DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed 9/22/2025. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 9/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 102 over Howard, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carlson, as explained in detail below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0108233 to Howard (Howard) in view of U.S. Patent 8,223,495 to Carlson et al. (Carlson).
In reference to claim 1, Howard teaches an aerobic dispersion system (FIG. 1-14) comprising a box (425, FIG. 1-14) having sides formed of a perforated material (air vents 15 and 16, FIG. 1) that provides for removal of steam from the box (536, FIG. 1-14), the box further comprising a water shed cover (100, FIG. 1-14); a steam heat pipe (450, FIG. 1-14) positioned horizontally along an inside of the box (inside of 10, FIG. 1-8); a treated water inlet piping (420, FIG. 1-14) provided in an upper portion of the box (425, FIG. 1-14) to receive water into the box (425, FIG. 1-14); and a drain tube (205, FIG. 1-14) that extends out of a lower portion of the box (425, FIG. 1-14) to provide drainage away from the steam heat pipe (450, FIG. 1-14), but does not teach that the treated water inlet piping is provided in the upper portion of the box to receive water of an aerobic septic system into the box. Carlson teaches an electronic device cooling system (FIG. 2) wherein the treated water inlet piping is provided in the upper portion of the box (101, FIG. 2) to receive water of an aerobic septic system (water treatment 205, FIG. 2) into the box (101, FIG. 2) in order to exploit recycled water by returning said water back into the cooling system and lower the overall cost by not utilizing chillers (col 1, lines 44-67 and col 2, lines 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerobic dispersion system of Howard, to have the treated water inlet piping provided in the upper portion of the box to receive water of an aerobic septic system into the box, as taught by Carlson, in order to exploit recycled water by returning said water back into the cooling system and lower the overall cost by not utilizing chillers.
In reference to claim 2, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Howard additionally teaches one or more solar panels (335, FIG. 13) external to the box (425, FIG. 1-14).
In reference to claim 3, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Howard additionally teaches an electric heater (490, FIG. 1-14) that includes a thermostat or controller (thermocouple 491, FIG. 1-14).
In reference to claim 4, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, and Howard additionally teaches wherein the electric heater (490, FIG. 1-14) is mounted external to the box (at least a portion of 490 appears outside the box 425, FIG. 1-14).
In reference to claim 5, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Howard additionally teaches a battery pack (510, FIG. 1-14) that powers the system in addition to or in place of one or more solar panels (335, FIG. 1-14).
In reference to claim 6, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Howard additionally teaches a hinged access door (535, FIG. 1-14).
In reference to claim 7, Howard and Carlson teach the aerobic dispersion system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Howard additionally teaches one or more legs (interpreted as wheels 130, FIG. 1-14) affixed to a bottom of the box (425, FIG. 1-14), wherein the one or more legs provide for positioning and adjustment of the system (inherent in the structure of system depicted in FIG. 1-14).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
12/11/2025
Prosecution Insights