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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) method steps used to measure corrosion wherein data is gathered and analyzed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 15 appears to simply be a processor which obtains measurement values (pre-solution data gathering) and then determines dosage based on a comparison (math and/or mental step). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of these steps can be performed by a simple processor or by a human with paper and a pencil. One could record data on paper and then make any necessary calculations to determine a proper dosage. Therefore, this amounts to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 15 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolari et al (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0000853) in view of Ilmora et al (U.S. PGPub # 2014/0343872).
Regarding Independent claim 15, Kolari teaches:
A system for monitoring vapor phase corrosion load in a paper or board manufacturing system (Paragraph 0029.) comprising:
i. at least one computing device comprising logic that executes an application to perform a method (Fig. 5 Element 10. Paragraph 0029.), the method comprising:
obtaining measurements from the paper or board manufacturing system regarding the estimated load of vapor phase corrosion over a time period (Paragraph 0029.); and
Kolari does not explicitly teach:
determining an adjustment dosage of an oxidizing biocide by comparing the obtained measurements to a threshold rH value.
Ilmora teaches:
determining an adjustment dosage of an oxidizing biocide by comparing the obtained measurements to a threshold rH value (Paragraph 0106.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Ilmora to the teachings of Kolari such that one would determine an adjustment dosage of an oxidizing biocide by comparing the obtained measurements to a threshold rH value because this is the preferred method according to Ilmora meaning it is well-known and reliable.
Regarding claim 18, Kolari & Ilmora teach all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Kolari teaches the computing device is configured to display an alert for measurements lower than a predefined threshold value (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 19, Kolari & Ilmora teach all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Kolari teaches an automated means for dosing the oxidizing biocide (Paragraph 0052).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 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: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 16, Kolari & Ilmora teach all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Kolari does not explicitly teach the logic that obtains measurements regarding the estimated load of vapor phase corrosion over a time period comprises calculating ΣΔ rH.
Regarding claim 17,
The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is configured to display an alert when determined rH value or cumulative sum of determined rH values are higher than the threshold value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858