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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 14, please amend “wherein removing moisture” to “wherein the removing moisture”.
Claim 13, please amend “wherein applying heat to the soil” to “wherein the applying heat to the soil”.
Claim 21, please amend “during applying heat to the soil” to “during the applying heat to the soil”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: Claim 15, “a soil conditioner configured to perform a pretreatment for measuring the moisture characteristic of the soil” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Prong 1: a soil conditioner (uses a generic placeholder), prong 2: configured to perform (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited. Therefore, claim 15 invokes 112(f). However, the corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification ([para. 0018] – soil conditioner 101 includes a soil accommodating unit 111, a drying unit 112, and a stirring unit 113).
Claim 15, “a measurement instrument configured to measure the moisture characteristic of the soil that has been pretreated by the soil conditioner” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Prong 1: a measurement instrument (uses a generic placeholder), prong 2: configured to measure (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited. Therefore, claim 15 invokes 112(f). However, the corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification ([para. 0027] – a soil accommodating unit 121, a soil saturation unit 122, a water content change measurement unit 123, a matrix potential measurement unit 124, and a maximum corrosion rate measurement unit 125. These structures are further detailed in [paras. 0028-0034]).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 and 15-22 is 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 Claim 9, claim 9 recites “the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value”; however, claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8, and claim 8 recites “the moisture characteristic is a water content of the soil”, which is different from a matrix potential value. Thus, claim 9 is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, “the moisture characteristic” and “the soil” lack antecedent basis. Claims 16-22 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 is directed to a corrosion estimation method that “estimating corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the measured moisture characteristic”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. The additional method steps such as an “performing a pretreatment for measuring a moisture characteristic of soil”, “measuring the moisture characteristic of the soil that has been subjected to the pretreatment” are known as evidenced by the prior art of Shota in the prior art rejection of claim 7 below, and are conventional process previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to gather data on the soil. Furthermore, the additional processes are used to gather data and analyzing/classifying data and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 7 is directed to a corrosion estimation method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 7 recites: “estimating corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the measured moisture characteristic”, which is an abstract idea since the corrosion estimation method just uses the moisture characteristic measurements to estimate the corrosion, which can be done mathematically or mentally, thus is a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “estimating corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the measured moisture characteristic” are not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 7 recites the additional elements “performing a pretreatment for measuring a moisture characteristic of soil” and “measuring the moisture characteristic of the soil that has been subjected to the pretreatment”, which are just routine and conventional processes previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to acquire information for determining corrosion. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Therefore, claim 7 does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 8-14, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 8-14 depend on the independent claim 7, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 7 and also have the routine and conventional processes of claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “the moisture characteristic is a water content of the soil”, which is well known by the prior art as a corrosion estimation method (see Claim 8 rejection below).
Claims 9-10 recites “the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value at a specified soil water content”, which is well known by the prior art as a corrosion estimation method (see Claims 9-10 rejections below).
Claim 11 recites “removing moisture from the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 11 rejection below), and only serves to modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
Claim 12, recites “removing moisture from the soil comprising applying heat to the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 12 rejection below), and only serves to modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
Claim 13 recites “applying heat to the soil comprises limiting a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower” which only serves to remove moisture from the soil for data collection.
Claim 14 recites “removing moisture from the soil comprises decompressing and vacuum drying the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 14 rejection below), and only serves modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
In summary, dependent claims 8-14 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Independent Claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 is directed to a corrosion estimation device with a calculator that is “configured to estimate corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the moisture characteristic measured by the measurement instrument”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. The additional apparatus such as “a soil conditioner, a measurement instrument, and a metal member” are known as evidenced by the prior art of Shota in the prior art rejection of claim 15 below, and are conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve either to measure a soil characteristic. Furthermore, the additional elements are used to gather data and analyzing/classifying data and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 15 is directed to corrosion estimation device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., an apparatus (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 15 recites: “configured to estimate corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the moisture characteristic measured by the measurement instrument”, which is an abstract idea since the calculation unit just does mathematical calculations to estimate the corrosion, thus is a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “configured to estimate corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the moisture characteristic measured by the measurement instrument” are not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 15 recites the additional element(s)“a soil conditioner, a measurement instrument, and a metal member”, which are just routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to perform, acquire information for performing soil characteristic measurements. Therefore, claim 15 does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 16-22, claims 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 16-22 depend on the independent claim 15, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 15 and also have the routine and conventional structures above of claim 15.
Claim 16 recites “the measurement instrument is configured to measure a water content of the soil”, which is well known by the prior art as a measurement instrument (see Claim 16 rejection below).
Claims 17-18 recites “the measurement instrument is configured to measure a matrix potential at a specified soil water content”, which is well known by the prior art as a measurement instrument (see Claims 17-18 rejections below).
Claim 19 recites “the soil conditioner is configured to perform the pretreatment by removing moisture from the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 19 rejection below), and only serves modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
Claim 20, recites “the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by applying heat to the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 20 rejection below), and only serves modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
Claim 21 recites “the soil conditioner is configured to limit a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower during applying heat to the soil” which only serves to remove moisture from the soil for data collection.
Claim 22 recites “the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil comprises decompressing and vacuum drying the soil” is well known in the prior art (see Claim 22 rejection below), and only serves modify the moisture content in the soil for data collecting.
In summary, dependent claims 16-22 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 7-8, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shota (JP 2019-203768 A, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 7, Shota teaches a corrosion estimation method (corrosion estimation for a buried metal material [para. 0017]) comprising:
performing a pretreatment (electrochemical measurement unit 22 adds water to the soil sample [para. 0023]) for measuring a moisture characteristic of soil (corrosion rate is measured for soil samples using polarization resistance at various water content amounts [para. 0023]);
measuring the moisture characteristic of the soil that has been subjected to the pretreatment (corrosion rate is measured at a plurality of soil moisture contents [para. 0023]); and
estimating corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil (corrosion is estimated for a metal material buried in the soil [para. 0022]) from the measured moisture characteristic (different amounts of soil moisture contents are used along with polarization resistance to measure a corrosion rate and generates a corrosion estimation curve to determine the corrosion of a metal material in soil [paras. 0026-0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 7, wherein: the moisture characteristic is a water content of the soil (soil moisture content of soil is decreased [para. 0023]).
Regarding Claim 11, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 7, wherein performing the pretreatment comprises removing moisture from the soil (soil moisture content is decreased [para. 0023]).
Regarding Claim 15, Shota teaches a corrosion estimation device (electrochemical measurement unit 22 [para. 0023]) comprising:
a soil conditioner (a water supply device [para. 0046]), the limitation “configured to perform a pretreatment for measuring the moisture characteristic of the soil” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the water supply device is a device for adding water to the soil sample [para. 0046]. Thus, the soil conditioner of Shota is capable of performing the claimed function above;
a measurement instrument (electrical measurement unit 22 [para. 0055]), the limitation “configured to measure the moisture characteristic of the soil that has been pretreated by the soil conditioner” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the electrochemical measurement unit 22 may include sensor values to detect the soil water content [para. 0055]. Thus, the measurement instrument of Shota is capable of performing the claimed function above;
a calculator (corrosion rate calculation unit 42 [para. 0026]) configured to estimate corrosion of a metal member buried in the soil from the moisture characteristic measured by the measurement instrument (corrosion rate calculation unit 42 calculates a corrosion rate for each soil moisture content [para. 0026], corrosion estimation can be of a metal member buried in the soil [para. 0017]).
Regarding Claim 16, Shota teaches a corrosion estimation device according to claim 15;
the limitation “the measurement instrument is configured to measure a water content of the soil” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the electrochemical measurement unit 22 may include sensor values to detect the soil water content [para. 0055]. Thus, the measurement instrument of Shota is capable of performing the claimed function above.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota, as applied to claims 7-8 and 15-16 above, and in view of Whalley (Measurement of the matric potential of soil water in the rhizosphere. Jour. of Experimental Botany. 2013; 64(13), pages 3951-3963).
Regarding Claim 9, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 8.
Shota is silent on wherein: the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value at a specified soil water content.
Whalley teaches measurements of matric potential of soil water (title), and teaches the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value (matric potential can be measured for soil using, for example, a water-filled hydraulic tensiometer [second para. col. 1, page 3954]; illustrated in Fig. 4 on page 3955) at a specified soil water content (water content and matric potential are needed to fully describe the soil water status [para. 2 col. 2, page 3952]).
Shota and Whalley are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for measuring soil parameters. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moisture characteristic in the method of Shota to be a matrix potential value at a specified soil water content using a matrix potential measurement device such as a tensiometer, as taught by Whalley, as a matrix potential depends on soil properties including soil water content, surface properties, and surface tension of the soil water (Whalley, [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 10, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 7.
Shota is silent on wherein: the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value at a specified soil water content.
Whalley teaches measurements of matric potential of soil water (title), and teaches the moisture characteristic is a matrix potential value (matric potential can be measured for soil using, for example, a water-filled hydraulic tensiometer [second para. col. 1, page 3954]; illustrated in Fig. 4 on page 3955) at a specified soil water content (water content and matric potential are needed to fully describe the soil water status [para. 2 col. 2, page 3952]).
Shota and Whalley are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for measuring soil parameters. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moisture characteristic in the method of Shota to be a matrix potential value at a specified soil water content using a matrix potential measurement device such as a tensiometer, as taught by Whalley, as a matrix potential depends on soil properties including soil water content, surface properties, and surface tension of the soil water (Whalley, [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 17, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 16.
Shota is silent on the measurement instrument is configured to measure a matrix potential at a specified water content.
Whalley teaches measurements of matric potential of soil water (title), and teaches measurement instrument is configured to measure a matrix potential (matric potential can be measured for soil using, for example, a water-filled hydraulic tensiometer [second para. col. 1, page 3954]; illustrated in Fig. 4 on page 3955) at a specified water content (water content and matric potential are needed to fully describe the soil water status [para. 2 col. 2, page 3952]).
Shota and Whalley are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for measuring soil parameters. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement instrument of Shota to include a tensiometer configured to measure a matrix potential at a specified water content, as taught by Whalley, as a matrix potential depends on soil properties including soil water content, surface properties, and surface tension of the soil water (Whalley, [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 18, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 15.
Shota is silent on the measurement instrument is configured to measure a matrix potential at a specified water content.
Whalley teaches measurements of matric potential of soil water (title), and teaches measurement instrument is configured to measure a matrix potential (matric potential can be measured for soil using, for example, a water-filled hydraulic tensiometer [second para. col. 1, page 3954]; illustrated in Fig. 4 on page 3955) at a specified water content (water content and matric potential are needed to fully describe the soil water status [para. 2 col. 2, page 3952]).
Shota and Whalley are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for measuring soil parameters. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement instrument of Shota to include a tensiometer configured to measure a matrix potential at a specified water content, as taught by Whalley, as a matrix potential depends on soil properties including soil water content, surface properties, and surface tension of the soil water (Whalley, [abstract]).
Claims 12-14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota, as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and in view of Stegemeier (US 2004/0228690 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 11.
Shota is silent on wherein removing moisture from the soil comprises applying heat to the soil.
Stegemeier teaches method for remediating contaminated soil (abstract), and teaches wherein removing moisture from the soil comprises applying heat to the soil (soil remediation system may include one or more heat injection wells 36 [para. 0054]).
Shota and Stegemeier are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for controlling soil contamination. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removing moisture step in the method of Shota by applying heat to the soil, as taught by Stegemeier, as heating the soil allows for increased removal and movement of contaminants (Stegemeier, [para. 0009]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 12;
the limitation “wherein applying heat to the soil comprises limiting a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower” has no patentable weight. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to limit a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower as this would function is a predictable manner given these conditions.
Regarding Claim 14, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation method according to claim 11.
Shota is silent on wherein removing moisture from the soil comprises decompressing and vacuum drying the soil.
Stegemeier teaches method for remediating contaminated soil (abstract), and teaches wherein removing moisture from the soil comprises decompressing and vacuum drying the soil (a vacuum source may be configured to draw a vacuum for soil remediation purposes [para. 0060]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removing moisture step in the method of Shota by decompressing and vacuum drying the soil, as taught by Stegemeier, as a vacuum may be used to aid in moving contaminants away from target soil (Stegemeier, [para. 0009]).
Regarding Claim 19, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 15.
Shota is silent on wherein the soil conditioner is configured to perform pretreatment by removing moisture from the soil.
Stegemeier teaches an apparatus for remediating contaminated soil (abstract), and teaches wherein the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil (soil remediation system may include one or more heat injection wells 36 [para. 0054]).
Shota and Stegemeier are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for controlling soil contamination. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shota by adding heating injection wells to the soil conditioner so that the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by applying heat to the soil, as taught by Stegemeier, as heating the soil allows for increased removal and movement of contaminants (Stegemeier, [para. 0009]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 19, and teaches wherein the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by applying heat to the soil (as outlined in the claim 19 rejection above, Stegemeier teaches soil remediation system may include one or more heat injection wells 36 [para. 0054]).
.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 20,
the limitation “wherein the soil conditioner is configured to limit a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower during applying heat to the soil” has no patentable weight. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to limit a temperature of the soil to 50⁰C or lower as this would function is a predictable manner given these conditions.
Regarding Claim 22, Shota teaches the corrosion estimation device according to claim 19.
Shota is silent on wherein the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by decompressing and vacuum drying the soil.
Stegemeier teaches wherein the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by decompressing and vacuum drying the soil (a vacuum source may be configured to draw a vacuum for soil remediation purposes [para. 0060]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of modified Shota by adding a vacuum source to the soil conditioner so that the soil conditioner is configured to remove moisture from the soil by decompressing and vacuum drying the soil, as taught by Stegemeier, as a vacuum may be used to aid in moving contaminants away from target soil (Stegemeier, [para. 0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights