DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment
The instant claims (1-4) are so unclear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims contain subject matter that cannot be properly evaluated on the merits because the boundaries of the claims cannot be determined. Therefore, examination of the claims on the merits is essentially not possible. With that said, the examiner will do the best possible to cite potentially relevant prior art to the claims. A proper and full evaluation with regards to 35 USC sections 101 and 112 is not possible.
Each claim should clearly and explicitly be directed to a process / method or a product / device. Each claim should have a transitional phrase (e.g., comprising, consisting of, etc.). E.g. “A method of drawdown testing comprising: detecting, using a pressure transducer, a plurality of water level measurements over time; calculating pumping rates based on said plurality of water level measurements; and …”. E.g., “An apparatus for drawdown testing comprising: a pressure transducer configured to…”. It is noted that applicant should be careful not to positively recite method steps or any actions being performed in any apparatus claim and, instead, use language such as “configured to”. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. If possible, the examiner would provide interpretations for the instant claims (e.g., rewrite the claims into proper form, as best understood); however, the claims are so unclear as to preclude this.
It is noted that no prior art rejection is given for claim 2 as it is so unclear as to preclude proper application of prior art. Specifically it is unclear what is meant by “[s]urcharge effects are extracted from a drawdown curve using rational methods with expressions for the volume in a partially filled inclined pipe and other shapes including overflows, and pressure cell type varying wet well cross sections” and how this is done. In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that it is known to use equations or look-up tables to compensate liquid level determination for containers that have irregular sizes or shapes. See, e.g., Gourlay et al. (US 20060266111 A1) - [0018], [0020], [0038]-[0039]. It is also noted that the instant claim recites “and other shapes”, which could be simple cylindrical tanks, as taught in prior art cited elsewhere in this Office action
It is noted that no prior art rejection is given for claim 4 as it recites “using the subject invention named Lamda-3” which is the name applicant uses to refer to their overall device and invention (see [0011] of the instant specification). As such the metes and bounds of this claim are so unclear as to preclude a prior art search. A trademark search was performed which yielded no results for a similar name or that is associated with applicant. It is also unclear what is meant by “qualifies the method for acceptance testing and certification of pumping installations”. Regarding “without any data input or power from pumping equipment”, it is noted that it is well-known to use stand-alone liquid level pressure sensors that use batteries for long-lasting power. See, e.g., [0022] of Romanowicz (EP 1215471 A1).
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.
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 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form, replete with indefinite language, and lack transitional phrases. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited in this Office action.
The examiner additionally notes the following. In claim 1, “abundant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abundant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The same applies for the following terms in claims 1-4: “high-frequency”; “lightweight”; “low power consumption”; “low-voltage”; and “several days” (is this met by 3? 4? 5?). Further, in claim 1, “i.e., the drawdown curve” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if only a water level profile is required or if it must be a “drawdown curve”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. Specifically, “Lamda-3” appears to be, as per [0011] of the instant specification, applicant’s invention overall (i.e., applicant’s invention is named “Lamda-3”).
Claims 1-2 and 4 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The specification and drawings provide no guidance on how one of ordinary skill in the art would use the instant invention to “construct water level profile, i.e., the drawdown curve, which is further analyzed to capture…effect of surcharge”.
Regarding claim 2. The specification and drawings provide no guidance on how one of ordinary skill in the art would use the instant invention to perform what appears to be a step which is “surcharge effects are extracted from a drawdown curve using rational methods with expressions for the volume in a partially filled inclined pipe and other shapes including overflows, and pressure cell type varying wet well cross sections”.
Regarding claim 4: The specification and drawings provide no guidance on how one of ordinary skill in the art would use the instant invention to do “drawdown testing method using the subject invention named Lamda-3, without any data input or power from pumping equipment qualifies the method for acceptance testing and certification of pumping installations”.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumbo et al. (US 20200240878 A1) in view of Irvin (US 6178393 B1).Regarding claim 1, as best understood (see 112 rejection above):Trumbo teaches:
Abundant electronic fill-level measurements generated by a pressure transducer (FIG. 1 - 110; [0082], [0084]) are utilized to construct water level profile (e.g., [0004], [0012], [0073], [0075]), i.e., the drawdown curve (unclear if this limitation is required due to “i.e.,”), using high-frequency fill-level dataTrumbo strongly suggests but fails to explicitly teach:
which is further analyzed to capture net inflows, pumping rates and effect of surchargeTrumbo fails to teach:
in a wastewater lift stationIrvin teaches:
which is further analyzed to capture net inflows (e.g., FIG. 27; Col. 13), pumping rates (e.g., Col. 13; Col. 1, Lines 25-37) and effect of surcharge in a wastewater lift station (e.g., Col. 11, Lines 26-36; last paragraph of Col. 16; Col. 14, Lines 26-43; Col. 12, Lines 52-63)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure transducer fill measurements and water level profiling of Trumbo in a wastewater lift station to capture net inflows, pumping rates, etc., as taught by Irvin, as Trumbo explicitly teaches that their system is a “convenient platform for remotely reviewing flow-rate, drawdown, pump status, and any other parameters of interest” and facilitates “time-, labor-, and cost-efficiencies to...perform real-time monitoring” of wells. Additionally / alternatively, Irvin only generically teaches transducers for fill level and/or pumping rate calculations. Trumbo teaches that this and drawdown may be accurately done using a pressure transducer (e.g., [0082], [0084]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowicz (EP 1215471 A1) in view of Wong et al. (US 20150143875 A1).Regarding claim 3, as best understood (see 112 rejection above):Romanowicz teaches:
Portable ([0017], [0022]) apparatus characterized by lightweight components, low power consumption from a low-voltage battery uninterrupted powering of electronic components for several days ([0022]), standalone operation ([0017], [0022]), detachable assembly ([0017], [0022]), and wireless enabled data access ([0007], [0013], [0018]-[0019]) are all enabled by a pressure transducer ([0016], [0025]), a digital converter-datalogger assembly ([0006]-[0007], [0014], [0020], [0025]), battery ([0022]), an enclosure (e.g., FIG. 3 - 40), interconnecting hard wiring and other components (see previously cited paragraphs)Romanowicz fails to explicitly teach:
the enclosure is an IP-65 enclosureWong teaches:
the enclosure is an IP-65 enclosure ([0063])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the enclosure of Romanowicz IP-65 rated, as taught by Wong, to protect the inside components from dust and splashing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pearson (“Wastewater Lift Station Operation & Maintenance”) - in particular see slides 31 and 56-57;
Purvis (US 20250230809 A1);
Ross et al. (US 7221282 B1);
Gentile et al. (US 7107184 B2);
Van Zyl (US 6203280 B1); and
Bearden et al. (US 6167965 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855