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 3 and 8 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 3 recites the limitation “upon the waste level reaching close to the junction, enabling the controlled installation of the root pipe for gas extraction”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to a) if the sensor and software is doing this, and if so, b) how that is even possible.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the method for optimizing methane gas extraction in a landfill comprises the steps of”. This limitation lacks a proper antecedent basis, making it unclear if the claim is a method requiring the apparatus or if the apparatus is required to be functionally capable of performing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gettys et al. (WO 2013/175287 A2) in view of Quigley et al. (US 2022/0176422).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Gettys discloses A system and method for landfill gas extraction from inaccessible methane-rich pockets in the landfill and reducing atmospheric emissions, the system [100] comprising: a. a plurality of root pipes [102] configured to extract methane gas from one or more landfill regions, wherein the root pipes extend to reach remote areas within the landfill; b. a plurality of stems [104, 108] vertically extending from the base to the top of the landfill [Figures 1 & 2], providing a network of channels for gas collection; c. a plurality of junctions [106, 110, 111, 124] integrated with the stem, wherein the junction facilitates connection between the root pipe and the stem, where the junction further comprises a detachable cap [111] facilitating attachment of said root pipes.
Gettys fails to disclose the use of ultrasonic sensors.
Quigley teaches a system/method of extracting gas from landfills comprising the use of ultrasonic sensors to monitor waste emissions levels in real time [Paragraphs 54 & 59].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Gettys by adding the ultrasonic sensors as described by Quigley to determine and adjust the well flow rate and valve openness levels to optimize gas recovery and minimize uncontrolled emissions into the neighborhood.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Quigley further discloses the ultrasonic sensor facilitates providing alert to the operator through a software integrated with the system [Paragraphs 41-53], upon the waste level reaching close to the junction, enabling the controlled installation of the root pipe for gas extraction [inherent to raise vertical landfill gas collection pipes when trash levels support doing so].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the junction is horizontally aligned with the stem and is configured to allow extension of the gas extraction by attaching at least one additional root pipe; and the detachable cap of the junction is configured to be removed and reinstalled without disrupting the ongoing landfill operations, allowing for continuous waste disposal during the installation process [Figures 1 & 2].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, although the Gettys-Quigley combination is silent as to the specific efficiency increases the system and method provide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that they could achieve small and large scale gains in the region of 79% and 37% respectively depending on a number of factors including well size, vacuum flow rates, the type of trash and landfill cover etc. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (FR 2600372) and (EP 2361698 A1) disclose apparatus/methods of raising a landfill gas collection pipe similar to that of the claimed invention. (US 2020/0122208) discloses a landfill gas collection system with a series of main and branch pipes connected via a junction similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619