DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 05/23/2024 and having an Effective Filing Date of 12/03/2021, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04 NOVEMBER 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 18 recites the limitation “positioning a storm water collection system in ground”. This conflicts with the previous “ground” and should be amended to “positioning a storm water collection system in the ground”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the stormwater filtration assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be interpreted to read “the stormwater filtration system”.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE19608201C2 (hereinafter “Gasbichler”) in view of KR20150108438A (hereinafter “Joon”).
Regarding Claim 1 Gasbichler discloses a storm water filtration system comprising:
(i) a storm water drain pit (gully 3);
(ii) a filtering well (1, 11, 21) for filtering storm water;
(iii) a storm water collection system (item 12 and the material within and surrounding the item 12) for storing filtered storm water;
wherein the filtering well comprises;
an inlet (8) for storm water to enter the filtering well; wherein the inlet is in fluid communication with the storm water drain pit;
an outlet (16) for filtered storm water to exit the filtering well; wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the storm water collection system;
a filter (21) comprising gravel for removing particles from the storm water, wherein the filter divides the filtering well into an inlet chamber (19) and an outlet chamber (20) such that storm water enters via the inlet into the inlet chamber, passes through the filter into the outlet chamber and exits via the outlet; Figs. 1-6, Abstract, pgs. 2-3 of the translation.
Gasbichler does not disclose the filter comprising man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF).
However Joon discloses a filter for purifying rainwater, wherein rock wool is used along with other particulate mater including crushed stone and sand, because “rock wool is excellent in filtration (purification) effect” (Abstract, Claims, pg. 2-3); where rockwool is man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler by using rook wool in the filter element instead of, or in addition to, the gravel because Joon discloses rockwool may be used in similar rain filters and provides excellent filtration/purification effect.
Regarding Claim 2 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the storm water collection system is an infiltration system that allows the filtered storm water to infiltrate into surrounding ground (i.e. via the open bottom and openings 13 in infiltration ring 12, p2 para starting “The seepage shaft…”).
Regarding Claim 7 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the filtering well further comprises an air vent 17 in fluid communication with the storm water collection system such that air displaced from the storm water collection system passes into the filtering well via the air vent; Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 8 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the filter further comprises a frame for support (14, 17, 18); Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 9 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the filtering well further comprises a guide for holding the filter in position (14, 17, 18); Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 10 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the filtering well is in the shape of a cylinder; Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 11 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the filtering well further comprises a lid 5; Gasbichler Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 12 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, positioned under a ground 4; Gasbichler Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 14 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the storm water drain pit comprises; an inlet 6 for storm water to enter the storm water drain system; a sedimentation chamber 3 for sedimentation of debris from the storm water; an outlet 2, for storm water to exit the storm water drain pit, wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the inlet of the filtering well; Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 16 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, wherein the storm water filtration system is a self-contained storm water filtration system; Gasbichler Figs. 1-6.
Regarding Claim 17 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses a method of filtering and storing storm water comprising the steps of:
providing a storm water filtration system according to claim 1;
allowing storm water to enter the storm water drain pit for coarse filtration (water flows through cast iron top 6 of the drain pit 3 which provides coarse filtration);
allowing water to flow from the storm water drain pit into the inlet chamber of the filtering well via the inlet;
allowing the storm water to pass from the inlet chamber to the outlet chamber through the filter; and
allowing the filtered storm water to exit the filtering well via the outlet into the storm water collection system for storage; Figs. 1-6, Abstract, pgs. 2-3 of the translation.
Regarding Claim 18 Gasbichler inherently discloses a method of installing a storm water filtration system (Gasbichler does not explicitly disclose a method of installing the system, but does disclose an installed system and thus inherently and/or obviously discloses some details to its installation), comprising the steps of;
identifying a storm water drain pit 3 in the ground 4 or positioning a storm water drain pit in the ground 4 (the drain pit is located in the ground and thus must inherently or obviously have to be identified and/or positioned there);
positioning a filtering well (1, 11, 21) in the ground (the filtering well is located in the ground and thus must inherently or obviously have to be positioned there), wherein the filtering well comprises;
an inlet 8 for storm water to enter the filtering well; wherein the inlet is in fluid communication with the storm water drain pit;
an outlet 16 for filtered storm water to exit the filtering well;
a filter 21 for removing particles from the storm water, wherein the filter divides the filtering well into an inlet chamber (19) and an outlet chamber (20) such that storm water enters via the inlet into the inlet chamber, passes through the filter into the outlet chamber and exits via the outlet; and
positioning a storm water collection system (item 12 and the material within and surrounding the item 12) in the ground (the filtering well is located in the ground and thus must inherently or obviously have to be positioned there), wherein the outlet of the filtering well is in fluid communication with the storm water collection system; Figs. 1-6, Abstract, pgs. 2-3 of the translation.
Gasbichler does not disclose the filter comprising man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF).
However Joon discloses a filter for purifying rainwater, wherein rock wool is used along with other particulate matter including crushed stone and sand, because “rock wool is excellent in filtration (purification) effect” (Abstract, Claims, pg. 2-3); where rockwool is man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler by using rook wool in the filter element instead of, or in addition to, the gravel because Joon discloses rockwool may be used in similar rain filters and provides excellent filtration/purification effect.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasbichler in view of Joon further in view of WO 2020/174082 A1 (hereinafter “Emborg”).
Regarding Claims 3-6 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, but does not disclose (claim 3) wherein the filter has a density in the range of 40-250 mg/m3; (claim 4) wherein the man-made vitreous fibers in the filter have a geometric fiber diameter of 1.5-10 microns; (claim 5) wherein the filter comprises coherent man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) bonded with a cured binder composition; or (claim 6) wherein the filter has a hydraulic conductivity of 5 m/day to 300 m/day.
However Emborg discloses a filter made from man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) for filtering a wastewater slurry, wherein the whole filter is made from MMVF because it provides “the advantage of being more-environmentally-friendly than filters made from plastic, and more mechanically stable that filters made from geotextile material”; (Abstract, Figs. 1-4, P4/L19-31, P6/L3-21, p15/L4-29).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler in view of Joon by substituting for the filter material the MMVF filter of Emborg because this involves the simple substitution of known filters comprising MMVF for water slurry filtration to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful storm water filtration system and because it provides “the advantage of being more-environmentally-friendly than filters made from plastic, and more mechanically stable that filters made from geotextile material.
The filter of Emborg is disclosed to have the following properties and would thus have been obvious to use these properties in the combined invention:
(claim 3) wherein the filter has a density in the range of 70-200 mg/m3; Emborg P6/L29;
(claim 4) wherein the man-made vitreous fibers in the filter have a geometric fiber diameter of 2-10 microns; Emborg P6/L9-10;
(claim 5) wherein the filter comprises coherent man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) bonded with a cured binder composition; Emborg P5/L34-P6/L2; and
(claim 6) wherein the filter has a hydraulic conductivity of 5 m/day to 200 m/day; Emborg P9/L32-35.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasbichler in view of Joon further in view of US 2014/0314485 A1 (hereinafter “Emborg2”).
Regarding Claim 13 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the storm water collection system comprises one or more drain elements, wherein the drain element comprises man-made vitreous fibers bonded with a cured binder composition.
However Emborg2 discloses a water drain reservoir (i.e. a drain element)comprising a coherent man-made vitreous fiber substrate (MMVF substrate) bonded with a cured binder composition which is used to store surface/rain water, i.e. collected from a drain system, and gradually dissipate it to the ground; Abstract, [0006]-[0009], [0073].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler in view of Joon by including one or more drain elements comprising a coherent man-made vitreous fiber substrate (MMVF substrate) bonded with a cured binder composition as disclosed by Emborg2, such that they are fluidly connected to receive water from the storm water collection system in order to store the surface/rain water, i.e. collected from a drain system, and gradually dissipate it to the ground to increase water storage capacity of the system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasbichler in view of Joon further in view of US 6,190,545 Bl (hereinafter “Williamson”).
Regarding Claim 15 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the storm water drain pit further comprises a separation element for separating the sedimentation chamber from the outlet, and wherein the outlet is positioned above the sedimentation chamber and below the inlet.
However Williamson discloses a storm water filtration system comprising a storm water drain pit 34 which receives run off and then it flows to a filtering well 36 comprising filters 80, 82 and 84, wherein the storm water drain pit 34 further comprises:
an inlet 26 for storm water to enter the storm water drain system; a sedimentation chamber 66 for sedimentation of debris from the storm water; an outlet 50 or 48, for storm water to exit the storm water drain pit, wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the inlet of the filtering well; and a separation element 40 or 72 for separating the sedimentation chamber from the outlet, and wherein the outlet is positioned above the sedimentation chamber and below the inlet; Figs. 1-4, C2/L48-C5/L19).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler in view of Joon such that the filtering well comprises an inlet for storm water to enter the storm water drain system; a sedimentation chamber for sedimentation of debris from the storm water; an outlet, for storm water to exit the storm water drain pit, wherein the outlet is in fluid communication with the inlet of the filtering well; and a separation element for separating the sedimentation chamber from the outlet, and wherein the outlet is positioned above the sedimentation chamber and below the inlet as disclosed by Williamson because this involves the simple substitution of known filtering well arrangements for storm water filtration systems to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful storm water filtration system, and because it allows additional filtration before the filtering well.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasbichler in view of Joon further in view of US 11,118,323 B1 (hereinafter “Putnam”).
Regarding Claim 19 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 11, wherein the lid to the filtering well comprises a manhole cover (supra) but does not disclose wherein the lid to the filtering well comprises a water impermeable top face and at least one perforation at a side face.
However Putnam discloses a vented manhole cover, designed to vent sewer gasses as well as prevent or limit flow of precipitation into and overflow of storm water from the sewer, wherein the lid to the manhole cover comprises a water impermeable top face (5, i.e. the center of the manhole cover) and at least one perforation (26, for conduit 52) at a side face (i.e. the outer portion of the lid toward the rim, i.e. considered a “side face”); Fig. 12, C1/L7-18, C5/L59-C6/L5
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler in view of Joon by substituting for the filtering well lid/manhole cover 5 the vented manhole cover of Putnam because this involves the simple substitution of known manhole covers to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful storm water filtration system, and because it allows the lid to vent sewer gasses as well as prevent or limit flow of precipitation into and overflow of storm water from the sewer
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasbichler in view of Joon further in view of US 2020/0040562 A1 (hereinafter “Cashatt”).
Regarding Claim 20 Gasbichler in view of Joon discloses the storm water filtration system according to claim 12, wherein the system is underground (supra) but does not specifically disclose it is positioned under a road or pavement.
However Cashatt discloses a similar storm water filtration system which is positioned under pavement and/or soil; [0020]-[0028].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storm water filtration system of Gasbichler in view of Joon by positioning the storm water filtration system under pavement as disclosed by Cashatt because it is known to position similar underground storm water filtration system under pavement as an alternative to merely under soil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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 L 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights