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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Action of the instant application 18/352,445 (hereinafter the ‘448 application), filed 7/14/2023 and assigned to Battelle Memorial Institute.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et., U.S. Patent No. 7,031,838, hereinafter Young and Banki et., U.S. Publication No. 2002/0169589, hereinafter Banki.
With regard to claims 1 and 13, which teaches “A computer-implemented method for visualizing transport of ground contaminants in an aquifer,” Young teaches a computer implemented method and system for visualizing movement of ground contaminants (see column 37, lines 9-41).
With regard to claim 1, which teaches “the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors, a location and one or more aquifer properties from a user;” Young teaches receiving a location of interest (ROI) and location information of release points of contaminants in to the aquifer environment (see column 7, lines 8-19, column 8, lines 9-16, and column 9, line 42 through column 10, line 22).
With regard to claim 1, which teaches “receiving, by the one or more computer processors, one or more simulation parameters and one or more output parameters from the user;” Young further teaches the system receiving parameters to guide the modeling / simulation and further inputting the desired output the user wants to see (see column 11, lines 26-51).
With regard to claim 1, which teaches “performing, by the one or more computer processors, a transport simulation of the ground contaminants in the aquifer; and generating, by the one or more computer processors, one or more output visualizations of the transport of the ground contaminants in the aquifer”; Young further teaches producing 3D visualizations modeling environmental data and showing the extent of contaminant in the site (soil, groundwater, etc.) (see column 9, lines 29-40). Where the visualization is based upon the above provided input and selected output.
Young teaches the modeling based on characteristics of measured data, but is not specific simulation of future contamination. Banki teaches a system for evaluating a modeling contamination in an aquafer (see paragraph 2), similar to that of Young, but further specifically teaches simulation of subsurface flows of contaminants over time via transport phenomena (see paragraphs 4, 24-26, 35, and 36 and figure 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the visualization system of Young, enabling the user to see an output specific to selected parameters in a format desired, to show future predicted flow of the plume as did Banki, so as to better simulate future concerns and best mitigate pollution.
With regard to claim 2, which teaches “wherein the one or more output visualizations of the transport of the ground contaminants in the aquifer are three-dimensional (3D) visualizations”; <<< see claim 1, above rejection >>>
With regard to claim 3, which teaches “wherein the 3D visualizations include at least one of an interactive particle visualization for a chemical of interest and a graph of a concentration of the chemical of interest graphed over a time interval of the transport simulation”; Young further teaches a visualization including a graph of the concentration of a contaminant over time (see column 22, lines 13-29).
With regard to claim 4, which teaches “wherein the one or more aquifer properties include at least one of a grid specification to be used during the transport simulation, a fraction of organic carbon content, a porosity, a clay content, a bulk density, a depositional system, and a grain size distribution”; Young further teaches the aquifer / ground properties include porosity, bulk density, clay, etc. (see column 37, lines 9-23 and column 10, line 66 through column 11, line 9). Banki further teaches the aquifer properties including porosity, a grid specification for the site, etc. (see paragraphs 5 and 35).
With regard to claim 5, which teaches “wherein the one or more simulation parameters include at least one of, one or more chemicals of interest, one or more chemical properties, one or more sources, and one or more source zone properties”; Young further teaches the simulation / modeling being based upon a selected chemical of interest / contaminant of potential concern (COPC), the region of interest (ROI), the properties of the region, etc. (see column 9, line 30 through column 10, line 10).
With regard to claim 6, which teaches “wherein the one or more chemical properties include at least one of a solubility, a dissociation constant (Kd), a PFAS class, a polarity behavior, a molecular diffusion, and a pKa”; the described system of Young further teaches evaluating the a diffusion and break down of a chemical into the site specific soil composition (see column 9, line 29 through column 30, line 35 and column 14, lines 8-32). The combination clearly encompasses this classification of chemical, such as forever chemicals, as these are the exact types of chemicals these systems want to monitor and keep out of the water supply (see column 7, lines 30-54, column 14, lines 8-32, and column 37, lines 9-41). It further would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select this chemical type from the list of Young.
With regard to claim 7, which teaches “wherein the one or more source zone properties include at least one of a type of groundwater zone, a size of a source zone, one or more concentrations, a longitudinal distance, a lateral distance, a groundwater thickness, and a concentration range”; Young further teaches the properties of the the region of interest (ROI), include size, groundwater characteristics, etc. (see column 9, line 30 through column 10, line 10 and column 10, line 66 through column 11, line 9).
With regard to claim 8, which teaches “wherein: the one or more chemicals of interest are selected from a table; the user can filter the table using one or more displayed properties; and the user can sort the table by any of the one or more displayed properties”; Young further teaches enabling a user to select one or more chemicals from a list of chemicals to monitor while further enabling a popup list. Where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sort / filter this list by known means. (see column 6, lines 23-30 and column 29, lines 22-35)
With regard to claim 9, which teaches “wherein the location of the aquifer is an interactive 3D visualization showing a position of one or more layers, one or more sources, and one or more observation points of a source zone of the aquifer”; Young further teaches a layered representation of the earth area, each originating form a different source displaying different information which is able to be turn on to turned off to allow focus of the user on a area and scope of interest (see column 5, lines 33-47 and column 19, lines 5-38).
With regard to claim 10, which teaches “wherein the user selects the location of the aquifer using an interactive map”; Young further teaches presenting an interactive map where a user can select a scope of interest (contaminant, layer, area, etc.) (see column 19, lines 5-38).
With regard to claim 11, which teaches “wherein the interactive map is a geographic information system (GIS) map”; Young further teaches the map being a GIS map (see column 19, lines 5-38).
With regard to claim 12, which teaches “wherein the ground contaminants are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) ”; the combination clearly encompasses this classification of chemical, such as forever chemicals, which are the exact types of chemicals these systems want to monitor and keep out of the water supply (see column 7, lines 30-54, column 14, lines 8-32, and column 37, lines 9-41). It further would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select this chemical type from the list of Young.
With regard to claim 13, see claim 1 supra.
With regard to claim 14, see claim 2 supra.
With regard to claim 15, see claim 3 supra.
With regard to claim 16, see claims 4-7 supra.
With regard to claim 17, see claim 8 supra.
With regard to claim 18, see claim 9 supra.
With regard to claim 19, see claim 10 and 11 supra.
With regard to claim 20, see claim 12 supra.
Summary
Claims 1-20 are REJECTED.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chmakov et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0203521 and Whiffen, U.S. Patent No. 5,813,798.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights