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(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumbo et al 20190271615 (listed 1449) in view of Last et al 2002/0166663.
Trumbo teaches (Figure 1) a system for sampling groundwater from a well 130, the system comprising: a pump 10 configured to be at least partially submerged in the groundwater within the well and pump the groundwater out of the well; a sensor 110 configured to output a signal indicative of the depth of the groundwater in the well; and a controller 70 in communication with the sensor and configured to adjust power to the pump, the controller configured to receive the signal indicative of the depth of the groundwater from the sensor and compensate for groundwater ingress into the well by changing a level of power supplied to the pump in proportion to a rate of change of the depth of the groundwater to stabilize the depth of the groundwater in the well while the pump is pumping groundwater from the well (Para 83).
Trumbo's pump is not submerged.
Last teaches (Figure 1, Para 19) positioning a pump under the liquid surface in a well to effectively pump sample liquid out of a well. Power supply 50 and controller 50 power the pump.
As to claims 1,2,10, it would have employed a submerged pump in Trumbo because Last teaches that a submerged pump will effectively pump groundwater from a well. It is well known that pushing liquid is superior to employing vacuum, as vacuum usage limits the pump to pushing with atmospheric pressure.
As to claim 3,4,5, the controller adjusts power to keep the depth at an acceptable level (Para 83), a level which varies during sampling and natural groundwater variation.
As to claims 6,8, Trumbo has an analyzer 40 in the system.
As to claim 7, Trumbo's double arrow line between controller 70 and analyzer (Figure 1) indicates 2 way control.
As to claim 11, the control 70is a mobile device and telemetry system77 (Para 82).
As to claim 12, the depth sensor is not particularly defined as to is sensing elements; however, one of ordinary skill is aware of each of pressure and ultrasonic sensors effective use a determining depth of liquids.
As to claims 13,14,18, it would have employed a submerged pump in Trumbo because Last teaches that a submerged pump will effectively pump groundwater from a well. As such, use of Last's submerged pump teaching in Trumbo's system provides for pump operation, repeated measurements of depth, changing power levels and sample collection as called for in the method claims.
As to claim 16, Trumbo analyzes water.
As to claim 15, the controller adjusts power to keep the depth at an acceptable level (Para 83), a level which varies during sampling and natural groundwater variation.
As to claim 17, Trumbo's analyzer 40 performs an analysis step.
As to claim 18, Trumbo's well has a such zones on opposites side of the level 120.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to REMARKS, please consider:
Para 83 of Trumbo calls for “pump power … is adjusted so as to maintain … at least at least a constant level” (italics added). That phrase “at least a constant” is quite specific. Undersigned is compelled to recognize such as meaning constant. Limitations Claim 1’s “proportion” (claims 1,13), “rate of change” (claim 1) and “different” (claim 13) limitations, along with reducing (claims 1,13) have been considered; but then Para 83 relates adjusting pump power to maintain a constant level. It is the phrase “at least a constant level” which loudly calls for a constant level; the only way to provide for “at least a constant level” is to change the level of power in relation to rate of change of depth. Note that the term “proportion” broadly indicates any relation; not necessarily any particular (i.e. just one) relation that remains constant during. For instance, the term by itself does not necessarily mean that the power of the pump is necessarily reduced directly proportional (or even in proportion to a square root of ) a change of depth. It’s just proportion.
Claims 9,19,20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights