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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by CHAI et al. (Patent Application Publication US 2022/0064024 A1) referred to as CHAI US.
Regarding Claim 1, CHAI US teaches A rainwater garden (Fig 1), a bioretention area (Page 2 section 0014); a rainwater collection area (Fig 1 Municipal Stormwater), the municipal stormwater does collect rainwater, therefore being a rainwater collection area. A first perforated drainage pipe (Fig 1 element 8), a gravel layer (Fig 1 element 6), a transition layer (Fig 1 element 5), a chalcopyrite substrate layer (Fig 1 element 4), a biochar substrate layer (Fig 1 element 3), a planting layer (Fig 1 element 11), a cover layer (Fig 1 element 2) and a water storage layer (Fig 1 element 11); the first perforated drainage pipe is disposed in the gravel layer (Fig 1 element 8), the first perforated drainage pipe comprises an outlet end extending to connect to the rainwater collection area (Fig 1
PNG
media_image1.png
442
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
element 8 and 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US as applied to claim 1 above in view of CHAI (CN 115010323 A, hereinafter CHAI CN), Iorio (US 8333885 B1) and GAN et al. (CN 105906063 A, hereinafter GAN) The attached machine translation for CN 115010323 A, CN 105906063 A is refenced below.
Regarding claim 2, CHAI US teaches the initial runoff disposal area is sloped (CHAI US Fig 1 element 1). CHAI US fails to disclose a sedimentation area and an initial runoff disposal area, wherein the sedimentation area and the initial runoff disposal area are disposed outside the cover layer of the bioretention area, wherein the sedimentation area and the initial runoff disposal area are disposed outside the cover layer of the bioretention area, an overflow pipe is vertically disposed in the initial runoff disposal area and a second perforated drainage pipe is disposed flat on a bottom end of the initial runoff disposal area, the overflow pipe is connected to the second perforated drainage pipe; and an outlet of the second perforated drainage pipe is connected to a municipal rainwater pipe network.
However, CHAI CN teaches further comprising a sedimentation area and an initial runoff disposal area (CHAI CN Fig 1 element 11) wherein the sedimentation area and the initial runoff disposal area are disposed outside the cover layer of the bioretention area (CHAI CN Fig 1 element 11) wherein the sedimentation area and the initial runoff disposal area are disposed outside the cover layer of the bioretention area (CHAI CN Fig 1 element 11) the sedimentation area is disposed outside the initial runoff disposal area; pebbles are disposed on bottom parts of the sedimentation area and the initial runoff disposal area (CHAI CN Fig 1 element 11). CHAI CN teaches a pipe connected with the municipal rainwater network (CHAI CN Claim 5) but fails to teach a second perforated drainage pipe disposed flat on a bottom end of the initial runoff disposal area. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI US with the teaching of CHAI CN to have additional sedimentation area and perforated drainage pipe, as taught by CHAI CN, sedimentation area limits larger particles reaching cover layer and second drainage pipe ensure even spreading of water. CHAI CN does not teach perforated drainage pipe is disposed flat on a bottom, or an overflow pipe is vertically disposed in the initial runoff disposal area.
However, GAN teaches perforated drainage pipe is disposed flat on a bottom (GAN Page 5 line 31). It would be beneficial to incorporate the teachings of GAN the modification of being the piping be perforated and laid flat allowing even spreading of water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simple addition of perforated drainage pipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Iorio teaches an overflow pipe is vertically disposed in the initial runoff disposal area (Column 9 lines 56-61). It would be beneficial to incorporate the teachings of Iorio to ensure the system would not overflow with excess storm water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simple overflow pipe vertically disposed in the initial runoff disposal area. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view CHAI CN, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 2 above, and further view of WANG et al. (CN 116477754 A hereinafter WANG). The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, and CN 105906063 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 3, the combinations of CHAI US teaches the rainwater garden in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a submersible pump is disposed in the rainwater collection area, a return pipe is connected to a water outlet of the submersible pump, an inspection well is disposed on a top end of the rainwater collection area and a drainage pipe is disposed on a side wall of the rainwater collection area.
However, WANG teaches a pump is disposed in the rainwater collection area (Figure 1 element 21 and 22) and a drainage pipe is disposed on a side wall of the rainwater collection area (Fig 1 element 21), an inspection well is disposed on a top end of the rainwater collection area (WANG element 21 the collection well can be used as inspection well as well) and a drainage pipe is disposed on a side wall of the rainwater collection area (Fig 1 element 21 and 25).
Combination of WANG and CHAI US are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of rainwater garden. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine CHAI US with the teachings of WANG to provide a submersible pump disposed in the rainwater collection area, a return pipe connected to a water outlet of the submersible pump, inspection well-disposed on a top end of the rainwater collection area, and a drainage pipe disposed on a side wall of the rainwater collection area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simple addition of said feature by WANG to CHAI US.
PNG
media_image6.png
616
1428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
---- Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view of CHAI CN, WANG, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of LI et al.-- (CN 108623010 B hereinafter LI), and ZHI et al. (CN 111606371 A hereinafter ZHI). The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, CN 111606371 A, CN 108623010 B and CN 105906063 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 4,--- CHAI U teaches the rainwater garden in claim 1, and CHAI CN teaches wherein the chalcopyrite substrate layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm (CHAI CN section 0027), filled with a first filler comprising chalcopyrite and quartz sand (CHAI US summary section 0009), a particle size of the chalcopyrite is 0.5-2 mm, and a particle size of the quartz sand is 0.4-0.6 mm (CHAI US Claim 4), and a permeability of the first filler is greater than 250 mm/h. (CHAI US section 0032), but fail to teach the chalcopyrite and the quartz sand are mixed in a volume ratio of 1: 10.
However, ZHI teaches nano ferroferric oxide and quartz sand according to mass ratio of 8: 0.5 to 2: 4 (Page 3 line 27), which can be converted to volume ratio with the know densities of the materials. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the volume ratio of pyrite and quartz sand before the effective filing date of the invention to provide. ZHI does not teach the claimed ratio.
LI teaches that it is understood that the mass ratio of quartz sand and pyrite can be adjusted according to actual needs (LI S102). Thus, changing the ratio of ZHI with the teaching of LI, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take ratio disclosed in ZHI to modify it in the claimed range as taught be LI. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view of CHAI CN , WANG , LI, ZHI, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of ZENG et al.-- (CN 112456650 A, hereinafter ZENG), ZHANG et al. (CN 113666581 A, hereinafter ZHANG), WANG (WO 2019114745 A1, hereinafter WANG WO) and VESELSK (CZ 33225 U1). The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, CN 111606371 A, CN 108623010 B, CN 105906063 A, CZ 33225 U1, CN 113666581 A, WO 2019114745 A1 and CN 112456650 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 5, CHAI US and WANG teaches filled with a second filler comprising biochar and quartz sand (CHAI US Summary section 0009), a permeability of the second filler is greater than 200 mm/h (CHAI US Summary section 0010), but fails to teach wherein the biochar substrate layer has a thickness of 200-300 mm, the quartz sand has a particle size of 0.4-0.6 mm; the biochar and the quartz sand are mixed in a volume ratio of 1: 10.
WANG WO teaches the biochar has a particle size of 0.5-1 mm (WANG WO Page 11 line 5) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI to alter coordination of both gas flow and total metal adsorption., as taught in WANG WO.
ZENG teaches wherein the biochar substrate layer has a thickness of 200-300 mm (ZENG Page 5 line 26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI biochar substrate layer with an increase thickness to improve filterability of the layer, as taught in ZENG.
ZHANG teaches the quartz sand has a particle size of 0.4-0.6 mm (ZHANG Page 5 line 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI particles size of quartz sand with a smaller particles size to trap smaller particles in the filter layer, as taught in ZHANG.
VESELSK teaches a range of quartz sand and the biochar weight ratio of 4:1 to 20:1 (VESELSK Page 4 line 19); It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CHAI ratio of biochar to sand increase the ability removing nitrogen, nitrate and Phosphate, as taught in VESELSK. The use of a known technique to
improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view of CHAI CN , WANG, LI, ZENG, ZHANG, ZHI, VESELSK, WANG WO, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of QI et al.-- (CN 111302482 A hereinafter QI). The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, CN 111606371 A, CN 108623010 B, CN 105906063 A, CZ 33225 U1, CN 113666581 A, CN 112456650 A, WO 2019114745 A1 and CN 111302482 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 6, CHAI CN teaches wherein the planting layer has a thickness greater than 300 mm (CHAI CN Page 5 line 10), and is filled with a third filler comprising sandy loam and quartz sand (CHAI CN Page 5 line 7), the sandy loam and the quartz sand are mixed in a volume ratio of 1: 5; and a permeability of the third filler is greater than 150 mm/h; and the planting layer comprises plants (CHAI CN Page 5 line 9). CHAI CN fails to teach particle size of the sandy loam is 0.1-0.5 mm and particle size of the quartz sand is 0.4-0.6 mm
However, QI teaches particle size of the sandy loam as 0.1-0.5 mm and particle size of the quartz sand 0.4-0.6 mm (QI Page 3 line 31). Combination of QI and CHAI CN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of water filtrations apparatus. It would be beneficial to incorporate QI particles size of sandy loam and quartz sand to optimize water retentions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modification combination of CHAI CN to incorporate the teachings of QI.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view of CHAI CN, WANG, LI, ZENG, ZHANG, VESELSK, WANG WO, QI, ZHI, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 6 above. The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, CN 108623010 B, CN 105906063 A, CZ 33225 U1, CN 113666581 A, CN 112456650 A, CN 111606371 A, WO 2019114745 A1 and CN 111302482 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 7, the combinations of CHAI US and QI teaches wherein the cover layer has a thickness of 50-100 mm (QI Page 3 line 25), and comprises sawdust, tree bark, or a combination thereof (CHAI US Page 3 section 0034).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI US in view CHAI CN, WANG, LI, ZENG, ZHANG, VESELSK, QI, ZHI, WANG WO, Iorio and GAN as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view ALAIN et al. (FR 2690683 A1 hereinafter ALAIN and KIEHNE (DE 10318708 B4). The attached machine translations for CN 116477754 A, CN 115010323 A, CN 111606371, CN 108623010 B, CN 105906063 A, CZ 33225 U1, CN 113666581 A, WO 2019114745 A1, CN 112456650 A, FR 2690683 A1, DE 10318708 B4, CN 111606371 A and CN 111302482 A are refenced below.
Regarding claim 8, the combinations of CHAI, and QI --teaches rainwater garden of claim 7, the transition layer is a substrate protective layer with a thickness of 50-100 mm (GAN page 6 line 16) and the gravel layer is a drainage layer with a thickness of 200-300 mm (GAN line 26), but fails to teaches the gravel layer is a drainage layer with a thickness of 200-300 mm and a gravel particle size of 50-80 mm
KIEHNE teaches wherein the transition layer is a substrate protective layer with a thickness of 50-100 mm, filled with quartz sand with a particle size of 0.4-0.6 mm (KIEHNE Page 1 line 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI transition layer and substrate protective layer with the teaching of KIEHNE to improve the filterability of said layers by increasing the thickness of the layers and with smaller particle size.
ALAIN teaches a gravel particle size of 50-80 mm (ALAIN Page 11 line 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified CHAI gravel layer with teaching of ALAIN to ensure the gravel does not block the perforated drainage pipe from receiving water. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/K.H.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights