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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 08/13/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are presently pending; claim 12 is canceled; claims 1-3 and 13-14 are amended; claims 4-11 and 13-15 were withdrawn but are rejoined herein so that claims 1-11 and 13-15 are under examination.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3 over GAO in view of HUANG, NI, NIXON and GUO is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 4-11 and 13-15, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/06/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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 Interpretation
The recitation of “for a 690 MPa-grade weather-resistant bridge steel member” as recited in claims 1-3 (see claim 1 at lines 1-4 and claims 2-3 each at lines 1-2) is merely a recitation of an intended use of the stabilization treatment liquid rather than being a limitation directed toward the liquid itself, and is therefore not treated as limiting the treatment liquid of claims 1-3. Any composition as claimed by claims 1-3 would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used on a 690 MPa-grade weather-resistant bridge steel member. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present
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 4-11 and 13-15 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 4 recites the limitation “the surface” and claim 15 recites the limitation “the surface” once and “the member surface” twice (see claim 4 at line 12 and claim 15 at lines 2-4); this language renders the scopes of the claims indefinite as claim 4 (from which claim 15 depends) positively recites “Sandblasting a surface” (see claim 4 at line 4) and “spray the treatment liquid onto a side surface, a top surface, and a bottom surface” (see claim 4 at lines 6-7), so it is not clear whether “the surface” and “the member surface” is meant to refer to the previously recited sandblasted surface, side surface, top surface, bottom surface, or to some combination or all of the aforementioned surfaces. It is also unclear whether the “a surface” that is sandblasted is meant to be the same surface as the three separate surfaces (side, top and bottom) to which the treatment liquid is subsequently sprayed. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the accumulated liquid” (see claim 8 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 4, from which claim 8 depends, positively recites “an accumulated fluid”, but does not recite an “accumulated liquid”.
Claims 5-7, 9-11 and 13-14 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
Claims 4-11 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have considered it obvious to make the stabilization treatment liquid consisting of only the recited components as claimed.
The present claims are allowable over the closest prior art, Gao, et al. (CN-106835092-A) (hereinafter, “GAO”), Huang, et al. (CN-103924231-A) (hereinafter, “HUANG”), Nixon, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0120357-A1) (hereinafter, “NIXON”); and Guo, et al. (CN-113652680-A) (hereinafter, “GUO”) (citations to all CN references herein refer to the machine translations provided with a previous office action), for the following reasons:
GAO discloses a stabilization treatment liquid (see GAO at Abstract), wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises a corrodent which consists of a metal chloride and sodium bisulfite (see GAO at paragraph 16) and a rust layer stabilizer which consists of chromium sulfate (see GAO at paragraphs 13 and 16); wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises by mass percentage:
0.1-3% metal chloride (NaCl) (see GAO at paragraph 13);
0.1-3% sodium bisulfite (see GAO at paragraph 13);
0.05-3% chromium sulfate (see GAO at paragraph 13);
and a balance of water (see GAO at paragraph 13).
However, GAO does not disclose or suggest:
that the metal chloride is ferric chloride;
that the rust layer stabilizer includes potassium permanganate which is present in an amount of 1-4%;
a humectant and a thickener, wherein the humectant is polypropylene glycol present in an amount of 1-2% and the thickener is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose present in an amount of 2-5%;
that the water is deionized water, or
that the treatment liquid consists of only the recited components (GAO requires additional components, e.g., CuSO4, FeSO4; see GAO at Abstract).
HUANG discloses a stabilization treatment liquid (see HUANG at Abstract), wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises a corrodent which consists of a ferric chloride and sodium bisulfite (see HUANG at Abstract) and a rust layer stabilizer (see HUANG at Abstract); wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises by mass percentage:
0.5-10% ferric chloride (see HUANG at Abstract);
0.5-10% sodium bisulfite (see HUANG at Abstract);
0.5-10% sulfate (Na2SO4) (see HUANG at paragraph 13);
and a balance of water (see HUANG at Abstract).
However, HUANG does not disclose or suggest:
that the sulfate is chromium sulfate (the treatment liquid of HUANG is chromium-free; see HUANG at Abstract);
that the rust layer stabilizer includes potassium permanganate which is present in an amount of 1-4%;
a humectant and a thickener, wherein the humectant is polypropylene glycol present in an amount of 1-2% and the thickener is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose present in an amount of 2-5%;
that the water is deionized water, or
that the treatment liquid consists of only the recited components (HUANG requires additional components, e.g., pyrophosphoric acid copper; see HUANG at Abstract).
NIXON discloses a stabilization treatment liquid (see NIXON at Abstract), wherein the stabilization treatment liquid may consist of a chloride (see NIXON at paragraphs [0013]-[0014]), chromium sulfate (see NIXON at paragraphs [0013]-[0014]), a humectant which is polypropylene glycol (see NIXON at paragraph [0026]), and a thickener which is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (see NIXON at paragraph [0026]); wherein the stabilization treatment liquid may consist of by mass percentage:
a chloride (CrCl3) (see NIXON at paragraph [0014]);
chromium sulfate (see NIXON at paragraph [0014]);
0.5-5% polypropylene glycol (see NIXON at paragraphs [0026]-[0029]);
0.5-5% sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (see NIXON at paragraphs [0026]-[0029]);
and a balance of water (see NIXON at paragraph [0030]).
However, NIXON does not disclose or suggest:
that the chloride is ferric chloride which is present in an amount of 3-7%;
sodium bisulfite which is present in an amount of 1-2%;
that the chromium sulfate is present in an amount of 3-6%;
potassium permanganate which is present in an amount of 1-4%;
that the water is deionized water.
GUO discloses a stabilization treatment liquid (see GUO at Abstract), wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises an iron compound and sodium bisulfite (see GUO at Abstract) and a rust layer stabilizer which consists of chromium sulfate (see GUO at Abstract); wherein the stabilization treatment liquid comprises by mass percentage:
an iron compound (Fe3O4) (see GUO at paragraph 13);
0.5-7% sodium bisulfite (see GUO at Abstract);
2.8-3.2% chromium sulfate (see GUO at Abstract);
and a balance of deionized water (see GUO at Abstract).
However, GUO does not disclose or suggest:
that the iron compound is ferric chloride and is present in an amount of 3-7%;
that the rust layer stabilizer includes potassium permanganate which is present in an amount of 1-4%;
a humectant and a thickener, wherein the humectant is polypropylene glycol present in an amount of 1-2% and the thickener is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose present in an amount of 2-5%;
that the treatment liquid consists of only the recited components (GUO requires additional components, e.g., CuSO4, Fe3O4; see GUO at Abstract).
Therefore, it is clear that GAO, HUANG, NIXON and GUO, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the present invention. The prior art as a whole fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at pg. 1-4, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 has been withdrawn.
However, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 4-11 and 13-15 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 Orlando can be reached on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
