions. When combining with inorganic phosphate and/or organic phosphonate, the scale inhibitor composition only inhibits the formation of CaCO₃ precipitates but also remove existing scales efficiently in water treatment systems, as suggested by S.C. de Morais and Li (see the conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to replace or add in addition to the deposit control agent in the method of Alfano with the scale inhibitor composition of Gutierrez in view of S.C. de Morais and Li, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of preventing deposition of a scale component were reasonably predictable. Simple substitution of one known reducing agent for another reducing agent would achieve the predictable result of reducing the metal compound. Moreover, case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Also see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 17, Gutierrez disclose the scale composition is added in an amount of 1 and 5 mg/ L (page 7). Alfano discloses that many factors will determine the actual amount of the deposit control agent, which will be added to any particular aqueous system in order to achieve the maximum amount of inhibition of alkaline earth metal, especially calcium carbonate scale formation, deposition and adherence in that aqueous system. The calculation of those amounts is well within the skill of the artisan in this field (col 10, ln 21-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine an amount of the deposit control agent, such that it falls within the claimed range of 2 to 12 ppm in order to achieve the maximum amount of inhibition of alkaline earth metal, especially calcium carbonate scale formation, deposition and adherence in that aqueous system, and in the absence of new or unexpected results that are fully commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and for which objective evidence is offered across the entire ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Alfano discloses a method occurring in gold and silver mining involving the cyanidation process which utilizes heap and vat leaching (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Alfano does not disclose the water system contains calcium ions at least 1000 ppm. However, Alfano also discloses the process water of gold and silver mining involving the cyanidation process which utilizes heap and vat leaching as in the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expect the calcium ions at least 1000 ppm would be inherently presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new of ground of rejection does not apply to matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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 on 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights