DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10 are pending. 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numeral “100”, as shown in figure 1. Reference numeral “ 2 00”, as shown in figure 2 . FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information " \* MERGEFORMAT Reference numeral “ 3 00”, as shown in figure 3 . FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information " \* MERGEFORMAT Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “ A system for retarding the growth of biological organisms in piping by adding a metal structure to the piping , comprising: at least one pipe that allows a substance to pass through it; at least one metal structure made with a metal that has a biocidal property; wherein the at least one metal structure presses outward from its central axis such that it pushes out against the inner wall of the piping, keeping the at least one metal structure in place; and at least a portion of the at least one metal structure pushed against the inner wall of the at least one pipe is positioned such that at least a portion of the at least one metal structure is exposed to the inner area of the at least one pipe such that at least a portion of the substance passing through the at least one pipe may come in contact with at least a portion of the at least one metal structure .” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] choosing a metal structure that presses outward from its central axis such that it pushes out against the inner wall of the piping, keeping the at least one metal structure in place; [[ and ]] at least a portion of the at least one metal structure pushed against the inner wall of the piping; and ...”. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0002]: “[...] commonly including , but not limited to , PVC...”. Paragraph [0002]: “[...] water from [[and]] an air conditioner...”. Paragraph [000 3 ]: “[...] a variety of reasons, including , but not limited to : [[ its;]] the relatively ...”. See similar issue in at least paragraphs [0005-0007] Appropriate correction is required. 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 . Claim s 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of U.S. Patent N umber 11,959,579 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other . Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Examiner notes that the infusing of the “metal structure” to the “inner wall of the at least one pipe” , as taught by US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2 intrinsically indicates pressing/pushing the “metal structure” against the “inner wall of the at least one pipe” to a certain degree to achieve the end-result , as taught by the instant application. Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Examiner notes that the infusing of the “metal structure” to the “inner wall of the at least one pipe”, as taught by US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2 intrinsically indicates pressing/pushing the “metal structure” against the “inner wall of the at least one pipe” to a certain degree to achieve the end-result, as taught by the instant application. The following are substantial duplicates: Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 2 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2 . Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 3 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 4 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 6 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 7 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to the claim 8 of US Patent Number 11,959,579 B2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 (and, similarly claim 6) recites: “[...] at least a portion of the at least one metal structure pushed against the inner wall of the at least one pipe is positioned such that at least a portion of the at least one metal structure is exposed to the inner area of the at least one pipe such that at least a portion of the substance passing through the at least one pipe may come in contact with at least a portion of the at least one metal structure .” The instant specification only has support for “at least one or more metal structure” to be attached to a pipe (singular) , therefore lacking support for having “at least one or more metal structure” attached to a plurality of pipes (2 or more). “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V. Due to claims 1 and 6 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112( a ), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-10 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 matte r 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 1 (and, similarly claim 6) recites: “ A system for retarding the growth of biological organisms in piping by adding a metal structure to the piping , comprising: at least one pipe that allows a substance to pass through it; at least one metal structure made with a metal that has a biocidal property ...”. Examiner notes that the claim is confusing as to whether the “ at least one metal structure ” corresponds to the previously recited “metal structure” (singular), or if it is meant to be a new element. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the first interpretation. Due to claims 1 and 6 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected. 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- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “ Distilling ProDanssv8 ” (YouTube reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgsoO87mvQ4#:~:text=How%20to%20make%20a%20simple,to%20bond%20the%20pvc%20together | hereinafter “ DistillingProDanssv8 ”) . In regard to claim 1, DistillingProDanssv8 discloses: A system for retarding the growth of biological organisms in piping by adding a metal structure (i.e., copper, as shown /disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) to the piping ( as shown in the annotated screenshot below | Examiner notes that the preamble is being read as intended use and is given little patentable weight — see MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, given that DistillingProDanssv8 teaches the structure required by the claim, it is deemed that DistillingProDanssv8 has the capability retarding the growth of biological organisms ) , comprising: at least one pipe that allows (permits) a substance (i.e., gas, liquid, etc., such as, but not limited to, air, water, etc.) to pass through it ( as shown /disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) ; at least one metal structure made with a metal that has a biocidal property ( note 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection herein | furthermore, Examiner notes that “copper” is a commensurate metal biocidal property to that as defined in paragraph [0007] of the instant application ) ; wherein the at least one metal structure presses (urges) outward from its central axis (i.e., in light of the unwinding via a screwdriver) such that it pushes out against the inner wall of the piping, keeping the at least one metal structure in place (Examiner notes that once the “metal structure” is unwound within the pipe, gravity pushes on the “metal structure” to make contact with the interior of the pipe keeping it in a place, such as that shown /disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) ; and at least a portion of the at least one metal structure pushed against the inner wall of the at least one pipe is positioned such that at least a portion of the at least one metal structure is exposed to the inner area of the at least one pipe such that at least a portion of the substance passing through the at least one pipe may come in contact with at least a portion of the at least one metal structure ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) . In regard to claim 2, DistillingProDanssv8 further disclos es: wherein the substance to pass through the pipe is a liquid (see claim 1 rejection) . In regard to claim 3 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the piping material is plastic ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot in the claim 1 rejection ) . In regard to claim 4 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the metal structure is made of copper (as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot in the claim 1 rejection ) . In regard to claim 5 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the metal structure has a helix shape ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot in the claim 1 rejection ) . In regard to claim 6 , DistillingProDanssv8 discloses: A method for retarding the growth of biological organisms in piping by attaching a biocidal metal structure ( i.e., copper, as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) in the piping ( as shown in the annotated screenshot below | Examiner notes that the preamble is being read as intended use and is given little patentable weight — see MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, given that DistillingProDanssv8 teaches the structure required by the claim, it is deemed that DistillingProDanssv8 has the capability retarding the growth of biological organisms ) , by: choosing a piece of piping that a substance ( i.e., gas, liquid, etc., such as, but not limited to, air, water, etc. ) may pass through ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) ; choosing a metal structure made with a metal that has a biocidal property ( note 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection herein | furthermore, Examiner notes that “copper” is a commensurate metal biocidal property to that as defined in paragraph [0007] of the instant application ) ; choosing a metal structure that presses ( urges ) outward from its central axis such that it pushes out against the inner wall of the piping, keeping the at least one metal structure in place ( Examiner notes that once the “metal structure” is unwound within the pipe, gravity pushes on the “metal structure” to make contact with the interior of the pipe keeping it in a place, such as that shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) ; [[ and ]] at least a portion of the at least one metal structure pushed against the inner wall of the piping ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) ; and the metal structure is attached to the piping such that at least a portion of the metal structure is exposed to the inner area of the piping and at least a portion of the metal structure may be exposed to at least a portion of the substance passing through the piping ( as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot below ) . In regard to claim 7 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the substance to pass through the pipe is a liquid (see claim 1 rejection) . In regard to claim 8 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the piping material is plastic (as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot) . In regard to claim 9 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the metal structure is made of copper (as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot) . In regard to claim 10 , DistillingProDanssv8 further discloses: wherein the metal structure has a helix shape (as shown/disclosed in the annotated screenshot) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate of piping comprising metal elements therein. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9168 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tara Schimpf can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7741 . 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. /NEEL GIRISH PATEL/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676