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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04 January 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The cited foreign patent document has 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 1-16 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.
With regard to claim 1, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by capitalization of “Soil Absorption System” because it is unclear what structure, if any, is intended to be encompassed by the limitation. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean --soil absorption system--.
Claims 8 and 9 are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-7 and 10-16 are rejected as depending from one of claims 1, 8 and 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 2007/0092338 A1) in view of Bass, III et al. (US 2012/0269573 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Nordhoff ‘338 (“Nordhoff”) discloses a soil absorption system comprising:
an elongate water dispersion trench (11) cut into a surface and filled with dispersal media (17), the trench being about 6 inches wide (“commonly…6-18 inches wide,” ¶0046), about 4-48 inches deep (“commonly about 6-18 inches deep,” ¶0046).
Nordhoff fails to teach more than one dispersion trench. Bass, III et al. ‘573 (“Bass”) shows multiple embodiments of a soil absorption system, at least one of which comprises a plurality of laterally spaced elongate water dispersion trenches (920, 1120) filled with dispersal media (¶0052) that provide increased lateral water dispersion surface area relative to the lateral trench direction (Figs. 9, 11, 18 and 19). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the soil absorption system of Nordhoff with the addition of at least one laterally spaced water dispersion trench (Bass, 920, 1120), as suggested by Bass. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for increasing the rate of soil absorption, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Although Bass fails to disclose spacing between the trenches (920, 1120) in the range of 3-24 inches, the prior art does teach “The…spacing may depend on the grade, the average rainfall, the maximum rainfall recorded, the banking, and the length of the grade” (¶0052). Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spaced the water dispersion trenches (Nordhoff, 11; Bass, 920, 1120) between 3 inches and 24 inches in light of the fact that spacing is site-specific and correlated with a desired rate of absorption. The motivation for selecting spacing in the range of 3 inches to 6 inches would have been to reduce the flood risk for a site by constructing a soil absorption system capable of accommodating maximum rainfall, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claims 2-4, while neither Nordhoff nor Bass teaches expressly a trench less than 6 inches wide, Bass discloses several factors affecting the design width of a water dispersion trench, including site topography, slope and soil characteristics (¶0038). Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made width of each trench between 1 inch and 3 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for making the modification would have been to dimension each trench to accommodate expected rainfall events at a specific site, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, every foot in the lateral direction of the trenches in the SAS includes at least two trenches (Nordhoff, 11; e.g., two 3in. wide trenches spaced apart 6in.).
With regard to claim 6, the system of Nordhoff and Bass further comprises dispersal media (Bass, 910, Fig. 9) positioned between and interconnecting the at least two elongate water dispersion trenches (Bass, 920) together.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, the at least two elongate water dispenser trenches include at least two longitudinal trenches and at least two transverse trenches that are transverse to and connect to the longitudinal trenches (Bass, Figs. 18 and 19).
With regard to claim 8, the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address claim 5.
With regard to claim 9, the method steps are inherent to use of the system taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address the limitations of claim 1.
With regard to claims 10-12, the method steps are inherent to use of the system taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address the limitations of claims 2-4.
With regard to claim 13, the method steps are inherent to use of the system taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address the limitations of claims 5.
With regard to claim 15, the method steps are inherent to use of the system taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address the limitations of claim 6.
With regard to claim 16, the method steps are inherent to use of the system taught by the combination of Nordhoff and Bass, as applied above to address the limitations of claim 7.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 2007/0092338 A1) in view of Bass, III et al. (US 2012/0269573 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Booth (US 308,741 A).
With regard to claim 14, neither Nordhoff nor Bass discloses the step of cutting the trenches with a rotary and/or chain cutting blade. Booth teaches the use of a rotary cutting blade for forming elongate water dispersion trenches (p. 1, ll. 8-14). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art method such that the step of cutting the trenches would have included use of a rotary cutting blade, as suggested by Booth. The motivation for making the modification would have been to use a device capable of forming trenches at various depths, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Best Practices Manual shows a soil absorption system (Fig. 6.4-3) and teaches best management practices for installation.
Donlin (US 8,104,994 B1) discloses a “subsoil fluid absorption system” (abstract, and throughout) comprising a plurality of laterally spaced, elongate water dispersion devices (14, Figs. 16A and 16B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
25 September 2025