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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1a and 2m (claims 1,2,3,5, and 27) in the reply filed on 16 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not provided a detailed showing1 of…divergent search fields” . This is not found persuasive because the different search queries are self-evident in the recited species: “saw dust” or “sawdust” (species 1a) is plainly a different search query from “ash” and “biochar” (species 1o and 1p); similarly “elevating” or “lifting” or “raising” (1m) is different from “seismic” or “earthquake” (1n).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 6-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 16 July.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1, 2, 3, and 5 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.
IN claim 1 (and 2,3, and 5 by dependency) the limitation “resuspending a portion” is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim requires settling of the material (“resuspending” implies that some material has fallen out of suspension). Does this claim language exclude processes in which the material is never allowed to settle?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,2,3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US20040129460 MacQuoid which described a process for altering characteristics of ground (i.e. the characteristic of fluid permeability) including the steps of preparing a lignocellulosic material ( coconut coir); suspending in a slurry (¶0041); creating movement (“pumped” -¶026) including resuspending (i.e. keeping suspended or resuspending is inherent in pumping or else the pump would clog.) and injecting below ground as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-3: Examiner finds the coconut coir of MacQuoid to be substantially the same as the disclosed “milled coconut shells and husks” and thus to inherently meet the claimed buoyant force of +/- 0.2 g/cc or less as required by claim 2 and the intrinsic particle density of 0.8-1.2 g/cc as required by claim 3
Regarding claim 5: the coconut coir plainly meets at least the “plant material” limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germanovich2 in view of WO2016163893 and Zoveidavianpoor3.
Germanovich described a method of injection of material including selecting a suitable location (abstract—“New Orleans”; figure 3; figure 5 “Venice”) accomplishing elevation documentation (this is implicit in the described ”lift ground elevations” --abstract); determining a desired depth (e.g. p3232 third paragraph “100 m”; fig 5 “10 m”) desired orientation (“horizontal, a favourable orientation” p3229 penultimate paragraph) determining a location (e.g. fig 5c); creating an injection well (“boreholes” fig 5); creating aperture (“ Fracture propagation creates a broad, thin opening “ p3227 penultimate paragraph) and injecting material by aqueous slurry (abstract).
Germanovich lacks the step of placing surface elevation and inclination change sensors; also, as recognized by Applicant, Germanovich injects sediment and thus lacks the lignocellulosic material.
Regarding the lignocellulosic material: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sediment injected in the Germanovich process is a proppant (p3227, 2a, both paragraphs, also p3254, line 3).
Zoveidavianpoor 4 described agro-waste proppant including lignocellulosic material (abstract: walnut hull coconut shell) and teaches that the use of agro-waste (i.e. lignocellulosic material) is advantageous because, inter alia, it is a renewable resource (1). Zoveidavianpoor also teaches that the use of low density matieral (i.e. lignocellulosic material such as coconut shell) is advantageous for decreased cost (3.1.4) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to inject lignocellulosic material, such as coconut shell, in place of -or in addition to-the sediment thereby modifying the process of Germanovich in order to achieve lower cost and/or to use a renewable resource for environmental reasons.
Regarding the placing surface elevation and inclination change sensors: WO20161638935 described placing elevation and inclination change sensors on a surface to measure uplift. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Germanovich describes measuring of uplift, but does not describe a method for such measurement. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have turned to known methods of measuring uplift, and thus to WO2016163893, and therefore to have further modified Germanovich to have included the placing surface elevation and inclination change sensors as claimed.
Therefore claim 27 is unpatentable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 Different classification and divergent status in the art were not cited by Examiner as reasons for restriction
2 Injection of solids to lift coastal areas Leonid N. Germanovich and Lawrence C. Murdoch Published:28 May 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A (2010) 466, 3225–3252doi:10.1098/rspa.2010.0033
3 Characterization of agro-waste resources for potential use as proppant
in hydraulic fracturing Mansoor Zoveidavianpoor a, b, c, *, Abdollatif Gharibi Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Volume 36, Part A, 2016, Pages 679-691, ISSN 1875-5100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.10.045.
4 Analogous art because it is concerned with hydraulic fracturing proppants.
5 Analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of measuring subsidence and uplift