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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
On line 3 of claim 1, “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent” is a sentence fragment and should recite “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is organic,” as similarly recited in independent claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution: reduces an oxygen concentration within the wellbore to below 1 parts-per-million (ppm).” The term “below 1 parts-per-million (ppm)” is indefinite in that, since it includes zero ppm, it is unclear as to how a wellbore comprising oxygen can be made to then contain absolutely no oxygen. Furthermore, no original value has been claimed and so it is unclear as to how a wellbore comprising, for example, 0.5 ppm can be “reduced” to comprising a higher amount, such as 0.9 ppm (both fall within the claimed range). Moreover, it is unclear if the “oxygen concentration” level is referring to an oxygen level of a fluid in the wellbore (e.g. the corrosion-inhibiting solution) or an oxygen level of an open space of the wellbore itself. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “reduces an oxygen concentration within the wellbore to below 1 parts-per-million (ppm)” will be considered as if written as of “reduces [[an]] a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore
Claims 2-12, dependent upon claim 1, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution… comprises a corrosion rate of equal to or less than 0.02 lb/ft2.” The term “less than 0.02 lb/ft2” is indefinite in that, since it includes zero lb/ft2, it is unclear as to how something undergoing corrosion can have a corrosion rate of zero, since that means there is effectively no corrosion. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how a corrosion-inhibiting solution can have a corrosion rate at all; a corrosion-inhibiting solution affects the corrosion rate of something else, not itself. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “comprises a corrosion rate of equal to or less than 0.02 lb/ft2” will be considered as if written as of “reduces a corrosion rate of the metal infrastructure [[equal]] to 2.” (See paragraph [0082] in the Specification.)
Claims 2-12, dependent upon claim 1, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “determining an amount of the corrosion-inhibiting to achieve a concentration of the corrosion-inhibiting agent… within a range from 100 ppm to 300ppm.” The term “determining an amount of the corrosion-inhibiting” is indefinite in that it is unclear as to how an amount of corrosion inhibition could affect the concentration of corrosion-inhibiting agent. That is to say, it appears the cause and effect is backwards; the amount of corrosion-inhibiting agent determines the amount of corrosion inhibition. For purposes of examination, the term “determining an amount of the corrosion-inhibiting to achieve” will be considered as if written as “achieving.”
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation “injecting an activator into the wellbore within an injection timeframe of injection of the corrosion-inhibiting agent.” The term “within an injection timeframe” is indefinite in that it is unclear as to what exactly constitutes an injection timeframe. That is to say, the metes and bounds of what is considered a “timeframe” have not been defined. An injection timeframe might mean an activator is injected whilst the corrosion-inhibiting agent is injected, immediately after the corrosion-inhibiting agent injection is stopped, immediately before the corrosion-inhibiting agent injection, a decade before any injection, or even a century after any injection. For purposes of examination, the term “within an injection timeframe of injection of the corrosion-inhibiting agent” will be considered as if removed.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “determining, by the control system, an injection timeframe for injecting an activator.” The term “an injection timeframe” is indefinite in that it is unclear as to what exactly constitutes an injection timeframe. That is to say, the metes and bounds of what is considered a “timeframe” have not been defined. An injection timeframe might mean an activator is injected whilst the corrosion-inhibiting agent is injected, immediately after the corrosion-inhibiting agent injection is stopped, immediately before the corrosion-inhibiting agent injection, a decade before any injection, or even a century after any injection. For purposes of examination, the term “an injection timeframe” will be considered as if written as “a time.”
Claims 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…reduces a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore to or less than 1 ppm.” The term “less than 1 ppm” is indefinite in that, since it includes zero ppm, it is unclear as to how a wellbore comprising oxygen can be made to then contain absolutely no oxygen. Furthermore, no original value has been claimed and so it is unclear as to how a wellbore comprising, for example, 0.5 ppm can be “reduced” to comprising a higher amount, such as 0.9 ppm (both fall within the claimed range). For purposes of examination, the limitation of “reduces a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore to
Claims 14-20, dependent upon claim 13, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a solvent suitable for injection into a wellbore.” The term “suitable for” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to by which metric a solvent might be considered “suitable.” For purposes of examination, the term “suitable” will be considered as if removed.
Claims 14-20, dependent upon claim 13, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution… comprises a corrosion rate at or less than 0.02 lb/ft2.” The term “less than 0.02 lb/ft2” is indefinite in that, since it includes zero lb/ft2, it is unclear as to how something undergoing corrosion can have a corrosion rate of zero, since that means there is effectively no corrosion. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how a corrosion-inhibiting solution can have a corrosion rate at all; a corrosion-inhibiting solution affects the corrosion rate of something else, not itself. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “comprises a corrosion rate at or less than 0.02 lb/ft2” will be considered as if written as of “reduces a corrosion rate of the metal infrastructure to 0.02 lb/ft2.” (See paragraph [0082] in the Specification.)
Claim 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution… reduces dissolved oxygen concentration within the wellbore by 90%...” It is unclear if the “oxygen concentration” level is referring to an oxygen level of a fluid in the wellbore (e.g. the corrosion-inhibiting solution) or an oxygen level of an open space of the wellbore itself. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “reduces dissolved oxygen concentration within the wellbore by 90%...” will be considered as if written as “reduces a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore by 90%...” (See paragraph [0138] in the Specification and independent claim 13.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13, upon which claim 18 depends, recites wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is organic. As such, claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mesher et al. (US 2010/0099584).
With respect to independent claim 1, Mesher discloses a method for inhibiting corrosion of metal infrastructure within a wellbore (Abstract, [0014], and [0020]), the method comprising:
providing a corrosion-inhibiting agent, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is organic (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]);
dissolving the corrosion-inhibiting agent in a solvent to form a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract and [0015]); and
injecting the corrosion-inhibiting solution into a wellbore ([0012]-[0014] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 1, Mesher discloses a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]). Since Mesher discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if injected into a wellbore, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would reduce a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore to 1 parts-per-million (ppm) and reduce a corrosion rate of the metal infrastructure to 0.02 lb/ft2. If there is any difference between the composition of Mesher and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). With respect to depending claim 2, Mesher discloses wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent may be ascorbic acid ([0021]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the corrosion-inhibiting agent.
With respect to depending claim 3, Mesher discloses selecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent to prevent destructive forces to metal infrastructure due to the acid employed during a method of acidizing a formation (Abstract, [0014], and [0020]). Although silent to wherein the selection is based upon “a pKa value of the corrosion-inhibiting agent,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the acidity level of a component during a method of acidizing and arrive at one with a suitable pKa value, as it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Regarding the limitation of “wherein the pKa value… activates the corrosion-inhibiting agent,” Since Mesher discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if injected into a wellbore, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would be activated by the pKa value in a neutral wellbore environment. If there is any difference between the composition of Mesher and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
With respect to depending claim 4, Mesher discloses wherein providing the corrosion-inhibiting agent comprising: selecting a corrosion-inhibiting agent based on one or more wellbore factors (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]); and achieving a concentration of the corrosion-inhibiting agent in the corrosion-inhibiting solution in an amount of less than 10% by weight (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Mesher discloses achieving a concentration of the corrosion-inhibiting agent in the corrosion-inhibiting solution in an amount of less than 10% by weight (Abstract). Although silent to wherein the amount of corrosion-inhibiting agent in the corrosion-inhibiting solution is “within a range from 100 ppm to 300 ppm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for an amount of corrosion-inhibiting agent as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 5, Mesher discloses wherein the method further comprises injecting an activator into the wellbore (Abstract).
With respect to depending claim 6, Mesher discloses wherein the method further comprises injecting an activator into the wellbore (Abstract; “intensifier”). Inasmuch as Mesher discloses the injection of a corrosion-inhibiting agent, a solvent, and an activator, the act of injecting one or the other in any order amounts to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of possible and predictable solutions, as it has been taught "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR at 1397 Furthermore, the claim merely recites wherein a time for injection is determined; inasmuch as no metric for making such a determination has been claimed other than its relation to a different injection time, this again amounts to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of possible and predictable solutions, as it has been taught "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR at 1397
With respect to depending claim 7, Mesher discloses wherein injecting the corrosion-inhibiting solution into the wellbore comprises injecting the corrosion-inhibiting solution into the wellbore at an injection pressure, wherein the injection pressure is equal to or greater than a wellbore pressure ([0013]). With respect to depending claim 9, Mesher discloses wherein the solvent may be methanol, water, or an alcohol ([0025]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the solvent.
With respect to depending claim 10, Mesher discloses wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is a sulfur-free compound (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]).
With respect to depending claims 11 and 12, Mesher discloses wherein the wellbore comprises tubing, a casing, and an annulus formed between the tubing and the casing, and injecting the corrosion-inhibiting solution into the wellbore (Abstract and [0020]). Inasmuch as Mesher discloses injecting the corrosion-inhibiting solution into a wellbore and the wellbore comprises tubing, casing, and annulus therebetween, the act of injecting into the tubing or into the annulus amounts to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of possible and predictable solutions, as it has been taught "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR at 1397
With respect to independent claim 13, Mesher discloses a system for inhibiting corrosion of metal infrastructure within an upstream oil system, wherein the upstream oil system comprises a wellbore (Abstract, [0014], and [0020]), the system comprising:
a corrosion-inhibiting agent, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is organic (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]);
a solvent for injection into a wellbore (Abstract and [0015]), wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent is dissolved in the solvent to form a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Mesher discloses a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]). Since Mesher discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if injected into a wellbore, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would reduce a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore to 1 ppm. If there is any difference between the composition of Mesher and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
With respect to depending claim 14, Mesher discloses wherein the corrosion-inhibiting agent may be ascorbic acid ([0021]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the corrosion-inhibiting agent.
With respect to depending claim 15, Mesher discloses a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]). Since Mesher discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if injected into a wellbore, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would reduce a corrosion rate of the metal infrastructure to 0.02 lb/ft2. If there is any difference between the composition of Mesher and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). With respect to depending claim 16, Mesher discloses achieving a concentration of the corrosion-inhibiting agent in the corrosion-inhibiting solution in an amount of less than 10% by weight (Abstract). Although silent to wherein the amount of corrosion-inhibiting agent in the corrosion-inhibiting solution ranges “from 100 ppm to 200 ppm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for an amount of corrosion-inhibiting agent as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 17, Mesher discloses a corrosion-inhibiting solution (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]). Since Mesher discloses the same composition as claimed, the material, if injected into a wellbore, would naturally act in the same manner as claimed, i.e., it would reduce a dissolved oxygen concentration of fluids within the wellbore by 90% in less than 20 minutes from injection. If there is any difference between the composition of Mesher and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because it has been held "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
With respect to depending claim 18, Mesher discloses wherein the corrosion inhibiting agent is an organic compound (Abstract, [0015], and [0021]).
With respect to depending claim 20, Mesher discloses wherein the system further comprises one or more film-forming corrosion inhibitor ([0020]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mesher et al. (US 2010/0099584- cited above) in view of Evans et al. (US 2011/0100630).
With respect to depending claims 8 and 19, Mesher discloses wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution may comprise an activator (Abstract; “intensifier”). However, Mesher fails to expressly disclose wherein the activator may be one of those instantly claimed. Evans teaches a corrosion-inhibiting solution wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution may comprise an activator and the activator may comprise copper(II) chloride (Abstract and [0018]). Replacing the activator disclosed by Mesher with the activator taught by Evans is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent activator for another, performing the same function for the same purpose. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this simple substitution as it has been held “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Son et al. (US 4,539,122) teaches a method for inhibiting corrosion comprising providing a corrosion-inhibiting agent and solvent, wherein the corrosion-inhibiting solution reduces an oxygen concentration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674