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 .
The amended claims filed 7/25/25 are acknowledged; claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Considine (AU 2011205183, as cited by Applicant) in view of Simon et al. (US 5676207).
CLAIM 1: Considine discloses a system for contaminant extraction from a contaminated region of a borehole comprising a production wellbore including a production pipe extending from a surface of the earth through a water permeable layer and into an underlying production zone (see Fig. 2A). A side remediation borehole located proximate the production wellbore and extending through the water permeable layer towards the production zone (see Fig. 2A), the side remediation borehole including a remediation pipe (66); and a vacuum source (68) in fluid communication with the side remediation borehole (see Fig. 2A), the vacuum source being configured to extract gaseous contaminants from the side remediation borehole and the contaminated region of the borehole (via perforations 65).
Considine fails to disclose one or more filtering assemblies located in the side remediation borehole or the gaseous contaminants passing through.
Simon discloses a soil vapor extraction system.
Simon teaches extraction wells (16, 18) that are wrapped by filtering assemblies (knitted polyester or similar geotextile material; wrapping the pipes means within the borehole).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of claimed invention to modify the system of Considine to have the filtering of Simon as Simon teaches the filters can be used to filter contaminants extracted from the zone to avoid unwanted soils into the system (see col. 3, lines 37-65).
CLAIM 2: An outlet of the remediation pipe in direct or indirect fluid communication with an outlet pipe of the production pipe (see Considine Fig. 2A showing the outlets both being open to the same reservoir area, making a fluid connection via the earth as fluids flow through cracks, fractures, and bores in the earth to either outlet) to combine the gaseous contaminants with gases extracted from the production pipe for downstream filtering and/or processing (see Page 32, lines 20-30 discussing bringing fluids via either the production pipe of the original well or the remediation pipe; allowing a combination of the gases).
CLAIM 3: A gas filtration assembly (Considine, 67) is in fluid communication with the side remediation borehole and configured to filter gaseous contaminants extracted from the side remediation borehole and the region of the borehole (see Fig. 2A).
CLAIMS 12-14: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
Claim(s) 4-11 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Considine in view of Simon in further view of Bertani (US20200063534).
CLAIM 4: Considine-Simon teaches the elements of claim 3 as discussed above.
Considine fails to teach the gas filtration assembly includes a series of gaseous contaminant filter modules providing multi-stage filtering.
Bertani discloses a system and method for extracting hydrocarbons through a borehole.
Bertani discloses a serious of filter modules (128b) providing multi-stage filtering (see paragraph 0118).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of claimed invention to modify the system of Considine to have the filtering of Bertani as Bertani teaches the filters can be used to filter contaminants extracted from the zone (paragraph 0118) which would allow for a purer hydrocarbon to be extracted.
CLAIM 5: The Bertani system includes a filtered gas storage system in fluid communication with a filtered gas outlet from the gas filtration assembly (paragraph 0118 storing in 128, see Fig. 10A).
CLAIM 6: The series of gaseous contaminant filter modules are arranged in two or more releasably connected filter banks (see Bertani Fig. 10A showing a plurality of banks for modules 128b).
CLAIM 7: The multi-stage filtering provided by the series of gaseous contaminant filter modules involves four filtration stages (see Bertani Fig. 10A showing at least four modules 128b).
CLAIM 8: The gas filtration assembly is located in a relocatable container (see Bertani, filter assembly 127 being relocatable).
CLAIM 9: The relocatable container is coupled to a lifting and lowering system for lifting and lowering the relocatable container from or into a subsurface pit (see paragraph 0144).
CLAIM 10: The remediation pipe includes a lowermost funnel for directing gaseous contaminants migrating from the production zone towards the remediation pipe (see Bertani, funnel 113).
CLAIM 11: The vacuum source comprising a venturi pump driven by gases from the production pipe (see Bertani, paragraph 0113).
CLAIMS 15-20: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 7/25/25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The previously cited art failed to disclose the filtering as described in the amended claims. Additional art has been supplied.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676