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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, hence claims 2-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the preliminary soil characterization includes at least one soil
measurement” and “wherein the at least one soil measurement includes saturated hydraulic conductivity and one of soil total porosity, bulk density, air-filled porosity and gas diffusion measurements” (emphasis added). Such recitations are confusing thus rendering the claims indefinite. Applicant recites “at least one soil measurement”, then further recites “the at least one soil measurement includes saturated hydraulic conductivity and one of soil total porosity, bulk density, air-filled porosity and gas diffusion measurements” (emphasis added). It is unclear as to whether applicant intends to recite “at least one soil measurement” or “at least two soil measurements” because as written, it appears that at least one soil measurement is saturated hydraulic conductivity PLUS one of soil total porosity, bulk density, air-filled porosity and gas diffusion measurements (emphasis added). For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the at least one soil measurement includes saturated hydraulic conductivity only.
Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at least one soil measurement, and the claim also recites the at least one soil measurement includes saturated hydraulic conductivity and one of soil total porosity, bulk density, air-filled porosity and gas diffusion measurements which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the reference entitled “An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Infiltration Dry Well” by Joel Massmann herein referred to as Massmann.
As to claim 1, Massmann discloses a method for designing a drainage well network pattern for soil liquid drainage and constructing same, the method comprising:
performing a preliminary soil characterization in a selected area to be drained,
wherein the preliminary soil characterization includes at least one soil measurement sampled from the soil in the selected area at least at one sampling point location thereof, and wherein the at least one soil measurement includes saturated hydraulic conductivity (see page 34, 9.2 Estimate Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity) and one of soil total porosity, bulk density, air-filled porosity and gas diffusion measurements at least at one depth of the soil in the selected area; and using a result of the preliminary soil characterization, generating the drainage well network pattern (see page 33, 8. Recommendations for the Spacing of Dry Wells), including determining parameters of drainage wells to be constructed including a spatial distribution and determining parameters of drainage depth and radius of the drainage wells.
As to claim 2, Massmann discloses (page 34, 9.2 Perform Subsurface Site Characterization and Data Collection) wherein the at least one soil measurement of the preliminary soil characterization includes a plurality of soil measurements
sampled from the soil in the selected area at different sampling point locations
thereof.
As to claim 3, Massmann discloses (see page 33, 8. Recommendations for the Spacing of Dry Wells) further comprising drilling a plurality of holes into the soil of the selected area based on the generated drainage well network pattern.
As to claim 5, Massman discloses wherein using a result of the preliminary soil
characterization to generate the drainage well network pattern further includes
determining a particulate material (i.e. backfill) for filling at least one of the drainage wells and filling at least one of the plurality of drilled holes with the determined
particulate material.
As to claim 6, Massman inherently discloses wherein the particulate material (i.e. backfill) has a granulometry in a range of about 0.10 mm to about 20 mm, as the size of backfill material varies and may be in the range of 0.10 mm to about 20 mm.
As to claim 8, Massman implicitly discloses gathering at least a portion of the
particulate material within a distance of about 50 km of each of the plurality of drilled holes. It is implicit that construction materials such as particulate material or backfill would be located at the construction site or relatively close by i.e. within a distance of about 50km.
As to claim 18, Massman discloses (see pages 5-11, 3. Flow from Dry Wells under Transient conditions and page 37, 9.5 Estimate the Volume of Stormwater and the Stormwater Inflow Rates That Must be Infiltrated by the proposed or Planned Dry Well) determining parameters of drainage wells to be constructed further includes a total volumetric dimension corresponding to an average rain runoff in the selected area.
As to claim 19, Massman discloses further comprising inserting an elongated sleeve (see figure 1, i.e. geotextile) in at least one of the drainage wells to stabilize peripheral walls thereof, and wherein an upper end of the elongated sleeve is located at a depth of at least 25 cm from the soil surface.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference entitled “An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Infiltration Dry Well” by Joel Massmann herein referred to as Massmann.
As to claim 20, Massman discloses all that is claimed except wherein the elongated sleeve comprises metallic material detectable by metal proximity sensors. Massman discloses a geotextile filter type material (see figure 1); however, the use of metallic mesh type material is well-known in the art for soil stabilization as well as filtering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metallic material, since doing so provides the expected benefit of stabilizing and filtering.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference entitled “An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Infiltration Dry Well” by Joel Massmann herein referred to as Massmann in view of Coffman (US 6,227,274).
As to claim 4, Massmann discloses all that is claimed except for wherein the at least one soil measurement of the preliminary soil characterization includes a pH measurement. Coffmann discloses (see col. 3, lines 48-50) measuring pH of soil in treating stormwater runoff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the pH of soil, since doing so provides the expected benefit determining a treatment plan based on pH of soil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the method for designing a drainage well network pattern for soil liquid drainage and constructing same
wherein the particulate material has a composition comprising soil particulate and organic matter, and wherein a concentration of the organic matter in the particulate material is of about 15 volume per volume to about 100 volume per volume.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the method for designing a drainage well network pattern for soil liquid drainage and constructing same
wherein using a result of the preliminary soil characterization to generate the drainage well network pattern further includes determining a soil additive mixture for filling at least one of the drainage wells and promoting plant growth about the drainage wells, and wherein the soil mixture additive comprises at least one of a plant fertilizer and a soil conditioner.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the method for designing a drainage well network pattern for soil liquid drainage and constructing same wherein the selected area has a heterogeneous soil having a plurality of substantially homogeneous soil strata, and wherein the spatial distribution of the drainage wells comprises a plurality of densities, each of the plurality of densities being adapted for a respective substantially homogeneous soil stratum.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the method for designing a drainage well network pattern for soil liquid drainage and constructing same
wherein the depth of the drainage wells is greater than a minimal depth and smaller than a maximal depth, wherein the minimal depth corresponds to a depth of a compacted layer in a soil profile at a respective location according to the spatial distribution, and wherein the maximal depth enables a capillary rise of soil liquid upwardly in the drainage wells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678