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
Claims 5,8,9,11-15,20,23,24, and 26-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search or examination burden.
This is not found persuasive because a search of additional mutually exclusive features in patentably distinct inventions constitutes a burdensome search and examination. To establish burden of search, there are three criterions: The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In the instant case, the mutually exclusive characteristics require different search strategies or search queries relative to the different species, such as one example being, where the controller 110 (claims 11-15 and 26-30) as shown in Figure 2, is not depicted in Figure 1 for system 5. A different search query for “controller” (computer, plc) would be required.
Further see MPEP 809 regarding linking claims and section MPEP 821.04 for rejoinder of claims. Rejoinder of claims are permissible, as long as there is no overlapping of species, not originally supported in the specification at the time of filing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2025 and 5/20/2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/29/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,7,16,17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ghufaili et al. (US 20240117736).
Regarding claim 1, Ghufaili et al. disclose a system (see Fig. 2) for injecting corrosion inhibitor into a liquid piping system (102), comprising: a flow rate sensor (at 104, see para.0025, “flow rate”) configured to determine a flow rate of liquid entering the liquid piping system; and an injector (120) configured to inject corrosion inhibitor into the liquid piping system at an injection point in an amount which varies based on the flow rate determined by the flow rate sensor, the injector being disposed in a fluid passage (the passage of the pipe connected to tank 114 and piping 102) which is connected at a first end to a vessel (114) containing corrosion inhibitor (para. 0028) and at a second end to the injection point (the point being the end of the pipe connected to pipe 102 from the pump 120).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ghufaili et al. disclose a system the amount of corrosion inhibitor injected into the liquid piping system by the injector is an amount of corrosion inhibitor required to maintain a predetermined concentration of corrosion inhibitor in the liquid of the liquid piping system (para.0028. “to thereby selectively increase or decrease the inhibitor injection rate into pipe 102 as necessary to minimize corrosion in the oil and gas system component(s) and to thereby increase the piping components remaining life for instance, and to hence contribute to continuing asset integrity and to preventing loss of primary containment (LOPC) resulting from CO2 corrosion”).
Regarding claim 4, Ghufaili et al. disclose the injector injects the corrosion inhibitor into the liquid piping system at a controlled rate (para.0028. “to thereby selectively increase or decrease the inhibitor injection rate into pipe 102 as necessary to minimize corrosion in the oil and gas system component(s) and to thereby increase the piping components remaining life for instance, and to hence contribute to continuing asset integrity and to preventing loss of primary containment (LOPC) resulting from CO2 corrosion”), the controlled rate causing an even distribution of corrosion inhibitor in the liquid of the liquid piping system.
Regarding claim 7, Ghufaili et al. disclose the injector comprises a variable speed injection pump (120, para.0028, “for example a programmable circuit—operable to issue command signals to pump 120 to thereby selectively increase or decrease the inhibitor injection rate into pipe 102 as necessary to minimize corrosion in the oil and gas system component(s) and to thereby increase the piping components remaining life for instance”, therefore since there is only one pump and the injection rate is varied, the pump is considered as comprising a variable speed) disposed in the fluid passage (as shown in Fig. 2, the pump is located in this manner).
Regarding method claims 16,17, 19 and 22 the device shown by Ghufaili et al. will perform the methods as recited in claims 16,17, 19 and 22, during normal operational use of the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghufaili et al. (US 20240117736).
Regarding claim 3, Ghufaili et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that the predetermined concentration of corrosion inhibitor in the liquid of the liquid piping system is between 0.1 percent and 6 percent based on a total volume of liquid in the liquid piping system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the predetermined concentration of corrosion inhibitor in the liquid of the liquid piping system is between 0.1 percent and 6 percent based on a total volume of liquid in the liquid piping system, since, by routine optimization, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions (“between 0.1 percent and 6 percent based on a total volume of liquid in the liquid piping system”), or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Regarding method claim 18 the device shown by Ghufaili et al. will perform the methods as recited in claim 18, during normal operational use of the device.
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghufaili et al. (US 20240117736) in view of de Guevara (US 20110155255).
Regarding claim 6, Ghufaili et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that a quantity sensor configured to determine a quantity of corrosion inhibitor in the vessel; and an alarm which generates an alarm signal if the quantity of corrosion inhibitor determined by the quantity sensor is below a predetermined quantity.
de Guevara teach the use of a quantity sensor (34, see Fig. 1 below) configured to determine a quantity of corrosion inhibitor in the vessel; and an alarm which generates an alarm signal if the quantity of corrosion inhibitor determined by the quantity sensor is below a determined quantity (para.0060).
PNG
media_image2.png
713
1333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a quantity sensor with alarm as taught by de Guevara into the device of Ghufaili et al. to have a quantity sensor configured to determine a quantity of corrosion inhibitor in the vessel; and an alarm which generates an alarm signal if the quantity of corrosion inhibitor determined by the quantity sensor is below a predetermined quantity, in order to alert the operator of the system that the tank level is below a low reading and that the fluid in the tank needs to be replenished.
Regarding method claim 21, the device shown by Ghufaili et al. when combined with de Guevara will perform the methods as recited in claim 21, during normal operational use of the device.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghufaili et al. (US 20240117736) in view of Kristola (US 9261087).
Regarding claim 10, Ghufaili et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that a second flow rate sensor configured to determine a flow rate of corrosion inhibitor in the fluid passage, wherein the amount of corrosion inhibitor injected into the liquid piping system at the injection point is based on the flow rate determined by the flow rate sensor matching the flow rate of corrosion inhibitor determined by the second flow rate sensor.
Kristola teach the use of a second flow rate sensor (68) configured to determine a flow rate of corrosion inhibitor in the fluid passage, wherein the amount of corrosion inhibitor injected into the liquid piping system at the injection point is based on the flow rate determined by the flow rate sensor matching the flow rate of corrosion inhibitor determined by the second flow rate sensor.
PNG
media_image3.png
717
1259
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a second flow rate sensor as taught by Kristola into the device of Ghufaili et al. to have a second flow rate sensor configured to determine a flow rate of corrosion inhibitor in the fluid passage, wherein the amount of corrosion inhibitor injected into the liquid piping system at the injection point is based on the flow rate determined by the flow rate sensor matching the flow rate of corrosion inhibitor determined by the second flow rate sensor, in order to ensure the flow rate from the discharge side of the pump matches the desired flow rate from the first flow rate sensor (Kristola, col.6, lns. 16-24).
Regarding method claim 25, the device shown by Ghufaili et al. when combined with Kristola will perform the methods as recited in claim 21, during normal operational use of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights