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 statements (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023, 06/18/2024, 12/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they lack reference characters in the FIG. 2C drawing. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 155 found in FIG. 1. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is objected for failing to describe the invention in clear and concise manner. Specifically, the reference numerals 140 and 220 are used inconsistently throughout the specification. In paragraph [0024], numeral 140 is referred to as “backfilled”, whereas in paragraph [0025], it is referred to as “inert solid”. For the second one, in paragraph [0027], numeral 220 is referred to as “perforated crossbeams”, whereas in paragraph [0028], it is referred to as “perforated pipes”. For clarity purposes, the applicant is requested to adopt a single consistent term for each numeral throughout the specification and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Newell (202102142421 A1, hereinafter " Newell") in view of Phillips (US20190176101 A1, hereinafter “Phillips”) and further in view of Muller(US3221884, hereinafter, “Muller”).
Regarding claim 1, Newell teaches a method for treating contaminated groundwater using a permeable trench system, comprising:
Preparing a trench arranged to capture groundwater flow (332, Fig. 9).
Placing a diffuser within the trench (343, Fig. 10)
Backfilling the trench with permeable material (330, Fig. 9); and
Introducing gas into the trench (see page 7, col 2, paragraph [0069]).
Newell does not teach generating foam above the groundwater surface or collecting such foam using a floating suction-based structure as recited in limitations (d) and
(f).
Phillips teaches foam generation containing surface-active compounds and collecting the foam using a vacuum (38, Fig. 1) applied above the water interface (32, Fig. 1), but does not disclose a groundwater-intercepting trench or a floating foam collection structure.
Muller teaches a floating pipe line on water wherein the platform comprises a flexible perimeter support structure. The platform comprises suction-based surface pipe line collection structure connected to a source of negative pressure (P, Fig. 2) for removing a surface phase from water. The pipe supporting the nozzles (intake) projected laterally can be adjusted upward or downward operated with a buoyancy material (col 2 line 71-72; col 3 line 1-3). The floating platform discloses a plurality of flexible connected pipe (2, Fig. 1) with a series of suction nozzles for collecting and removing the surface layer of a liquid (col 1, line 25-26). Although, Muller does not describe foam specifically and illustrates a suction inlet rather than a perforated crossbeam, it addresses the structural problem of collecting a surface phase from water using suction.
Newell, Phillips and Muller are analogous art because they relate to removing contaminants or surface phases (interface between two phases) from water, collectively addressing groundwater water interception (Newell), foam-based separation of surface-active compounds (Phillips), and floating suction-based surface collection (Muller).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the trench system of Newell to incorporate the foam generation and suction-based collection technique of Phillip and the floating suction-based collection structure of Muller because foam fractionation and suction-based surface collection were known techniques for removing surface-active compounds from water as taught by Phillips(38, Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 8, Newell teaches PFAS as known surface-active groundwater contaminants (see Abstract, col 2). Once the method of claim 1 is applied to surface-active compounds, limiting the method to PFAS would have been obvious because PFAS exhibit surface-active compounds’ behavior and would be expected to partition into and be removed with foam in the same manner as other surface-active compounds addressed by the method.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (202102142421 A1, hereinafter " Newell") in view of Phillips (US20190176101 A1, hereinafter “Phillips”) and further in view of Muller(US3221884, hereinafter, “Muller”).
Regarding claims 2-4, Newell does not teach any foam collection structure, perforated crossbeams, or the placement of perforations for selectively collecting a surface phase.
Phillips teaches that contaminant-laden foam is most effectively removed at or just above the water surface and that lowering the suction intake increases entrainment of bulk water (page 10, col 1, paragraph [0115]). Muller teaches positioning suction inlets to collect a surface phase while minimizing intake if underlying liquid (12, Fig. 2)
Determining where to place the perforations on the crossbeam such as placing perforations midwater on the crossbeams- such as placing perforations about midway between the water-proximal and water distal portions (claim 2), placing perforations only on an upper portion distal to the water (claim 3), or omitting perforations from a lower portion proximal to the water (claim 4) merely defines the vertical location of openings relative to the water surface.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify location of intake openings as an effective routine design optimization choice because these placement choices apply to teachings of Philips (32, Fig. 1) and Muller (12, Fig. 2) to locate openings to preferentially withdraw foam while minimizing water uptake.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (202102142421 A1, hereinafter " Newell") in view of Edwards (5833388, hereinafter “Edwards”).
Regarding claim 5, Newell does not teach inserting structural cross-supports to divide the trench into segments.
Edwards teaches subsurface treatment trenches that include internal structural members or partitions used to divide a trench into segments (col 7, line 5-15) to maintain structural stability under soil loading and to control groundwater flow through the trench media.
Inserting one or more structural cross-supports to divide the trench into segments as recited in claims 5, would have been obvious because Edwards teaches that segmented trench structures maintain trench integrity and provide improved control over groundwater flow distribution through the treatment media, thereby promoting uniform flow paths and predictable treatment performance without altering the trench basic function of intercepting and treating groundwater. Applying these known structural features to the trench of Newell represents the use of established trench engineering techniques to achieve in-situ treatment (Edwards, col 9 lines 49-59), structural and hydraulic benefits as taught by Edwards (col 11, line 54-65).
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (202102142421 A1, hereinafter " Newell") in view of Einarson and Mackay (Environmental Science & Technology (2001), hereinafter “Einarson et. al (2001)”).
Regarding claim 6, Newell does not teach installing piezometers in upgradient and downgradient sections of the trench
Einarson et. al (2001) teaches the use of piezometers arranged in groundwater monitoring transects to characterize subsurface hydraulic and contaminant conditions (Fig 3a; Table 1). While Einarson et. al (2001) focuses on downgradient monitoring, installing an additional piezometer upgradient in a trench would have been obvious because upgradient monitoring is routinely used to establish background conditions and to distinguish contaminants entering a treatment zone from those leaving it. Using both upgradient and downgradient piezometers allows evaluation of contaminant migration into and out of the trench, which is consistent with the monitoring purpose taught by Einarson et al., (2001).
With respect to claim 7, Newell does not teach monitoring surface-active compound flux entering and exiting a trench.
Einarson et. al (2001) teaches determining contaminant mass flux by measuring contaminant concentrations and groundwater flow at monitoring locations downgradient of a subsurface zone (Fig. 3a; Table 1). Extending this monitoring arrangement to include an upgradient piezometer would have been obvious because flux determination requires comparison of contaminant conditions before and after passage through treatment zones. Using both upgradient and downgradient piezometers to monitor contaminant flux entering and exiting the trench applies to the same flux calculation method taught by Einarson and Mackay (2001) to a complete and routine monitoring configuration.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are rejected. No claim is indicated as allowable at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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/patentcenter 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.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772