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 .
The amendment dated 19 June 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s reply to the rule 105 requirement is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 lacks antecedent basis for the injection fluid.
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 (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 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, 5, 6, 8, 11, 17, 21, 22, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lewis WO2013116409.
Lewis describes injection remediation system (title, abstract) including reservoir 108 mixing tank 110 reservoir load sensor 607 dosing pump 107 and processor 606 configured to control the speed (¶0119) of the pump to provide a specified mass ratio based partly on weight information from the load sensor .
Regarding claim 2: plumbing lines 790.
Regarding claim 3: injection pump 780
Regarding claim 5: “hollow rod inserted into the subsurface” amounts to an injection head as claimed.
Regarding claim 6: ¶0120 “load cells” (plural)
Regarding claim 8: “trailer” ¶0094“truck” ¶0096
Regarding claim 11: ¶0076 “ratio, as measured by weight”
Regarding claim 17: Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide an explicit definition for controlling “to account for volume drift.” It is apparent that as the volume drifts the dosing/pumping based on weight/mass (as taught by Lewis) would inherently control to account for volume drift because the weight would be controlled.
Regarding claim 21: ¶0134.
Regarding claim 22: Lewis describes controlling the ratio based on the amount sourced (¶0019 ) and adjusting output of the pump. Although Lewis does not describe explicitly
the “determine a variance” one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that would be the implicit in “The controller 606 is configured to receive an input from one or more of the sensors and the scale and control the sorbent pump to provide a predetermined ratio of the sorbent and the one or more of liquid, gas, and other additives to the mixing tank.” And “controller including a processor configured to receive an input from the scale and control the sorbent pump to provide a predetermined ratio of the sorbent and the one or more of liquid, gas, and other additives to the mixing tank’ (page 32 last line)
Regarding claim 28: Lewis describes controlling the ratio based on the amount sourced (¶0019 ) and adjusting output of the pump. Although Lewis does not describe explicitly
the “initialize...at a first pump rate” one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this would have been inherent because a pump –when turned on—would inherently have a “rate” and regarding the determining a variance and adjusting would have been understood by one of ordinary skill to be implicit in “The controller 606 is configured to receive an input from one or more of the sensors and the scale and control the sorbent pump to provide a predetermined ratio of the sorbent and the one or more of liquid, gas, and other additives to the mixing tank.” And “controller including a processor configured to receive an input from the scale and control the sorbent pump to provide a predetermined ratio of the sorbent and the one or more of liquid, gas, and other additives to the mixing tank’ (page 32 last line)
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) 7, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis WO2013116409 in view of Mendel US4433917.
Lewis explicitly described adding to the mixing tank and mixing multiple components (¶0087) but lacks the additional reservoir, load sensor, and additional dosing pump as required by claim 7.
Mendel is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of mixing multiple components at a specified ratio. Mendel described additional reservoir 42/43 additional load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) and additional dosing [valve] and also the processor configured to control the additional dosing based on weight from the additional load sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “additional” features as being advantageous to control the ratio of multiple components.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the teaching in Mendel of additional reservoir, load sensor, and dosing controlled by the processor as called for in claim 7 in order to control the ratio of the added components described in ¶0087 of Lewis.
Regarding independent claim 26:
Lewis describes a vehicle (¶0094,96) injection remediation system (title, abstract) including reservoir 108 mixing tank 110 reservoir load sensor 607 dosing pump 107 and processor 606 configured to control the speed (¶0119) of the pump to provide a specified mass ratio based partly on weight information from the load sensor .
Lewis explicitly described adding to the mixing tank and mixing multiple components (¶0087) but lacks the second reservoir, load sensor, and second dosing pump as required by claim 26.
Mendel is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of mixing multiple components at a specified ratio. Mendel described second reservoir 42 second load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) and second dosing [valve] and also the processor configured to control the additional dosing based on weight from the additional load sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “second” features as being advantageous to control the ratio of multiple components.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the teaching in Mendel of second reservoir, load sensor, and dosing controlled by the processor as called for in claim 26 in order to control the ratio of the added components described in ¶0087 of Lewis.
Regarding independent claim 29:
Lewis describes an injection remediation system (title, abstract) including reservoir 108 reservoir load sensor 607 dosing pump 107 and processor 606 configured to control the speed (¶0119) of the pump to provide a specified mass ratio based partly on weight information from the load sensor .
Lewis explicitly described adding to the mixing tank and mixing multiple components (¶0087) but lacks the second reservoir and load sensor, as required by claim 29.
Mendel is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of mixing multiple components at a specified ratio. Mendel described second reservoir 42 second load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) and the processor configured to control the additional dosing based on weight from the additional load sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “second” features as being advantageous to control the ratio of multiple components.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the teaching in Mendel of second reservoir, load sensor, and dosing controlled by the processor as called for in claim 29 in order to control the ratio of the added components described in ¶0087 of Lewis.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 17, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4433917 Mendel in view of Handke US5452954
N.B. Examiner interprets “injection remediation” as intended use. There is no structure particular to injection remediation in these claims and Examiner finds that the structure of the cited prior art is identical to the claimed structure. In particular,
Mendel described a system including at least one reservoir 21/22/23; mixing tank 24 load sensor associated with reservoir (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) at least one dosing means 31/32/33 operably coupled to the reservoir and configured to controllably source the material to the mixing tank; and a processor 10 configured to control the speed of dosing provide a specified mass ratio (abstract) based at least partly on weight from the sensor.
Mendel describes dosing “means 31, 32, and 33 have been described as supply valves it will be obvious that other means of starting and cutting off the flow of an ingredient to the mixing tank may be appropriate and are also within the scope of the invention.” (col 3 line 5) and thus Mendel differs from the claimed invention in that Mendel lacks the dosing pump and controlling the speed of the dosing pump.
Examiner finds that substitution of a controllable pump for the dosing valve of Mendel would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Handke is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of automatic control of mixing fluid at a particular ratio [for injection]. Handke described dosing pumps 18a/18b/18c thus: “metering and conveying means 18a, 18b, etc. for the fluids 10 include centrifugal pumps, control valves, progressive cavity pumps and gear pumps” (col 6 line 44)
The prior art (Mendel) thus contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (valve) with other components (pump);
Handke showed the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; therefore claim 1 is unpatentable (KSR B)
regarding claim 2: Mendel illustrates plumbing lines between 21, 31, and 24 for example.
Regarding claim 3: see Handke at col. 13 line 29 which provides evidence that the pump(s) pressurize the fluid. Thus the proposed modification would inherently result in the pressurizing as claimed.
Regarding claim 6: Mendel describes a single load sensor with each reservoir, however Examiner finds that further modification to have a plurality of load sensors would have been an obvious duplication of parts. One might be motivated to do so based on the size of the reservoir, for example.
Regarding claim 7: Mendel describes the additional reservoir/load sensor/dosing[valve] and the processor controlling the additional dosing[valve]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the additional dosing valve to be a dosing pump for the same rationale as the first dosing valve.
Re claim 11: Mendel abstract, col. 2 line 15-22, col. 4 line 55-65 described determining the mass ratio based on weight information
Regarding claim 17: Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide an explicit definition for controlling “to account for volume drift.” It is apparent that as the volume drifts the dosing/pumping based on weight/mass (as taught by Mendel) would inherently control to account for volume drift because the weight would be controlled.
Regarding claim 21: the processor controlling the pump—as in the proposed modification of Mendel—would inherently also “control a volume output” because the output of the pump is a volume of fluid.
Regarding claim 22: Mendel col. 2 line 15-22 and abstract described the processor determining a variance from specified mass ratio and adjusting the output of the valve. The proposed modification –replacing the valve(s) with controllable pump(s)—would result in the claimed adjusting the output of the pump.
Regarding claim 28: the initializing at a first pump rate is an inherent result of the proposed modification because controllable pumps inherently pump at a rate and the rate when they are first turned on is inherently a first pump rate. The determining mass ratio based on weight information and determining a variance and adjusting (valves) based in the variance is disclosed by Mendel (col 4 line 50-65), and thus the proposed modification to replace the valves with pumps would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 26:
N.B. Examiner interprets “vehicle injection remediation” as intended use. There is no structure particular to vehicles or injection remediation in these claims and Examiner finds that the structure of the cited prior art is identical to the claimed structure. In particular,
Mendel described a system including first reservoir 21 load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) dosing means 31; second reservoir 22 load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) dosing means 32; mixing tank 24 coupled to the first and second dosing means and configured to mix; and a processor 10 configured to control the speed of dosing provide a specified mass ratio (abstract) based at least partly on weight from the wight information to maintain mass ratio (abstract).
Mendel describes dosing “means 31, 32, and 33 have been described as supply valves it will be obvious that other means of starting and cutting off the flow of an ingredient to the mixing tank may be appropriate and are also within the scope of the invention.” (col 3 line 5) and thus Mendel differs from the claimed invention in that Mendel lacks the dosing pumps and controlling the dosing pumps.
Examiner finds that substitution of a controllable pump for each dosing valve of Mendel would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Handke is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of automatic control of mixing fluid at a particular ratio [for injection]. Handke described dosing pumps 18a/18b/18c thus: “metering and conveying means 18a, 18b, etc. for the fluids 10 include centrifugal pumps, control valves, progressive cavity pumps and gear pumps” (col 6 line 44)
The prior art (Mendel) thus contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (valve) with other components (pump);
Handke showed the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; therefore claim 26 is unpatentable (KSR B)
Regarding independent claim 29:
N.B. Examiner interprets “injection remediation” as intended use. There is no structure particular to injection remediation in these claims and Examiner finds that the structure of the cited prior art is identical to the claimed structure. In particular,
Mendel described a system including first reservoir 21 load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8); second reservoir 22 load sensor (“Each tank is connected to gravimetric means for providing a monitoring signal indicative of the weight of the tank contents” col 2 line 8) dosing means 31/32; and a processor 10 configured to control the speed of dosing provide a specified mass ratio (abstract) based at least partly on weight from the wight information to maintain mass ratio (abstract).
Mendel describes dosing “means 31, 32, and 33 have been described as supply valves it will be obvious that other means of starting and cutting off the flow of an ingredient to the mixing tank may be appropriate and are also within the scope of the invention.” (col 3 line 5) and thus Mendel differs from the claimed invention in that Mendel lacks the dosing pumps and controlling the dosing pumps.
Examiner finds that substitution of a controllable pump for each dosing valve of Mendel would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Handke is analogous art because it is concerned with the problem of automatic control of mixing fluid at a particular ratio [for injection]. Handke described dosing pumps 18a/18b/18c thus: “metering and conveying means 18a, 18b, etc. for the fluids 10 include centrifugal pumps, control valves, progressive cavity pumps and gear pumps” (col 6 line 44)
The prior art (Mendel) thus contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (valve) with other components (pump);
Handke showed the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; therefore claim 29 is unpatentable (KSR B)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,17,21,22,23,26,28, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11738739 in view of Lewis WO2013116409 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because :
Instant claim 1 most closely corresponds to claim 12 of the patent, but the patent does not claim the mixing tank. Lewis-in the same filed of endeavor-describes an injection remediation system including mixing tank which one of ordinary skill in the art would be advantageous to facilitate injecting dry ingredients (i.e. by mixing with water). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified patent claim 12 to have included the mixing tank.
Instant claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22 , 23 are substantially identical to patent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17 respectively
Instant claim 12 adds the level sensor and density features called for in patent claim 1.
Instant claim 17 calls for control of the pump to account for volume drift, which is reasonably anticipated by claim 17 in the patent “adjust…pump to reconcile variance…volumetric ratio”
Instant claim 26 corresponds to patent claim 6 with the exception of the mixing tank, which is obvious as noted above.
The additional features of instant claim 28 are anticipated by patent claim 16 because the initializing at a first pump rate would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be inherent in pump starting.
Claims 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11738739. Claim 29 (which does not include the mixing tank) is anticipated by claim 6 of the patent.
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