DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from consideration due to a prior restriction requirement.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 01 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-10 will be examined within this Office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 4-10 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 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. Independent Claim 4, upon which Claims 5-10 are dependent, has been amended to incorporate the limitations of withdrawn Claim 1; however, the claim is now considered indefinite because the claim now encompasses a method and an apparatus that are unrelated to each other. See that the method limitations and the apparatus limitations do not interact beyond that they both require a collecting ditch. In particular, the apparatus does not appear to require the n second treatment pools with descending bottoms that appear imperative to the method. Instead, the apparatus just needs one of a plurality of treatment units (see additional 112(b) rejection below) that is closer to a wastewater generation site (wherein said wastewater generation site is not part of the method) to be “higher than the other treatment unit”. This discrepancy actually contradicts the method’s process of descending bottoms (see additional 112(b) below) by allowing a second option on the heights of the treatment units/pools. The preamble to Claim 4 is also confusing, as it both recites “a rural wastewater recycling device” and “a method for recycling rural wastewater” and does not further clarify the issue.
In summary, nothing in amended Claim 4 proves that the method steps of Claim 4 are required to be performed by the apparatus; likewise, nothing in the apparatus of Claim 4 appears to require the method steps. The claim is therefore indefinite for (a) being unclear whether Claim 4 is reciting a method or an apparatus and (b) being unclear if the apparatus/method require the other to read on the claim. See also MPEP 2173.05(p) II. Since the method and apparatus do not recite limitations that connect each other, there is nothing that suggests additional limitations of the method/apparatus focus on capabilities of the apparatus/method. The claims are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the apparatus of Claim 4 requires the method in order to read on the claims. While prior art is not applied due to the complex nature of the claims as currently filed, an amendment that further broadens the claim (such as by deleting the method steps or integrating the method steps into the apparatus) could result in prior art rejections in a future action.
Claims 4-10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting the phrases “rural wastewater”, “rural wastewater recycling device” and “rural yard”; however, these claim limitations are considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear what may constitute as “rural wastewater” or a “rural yard” to read on the claim. For instance, the claim is unclear whether “rural” means farmyard and farm activity or if it simply means non-urban/city water (or even something broader). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will not give patentable weight to the word “rural”.
Claims 4-10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting first and second treatment pools and later a plurality of treatment units. Both of these recited limitations appear to do the staggered lowering of the pools/units (wherein the pools structure is more detailed than that of the units), so the claim language is unclear whether these features are to be the same or not. If they are to be the same, then the claim is unclear why they are provided with different names. If they are not to be the same, then the method steps and claimed apparatus are even further distinct from each other (see above). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume
Claims 4-10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting positions of the treatment pools that contradict each other. The treatment pools of the method steps require the bottom elevations of the n pools to be descending, while the treatment units of the apparatus only require the unit closer to the wastewater generation site to be “higher” than the other treatment unit. The latter’s limitation is further indefinite because the claim language is unclear on what “higher” than the other treatment unit would mean--either the bottom of the unit is higher than the bottom of the other unit, the entire unit is higher than the other unit, or just the top of the unit is higher than the other unit (just as examples). For these reasons, the claims are considered indefinite. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the method and the apparatus limitations mean the same thing.
Claims 6-10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting confusing numbers regarding the transmission rod. At first, the claim only recites “a transmission rod”, yet later on requires two transmission rods (“the number of the transmission rod is two”). This is confusing whether a transmission rod is required or two transmission rods are required. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume two transmission rods are required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao et al. (CN 118324278) recites a recycling method using a drainage ditch for treatment of water (Figure 1; Figure 2; Content of the Invention, Paragraph 9; Claims 1-9; sedimentation tank 101 and drainage ditch 110), yet the structure and functionality is not similar enough to the instant application for a rejection.
Bao et al. (CN 108619787) discloses a settling sand cleaning device that also uses a drainage ditch for wastewater recycling along with a staggered filter structure (Abstract; Invention Content Paragraph 3 and Paragraphs 8-10), yet the references are too dissimilar in structure to use for grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights