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 § 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 4-6 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.
Regarding claims 4-6, the phrase "and the like" and “or other materials” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like" and “or other materials”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 2016/0325202) taken in combination with Carroll (US 2017/0001126).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a process for Increasing the rate of evaporation in an evaporation pond (title, abstract- This invention generally relates to a method of waste water evaporation and a waste water evaporator), wherein the pond comprises a depression in the ground with a water impermeable lining ( [0078]- The majority of the waste water evaporation system 100 is contained in a pit in such a fashion that surrounding side slopes 82 reduce the presence of undesirable weather such as breeze and wind. Fluid reservoir 20, side slopes 82, and grade plane 86, are generally lined with a non-permeable ultra violet light resistant liner 10), and wherein the process comprises: a) installing a tubing (46, 72), above a region of the pond lining that is not submerged ([0077]- at least one discharge header pipe 46, at least one discharge reducer pipe 72, and at least one mister head assembly 48}, wherein the tubing Includes perforations or nozzles (48) ( [0089]- Misting nozzle 70 possesses an orifice of adequate size to accomplish pressure gain as well as have volume discharge great enough achieve atomization of waste water delivered from motor and pump assembly 16); b) circulating water from the pond through the tubing such that water is delivered through the perforations or nozzles ( [0019]- The sub grade of said evaporation area will be sloped to direct and return the un-evaporated liquid or wastewater to the lined or unlined pit(s), tank(s), storage vessel(s), and other similar or like adequate containment at which point would be re-circulated through the system); and c) allowing the water to run over the un-submerged region of lining, such that evaporation of the water is promoted ([0018]- Waste water return from liquid from spray head or nozzle discharge is captured via a water proof/impermeable liner. Dark in color is preferred. This increases evaporation rates of un-evaporated atomized liquid droplets that return to the liner which is naturally solar healed).
However Phillips fails to disclose the tubing around the periphery of the pond.
Carroll teaches a system and method of pond evaporation (title, abstract), Carroll discloses tubing around the periphery of the pond for pumping wastewater for evaporation ([0023]- From the portable waste water evaporating apparatus 21, after filtration the waste water 13 is pumped through evaporation line 23 to the misters 25 located on the bank 27 of the waste water pit 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the peripheral arrangement of Carroll with the process of Phillips to improve the evaporation control as taught by Carroll (see Carroll, [0009] It is another object of the present invention to provide a self-contained apparatus to evaporate waste fluids generated in the fracking of oil and gas wells).
Regarding claim 2, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips further discloses the pond lining is a dark color ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the pond lining is black, based on routine experimentation, to improve the evaporation rates (Phillips, para [0018]- Waste water return from liquid from spray head or nozzle discharge is captured via a water proof/impermeable liner. Dark in color is preferred. This increases evaporation rates of un-evaporated atomized liquid droplets that return to the liner which is naturally solar heated).
Regarding claim 3, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips and Carroll fail to specifically disclose, wherein the pond lining has a matte surface texture. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the pond lining has a matte surface texture, based on routine experimentation, to improve the heat absorption as matte surfaces are generally understood in the art to increase the amount of absorbed light due to increased surface are (see Phillips, para [0018]- Waste water return from liquid from spray head or nozzle discharge is captured via a water proof/impermeable liner. Dark in color is preferred. This increases evaporation rates of un-evaporated atomized liquid droplets that return to the liner which is naturally solar heated).
Regarding claim 6, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips further teaches piping discharging from pump is HDPE (Figs 1, 4, [0082]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips further teaches piping discharging from pump is HDPE (Figs 1, 4, [0082]), however does not teach the tubing is fabric, weep or soaker hose, however the skilled artisan would readily experiment with other well-known hose types, including well-known commercially available for sale fabric, weep or soaker hoses, such as typically used in garden applications, with the expected result of distributing water from the pump source of Phillips to the evaporation pond without surprising results.
Regarding claim 8-10, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips further teaches piping discharging from pump is HDPE (Figs 1, 4, [0082]), and Carroll teaches submersible pump 17 attached to floating unit 15 is provided to suction wastewater through piping 23 to misters 25, the pump provided power by solar PV panels 33 via pump controller 37 (see Figs 1-2, 6, [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, further mounting the solar panels on the floating unit would be a routine design choice without unexpected results and would be readily made by the skilled artisan if the cost of a floating platform would be cheaper than the wheel platform for solar panels depicted in Carroll Fig 6.
Regarding claim 12, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips further teaches piping discharging from pump is HDPE (Figs 1, 4, [0082]), the suction input (by ref character 3) is near the surface of the pond (see Fig 1 and Fig 3), and Carroll teaches submersible pump 17 attached to floating unit 15 is provided to suction wastewater through piping 23 to misters 25, the pump provided power by solar PV panels 33 via pump controller 37 (see Figs 1-2, 6, [0024]), the inlet to pump 17 is near the surface of the pond (see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Phillips teaches the water is wastewaters [0001-0002] and Carroll teaches the water is wastewater from fracking operations [0004-0007].
Regarding claim 14, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, Carroll teaches the wastewater is atomized at a height through misters 25 which is approximately 5 ft above the bank 27 (see Fig 2,5, 6, [0037]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 2016/0325202) taken in combination with Carroll (US 2017/0001126) as applied above and further in combination with Boryta et al (US 4,771,246).
Regarding claims 4, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Phillips is silent to the material of the pond liner.
Boryta teaches a system for identifying and repairing leaks in pond liners (title, abstract), Boryta teaches the pond liner is in a pond for storage of liquid and the liner is PVC (see C2:L50-C3:L30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Phillips in view of Boryta to use known pond liners that are repairable such as PVC as taught by Boryta in the system of Philips to have a fixable pond liner.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 2016/0325202) taken in combination with Carroll (US 2017/0001126) as applied above and further in combination with Brady et al (US 4,405,264).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Phillips teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Phillips is silent to the material of the pond liner or fabric covers as claimed.
Brady teaches system for holding water in a depression in the ground, that can be applied to holding ponds (title, abstract), Brady teaches it is known to make ponds with “use of plastic film, ethylene-propylene rubber and chlorosulfonated polyethylene sheeting, and hard surface linings such as portland cement concrete” (C1:L40-57), Brady teaches the advantage of using a cloth with reinforced silicone elastomeric membrane to provide the liner for the pond (C2:L30-68), the cloth may be woven or non-woven fabrics resistant to decomposition including glass, polypropylene, polyester, nylon, rayon or acrylic, or blends of these fibers (C6:L8-19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Phillips in view of Brady to include fabric liner and/or combinations of liners with fabric laid upon impermeable surfaces of known compositions taught by Brady including glass, polypropylene, polyester, nylon, rayon or acrylic, or blends of these fibers along with known film, ethylene propylene rubbers which were known as taught by Brady to create an impermeable barrier for containing the wastewater of Phillips.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations to wastewater evaporation ponds and pond liners are cited herein including citations to Mount, Wiegand, Fletcher, Swaidan, Shacher, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772