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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the leaching chambers of Bracone and King include a geometry and sidewall depth that do not cooperate to prevent surface liquid presence while the claimed invention requires that the leaching chamber actively contain liquid below the surface is noted but is not considered persuasive because the buried leaching chambers of Bracone and King are capable of satisfying this functional limitation. Liquid introduced into the leaching chambers of Bracone and King will drain downward through the open bottom and/or laterally outward through the slots/openings and then downward due to gravity. Thus, the leaching chambers of Bracone and King are capable of preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface. The claimed invention does not require the leaching chamber to prevent liquid from exiting the leaching chamber laterally.
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 1-3, 9-11, 16, 18, 21-25, 35, 37 and 39-43 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 claim 1, the wording of “a leaching chamber having one or more sidewalls extending downward into soil, the sidewalls configured for insertion into the soil such that: (i) a portion of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade, and (ii) at least one sidewall extends below a soil-liquid interface” in lines 2-5 and “wherein the one or more sidewalls of the leaching chamber are inserted to a depth below grade and below a soil-liquid interface to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber” in lines 8-11 is confusing. The limitations positively recite that the sidewalls are in soil and below grade, however the “configured for insertion into the soil” suggests that the placement of the sidewalls in the soil and below grade is not positively recited. The first portion of step c appears to be redundant with (i) and (ii) of step a. It is unclear whether “at least one sidewall” in step (ii) is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “one or more sidewalls” in line 2 because of the double positive recitation of “sidewall”. It is unclear whether “a soil-liquid interface” in line 9 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a soil-liquid interface” in line 5 because of the double positive recitation of “a soil-liquid interface”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a leaching chamber having one or more sidewalls extending downward into soil, the sidewalls configured for insertion into the soil such that: (i) a portion of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade, and (ii) at least one sidewall extends below a soil-liquid interface” to mean “a leaching chamber having one or more sidewalls extending downward into soil, the sidewalls positioned into the soil such that: (i) a portion of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade, and (ii) at least one of the sidewalls extends below a soil-liquid interface” and interprets “wherein the one or more sidewalls of the leaching chamber are inserted to a depth below grade and below a soil-liquid interface to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber” to mean “wherein the one or more sidewalls of the leaching chamber facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber”. Claims 2, 3, 9-11, 16, 18, 21-25, 35, 37 and 39-43 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether “the at least one sidewall” in line 3 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “one or more sidewalls” in claim 1 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the at least one sidewall” to mean “the one or more sidewalls”.
Regarding claim 18, the wording of “the leaching chamber comprises at the least one vent structure to allow airflow in and out of said at least one leaching chamber” in lines 2-3 is confusing. It is unclear why “the” was added between “at” and “least”. It is unclear whether “said at least one leaching chamber” is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a leaching chamber” in claim 1 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the leaching chamber comprises at the least one vent structure to allow airflow in and out of said at least one leaching chamber” to mean “the leaching chamber comprises at least one vent structure to allow airflow in and out of said leaching chamber”.
Regarding claim 40, it is unclear whether “sidewalls” in line 3 are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “at least one sidewall” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “sidewall”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “sidewalls” to mean “said one or more sidewalls”.
Regarding claim 43, it remains unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 1 because the term is placed after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the method comprising”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 39 recites that the device is assembled “on or in” said at least one ground location. In the case of the device being assembled “on” said at least one ground location, the device would not have its sidewalls extending downward into soil as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 39 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Examiner notes that removing the limitation “on” would result in claim 39 failing to limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, and suggests reciting the device limitations of claim 1 in claim 39 instead of depending claim 39 from claim 1. Claims 40-42 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 39 and 43 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bracone, Jr (US 7,413,381), hereinafter referred to as Bracone.
Regarding claim 1, Bracone discloses an embedded infiltration device (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, claim 1), comprising: a) a leaching chamber (e.g. 12, Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1) having one or more sidewalls (e.g. 30, Fig. 2) extending downward into soil (e.g. 48, Fig. 10), the sidewalls configured for insertion into the soil such that: (i) a portion of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade (e.g. Fig. 10, wherein the entirety of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade), and (ii) at least one sidewall extends below a soil-liquid interface (e.g. Fig. 10, wherein both sidewalls extend below a soil-liquid interface at the top of 52); b) a means for distributing liquid through the length of the leaching chamber (e.g. 32/40, Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 6-10); c) wherein the one or more sidewalls of the leaching chamber are inserted to a depth below grade and below a soil-liquid interface (e.g. Fig. 10, as explained above) to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber (e.g. col. 4, lines 14-18, wherein the open bottom and slots facilitate infiltration by allowing liquid dispersal and the leaching chamber prevents liquid on the soil surface by being located below the soil surface and allowing any liquid at the soil surface to drain down into the soil and even into the leaching chamber).
Regarding claim 2, Bracone further discloses that said leaching chamber comprises at least one roof (e.g. 34, Fig. 2), the at least one sidewall (e.g. 30, Fig. 2), at least one end-cap (e.g. 36, Fig. 2), or a combination thereof (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Bracone further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises at least one roof component configured to be opened or removed to allow maintenance access to the inside of the leaching chamber (e.g. 34, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Bracone further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises at least one bulkhead to provide structure and/or encourage even distribution of wastewater (e.g. 44, Fig. 5, col. 4, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 16, Bracone further discloses that the bulkhead comprises at least one air hole to permit the flow of air or liquid through the length of the device (e.g. rectangular opening at middle of lower edge of 44, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Bracone further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises at least one vent structure to allow airflow in and out of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 42, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Bracone further discloses that the leaching chamber passes heat from the external environment to an internal void space to encourage evaporation (e.g. Fig. 2, wherein slots 42 allow heat to pass from the external environment to the internal void space).
Regarding claim 22, Bracone further discloses that the means for distributing liquid comprises at least one low pressure distribution pipe (e.g. 32/34/40, Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 56-60, wherein the gravity feed creates a low pressure).
Regarding claim 24, Bracone further discloses that the means for distributing liquid comprises at least one perforated drain pipe (e.g. 32/34/40, Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 25, Bracone further discloses that at least one inlet structure is provided for the leaching chamber (e.g. 36 with 38, Fig. 8, col. 4, lines 58-60) connecting an external distribution manifold to said means for distributing liquid (e.g. 14, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 37, Bracone further discloses that at least one carbon rich material is configured to be loaded into a void space of the leaching chamber to encourage biological nutrient removal of remaining soluble nutrients in a liquid stream and composting of remaining solids in the liquid stream (e.g. Fig.’s 2 and 10, wherein the internal space of the leaching chamber is open and therefore configured to receive a carbon rich material).
Regarding claim 39, Bracone discloses a method of installing an embedded infiltration device, the method comprising: providing the embedded infiltration device of claim 1 (e.g. Fig. 10, as explained above); providing at least one ground location to accommodate the leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 10); assembling the device on or in said at least one ground location (e.g. Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 43, Bracone discloses a method of using an embedded infiltration device, comprising: providing the embedded infiltration device of claim 1 operably engaged with a ground location (e.g. Fig. 10, as explained above); providing a source of liquid for infiltration (e.g. 18/20, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 56-60); flowing the liquid into the embedded infiltration device (e.g. col. 3, lines 56-60); wherein the liquid is distributed into the leaching chamber and onto soil (e.g. col. 3, lines 56-60).
Claims 1-3, 9, 18, 21-24, 37, 39, 42 and 43 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by King et al (US 2023/0332392).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses an embedded infiltration device (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, or in the alternative 10c, Fig. 9), comprising: a) a leaching chamber (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, or in the alternative 10c, Fig. 9) having one or more sidewalls (e.g. either side of body 18, Fig. 1, or in the alternative Fig. 9) extending downward into soil (e.g. paragraph 0028 wherein the entire leaching chamber is buried and therefore extends downward into soil), the sidewalls configured for insertion into the soil such that: (i) a portion of the leaching chamber is positioned below grade (e.g. paragraph 0028 wherein the entire leaching chamber is buried and therefore positioned below grade), and (ii) at least one sidewall extends below a soil-liquid interface (e.g. paragraph 0028 wherein the entire leaching chamber is buried and therefore below a soil-liquid interface at the soil surface); b) a means for distributing liquid through the length of the leaching chamber (e.g. open flow path of 10, Fig. 3, paragraph 0029, or in the alternative 32, Fig. 10, paragraph 0034); c) wherein the one or more sidewalls of the leaching chamber are inserted to a depth below grade and below a soil-liquid interface (e.g. paragraph 0028, as explained above) to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber (e.g. paragraph 0029, wherein the open bottom and openings facilitate infiltration by allowing liquid dispersal and the leaching chamber prevents liquid on the soil surface by being located below the soil surface and allowing any liquid at the soil surface to drain down into the soil and even into the leaching chamber).
Regarding claim 2, King further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises at least one roof (e.g. top of body 18, Fig. 1), the at least one sidewall (e.g. either side of body 18, Fig. 1), at least one end-cap (e.g. 12, Fig. 1), or a combination thereof (e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, King further discloses that the roof, the one or more sidewalls, and the end-cap of the leaching chamber are manufactured as a single component, more than one component and subsequently assembled and sealed, or a combination thereof (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, King further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises a nestable geometry to allow multiple leaching chambers to be stacked in transport (e.g. paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 18, King further discloses that the leaching chamber comprises at least one vent structure to allow airflow in and out of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 28, Fig. 1, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 21, King further discloses that the leaching chamber passes heat from the external environment to an internal void space to encourage evaporation (e.g. Fig. 3, wherein openings 28 allow heat to pass from the external environment to the internal void space).
Regarding claim 22, King further discloses that the means for distributing liquid comprises at least one low pressure distribution pipe (e.g. 32, Fig. 10, paragraph 0034, wherein the amount of pressure is considered intended use and the pipe of King is capable of functioning properly to distribute effluent with low pressure).
Regarding claim 23, King further discloses that the means for distributing liquid comprises an unobstructed overland flow path through the length of the leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, King further discloses that the means for distributing liquid comprises at least one perforated drain pipe (e.g. 32, Fig. 10, paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 37, King further discloses that at least one carbon rich material is configured to be loaded into a void space of the leaching chamber to encourage biological nutrient removal of remaining soluble nutrients in the liquid stream and composting of remaining solids in a liquid stream (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 9, wherein the internal space of the leaching chamber is open and therefore configured to receive a carbon rich material).
Regarding claim 39, King discloses a method of installing an embedded infiltration device, the method comprising: providing the embedded infiltration device of claim 1 (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, as explained above); providing at least one ground location to accommodate the leaching chamber (e.g. trench, paragraph 0010); assembling the device on or in said at least one ground location (e.g. paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 42, King further discloses forming a trench in the at least one ground location to more easily accept the insertion of the sidewalls of the leaching chamber followed by repacking the trench with soil, concrete, or other sufficiently sealing media (e.g. paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 43, King discloses a method of using an embedded infiltration device, comprising: providing the embedded infiltration device of claim 1 operably engaged with a ground location (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, as explained above, paragraph 0010); providing a source of liquid for infiltration (e.g. paragraph 0008); flowing the liquid into the embedded infiltration device (e.g. paragraph 0008); wherein the liquid is distributed into the leaching chamber and onto soil (e.g. paragraph 0009).
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.
Claims 35 and 40-42 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracone (US 7,413,381) alone.
Regarding claim 35, Bracone discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose at least one biomat. Since Applicant did not traverse the official notice taken in the previous office action, it is taken as admitted prior art that biomats are notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a biomat that develops on a plastic fiber mat that rests on the soil-liquid interface because such is a known element that would provide the expected benefit of naturally growing in leaching systems and providing additional filtering.
Regarding claim 40, Bracone discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that sidewalls of the leaching chamber are placed on the at least one ground location (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) but Bracone does not explicitly disclose that the sidewalls are pressed or hammered. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to press the leaching chamber of Bracone into the ground for the expected benefit of ensuring proper placement and preventing movement of the leaching chamber during covering.
Regarding claim 41, Bracone discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose slicing or sawing the at least one ground location to more easily accept the insertion of the sidewalls of the leaching chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dig (and thereby slice) the ground of Bracone for the expected benefit of providing the required level surface at the required elevation.
Regarding claim 42, Bracone discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses inserting the sidewalls of the leaching chamber followed by repacking with soil, concrete, or other sufficiently sealing media (e.g. Fig. 10, col. 5, lines 6-8) but Bracone does not explicitly disclose forming a trench in the at least one ground location. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the ground location of Bracone by forming a trench for the expected benefit of providing the required level surface at the required elevation.
Claims 40 and 41 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 2023/0332392) alone.
Regarding claim 40, King discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that sidewalls of the leaching chamber are placed on the at least one ground location (e.g. paragraph 0010) but King does not explicitly disclose that the sidewalls are pressed or hammered. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to press the leaching chamber of King into the ground for the expected benefit of ensuring proper placement and preventing movement of the leaching chamber during covering.
Regarding claim 41, King discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the at least one ground location accepts the insertion of the sidewalls of the leaching chamber (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) but King does not explicitly disclose slicing or sawing the ground. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the ground location of King by digging (thereby slicing) the ground for the expected benefit of providing the required trench (e.g. paragraph 0010).
Conclusion
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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights