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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/772729, filed 8/28/2025, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 17/772729, filed 4/28/2022, now abandoned. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Paragraph 1 of the specification should be updated to include the current status of parent application, 17/772729, filed 4/28/2022, now abandoned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claims 1, 13, 15, and 18, the limitations of mapping pre-cleaning sediment elevation of the wastewater tank via an acoustical survey constitutes new matter, not supported by the originally filed specification. Paragraph 20 of the Publication No. US2024/0326107A1 recites conducting a pre-cleaning acoustic survey and mapping the sediment elevation, however the originally filed specification does not teach or suggest mapping pre-cleaning sediment elevation by acoustic survey, and therefore, the limitations constitute new matter. Re claim 18, the specification does not teach mapping pre-cleaning sediment elevation of the wastewater tank using the analysis of water of the wastewater tank. It is noted that paragraph 19 of the instant specification teaches that data from the water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidation reduction potential and turbidity in the structure may be used to determine whether or to what extent to remove the sediment. However, the specification does not teach mapping sediment “elevation” based on these parameters. As such, the above limitations constitute new matter. Furthermore, the limitations of claims 19-20 constitute new matter, as claims 19-20 recite using a parameter (i.e. turbidity) for mapping sediment “elevation”.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 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 is indefinite because the preamble recites 3-dimensional mapping, however, the claim fails to positively recite a step of “3-dimensional mapping”. Claim 1 is indefinite because the preamble recites “cleaning of the sediment”, however the claim fails to positively recite a step of “cleaning the sediment”. It is unclear whether applicant intends “cleaning the waste water tank by removing the sediment”. Claims 3-4 are indefinite because it is unclear whether “surveying of the wastewater tank” refers to a)repeatedly surveying the waste water tank during a post-cleaning evaluation or b) refers to line 3 of claim 1. Specifically, is the surveying step done in a pre-cleaning and a post-cleaning evaluation step? Claim 8 is indefinite because “the pre-cleaning calculation” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “calculating pre-cleaning sediment volumes and weight in the waste water tank”. The examiner suggests amending claims 8-9 to include consistent language with that of claim 1. Claim 11 is indefinite because “the pre-cleaning sediment” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “pre-cleaning sediment elevation” and “pre-cleaning sediment volumes”. Claims 13-14 are indefinite because “the data” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 13 is indefinite because the pre-amble recites determining an amount of waste sediment located in a waste water tank, however the claim fails to positively recite a step of determining an amount of waste sediment. The examiner suggests amending the last line of claim 13 to recite “determining an amount of waste sediment located in a waste water tank by calculating pre-cleaning sediment volumes and weight…”. Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “gain size”, does applicant mean “grain size”? Claims 15 and 18 are indefinite because the preamble recites “cleaning a wastewater tank” but the claim fails to recite a positive step. The examiner suggests amending the last line to recite “cleaning a waste water tank by removing sediment from …..”. Claim 18 is indefinite because “the collection of the sample” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 20 is indefinite because “the determination” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 20 is indefinite because it unclear how the turbidity of the water is applied to an acoustical survey to map the pre-cleaning sediment. How is the turbidity being applied to a survey?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (WO2016/004005), Buckner (US2010/0326481) and further in view of Logan et al. (US 10072800B1).
Re claims 1, 13, 15 and 18, the claims are broadly interpreted as identifying and inspecting the structure to be cleaned (i.e. waste water tank), collecting data, using mapping to determine sediments (i.e. contaminants) in the tank, sampling and analyzing contaminants (i.e. sample analysis) , cleaning the structure, and comparing post cleaning to determine if the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved. In summary, claims 1, 13, 15, and 18 are directed to using general steps which are known in the cleaning arts to determine endpoint cleaning, as the examiner finds the limitations neither novel nor unobvious for the reasons recited below.
Hunter teaches a method for cleaning sediment (i.e. mud) in a tank of a water storage facility. Paragraph 2 teaches a tank comprising drilling muds including a water-based fluid. Paragraph 21 teaches the tank maybe used to clean and separate sediments from other fluids. Paragraphs 35-36 teaches scanning the tank to obtain a rendering of an interior of the tank, wherein the rendering may include a 3D rendering. The renderings may be analyzed to determine a complete representation of the interior of the tank. Paragraph 40 also teaches that the tank rendering may include equipment within the tank, including pipes and walls. Hunter teaches after rendering, the tank is cleaned (paragraphs 45-46).
Re claims 1, 13, 15,and 18, Hunter fails to teach data collection, conducting an acoustical survey, and mapping the sediment elevation.
It is noted that paragraph 2 of applicant’s specification teaches the invention directed to waste collection system structures such as sewers, sumps, wells, collection tanks, digesters, clarifiers, and classifiers. In view of applicant’s specification, the Markush group recited in the specification are all equivalent structures for use in waste collection.
Buckner teaches a method of cleaning a submerged structure (i.e. sewer, drainage pipe) of a water storage (i.e. waste collection system structure), the method comprising identifying the pipe and conducting a site inspection (paragraph 8 teaches a camera attached and moved through a pipe to observe the condition of the pipe). Paragraph 72 teaches monitoring and documenting most aspects of the inspection and cleaning operations. Paragraph 72 further teaches mapping programs. The abstract teaches data logging and computers collect, store and assimilate data. In reference to mapping, applicant is directed to paragraph 22 which teaches that cameras may be used to determine the size of items within a pipe, and lasers and sonar (i.e. acoustic) to accomplish ground mapping of the piping. The size of the items would include the dimensions of the items, including the height of the item. Additionally, the camera would identify the location of the items in the pipe. In reference to a post-cleaning survey, Buckner teaches a camera to observe the condition of the pipe during cleaning (paragraph 47) and further teaches digital measurements to measure the size and position of items (mapping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hunter, to include data collection, acoustics and mapping, as taught by Buckner in order to observe the condition of the interior cavity of the substrate surface prior to and post cleaning to determine whether the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved.
In reference to claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 18, Hunter in view of Buckner fail to teach sampling/collecting the sediment and calculating sediment volumes and weights. Logan et al. teach a method directed to collection of sensed data to determine the condition of a pipe (col. 5-6 bridging). Col. 6, lines 1-35 teaches using the data for 3D mapping of the pipe, which provides a mean pipe sediment value. In reference to the sediment volume, Logan et al. teach the cross-sectional data may be visually overlaid w/ the original pipeline shape. Col. 6, lines 55+ teaches that the diameter of the pipe cross- section may change from an initial condition due to the pipe experiencing sediment buildup. Col. 12, lines 20-30 teaches that various metrics may be collected including water levels (i.e. water chemistry data), sediment levels, sediment volume. These metrics are mapped and cleaning is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Hunter to include collecting sediment samples in order to calculate sediment volumes/weights, as taught by Logan et al., for purposes of performing the same function of determining the condition of the pipe. In reference to collecting and analyzing sediment samples, refer to col. 10, lines 49-51 of Logan et al.
Re claims 1-8, 13-15, and 17-18, in reference to conducting a pre-cleaning (data collection/ acoustic survey/volume:weight) and a post-cleaning (evaluation/data collection/mapping/calculation of sediment volume/weight/surveying of the tank), absent a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to compare pre-cleaning and post cleaning to determine whether sufficient cleaning has been achieved. Additionally, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to conduct cleaning by performing acoustics since Bucker, as previously recited, teaches using various methodologies including laser and sonar for data capture during inspecting and cleaning of the pipe to determine whether the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved. Furthermore, generating a tank cleaning and sediment reports read on data gathering, as taught by both references. Additionally, col. 6, lines 1-35 of Logan et al. teaches using the data for 3D mapping of the pipe, would encompass an elevation mapping of the interior of the pipe. Additionally, applicant is directed to paragraph 36 of Hunter which teaches 3D rendering of the mud tank.
Re claims 1, 15, and 18, the prior art fails to teach removing the sediment from the tank while in service. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the sediment while the tank is operational for the added economic benefits of increasing throughput and efficiency by reducing the down time of the waste water treatment tank. Re claim 9, the prior art fails to teach overlaying the mapped sediment elevation onto a scaled drawing of the wastewater tank. However, Hunter teaches 3D rendering of the tank. In the absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scaled drawing of the waste water tank since Hunter specifically teaches analysis of 3D renderings to determine a complete representation of the interior of the tank, which would include sedimentation present therein. Re claim 10, refer to Buckner which teaches the use of GPS in combination with cameras (paragraph 22) to determine the size of items within a pipe. In view of the indefiniteness of claim 14, the limitations are met. It is unclear what applicant means by gain size. Re claims 14 and 16, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, and in view of the teachings of Logan, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure characteristics of the sediment, including the size, in order to calculate the sediment volume. The examiner further argues that in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, a 3D rendering would show the type, location and amount of contaminants, which would yield the positioning/height/size of the contaminants present therein.
12. Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (WO2016/004005) in view Buckner (US2010/0326481) , Logan et al. (US 10072800B1) and further in view of Zou et al. (CN106404074A).
Re claims 12 and 19, Hunter in view of Buckner and Logan et al. teach collecting metrics directed to water analysis, but fail to teach monitoring characteristics of water to include temperature, salinity, and turbidity. Zou et al. teach monitoring the water quality by monitoring various characteristics including pH, salinity, temperature, turbidity (abstract). It would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Hunter, to include salinity, temperature, and turbidity, as taught by Zou et al. for purposes of monitoring the water quality.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP3733497B2 teaches waste water monitoring using turbidity. Vargas Junior et al. teach removing sediments from tanks.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc