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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “changer” appears to be a misspelling of “chamber” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 10, 21, 25, 37 and 39-43 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 2, it is unclear whether “at least one sidewall” in lines 2-3 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “at least one sidewall” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “at least one sidewall”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “at least one sidewall” to mean “said at least one sidewall”. Claim 3 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “can be” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation that follows is required or is optional. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “can be” to mean “is configured to be”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the internal void space” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 25, it is unclear whether “said internal means for distributing liquid” in lines 3-4 is the same as or different than “at least one means for distributing liquid” in claim 1 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said internal means for distributing liquid” to mean “said means for distributing liquid”.
Regarding claim 37, the limitation “can be” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation that follows is required or is optional. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “can be” to mean “is configured to be”. Further, claim 37 recites the limitations “the void space” in line 2 and “the liquid stream” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 39, it is 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”. Further, the wording of “the components of the device of claim 1” in line 2 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the components”. It is unclear which of the elements of the device of claim 1 are being included. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the components of the device of claim 1” to mean “the embedded infiltration device of claim 1”. Claims 40-42 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 40, the wording of “wherein the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber are pressed or hammered into said undisturbed at least one ground location” in lines 2-3 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vertical members”. It is unclear whether “said undisturbed at least one ground location” is the same as or different than “at least one ground location” in claim 39 because of the similar but different terminology. There is also no positively recited method step. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber are pressed or hammered into said undisturbed at least one ground location” to mean “further comprising pressing or hammering vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber into said at least one ground location”.
Regarding claim 41, the wording of “wherein said at least one ground location is prepared by slicing or sawing to more easily accept the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber” in lines 2-4 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vertical members”. There is also no positively recited method step. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein said at least one ground location is prepared by slicing or sawing to more easily accept the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber” to mean “further comprising slicing or sawing said at least one ground location to more easily accept the insertion of vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber”.
Regarding claim 42, the wording of “wherein said at least one ground location is prepared by trenching to more easily accept the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber followed by repacking the trench with soil, concrete, or other sufficiently sealing media” in lines 2-5 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vertical members”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the trench”. There is also no positively recited method step. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein said at least one ground location is prepared by trenching to more easily accept the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber followed by repacking the trench with soil, concrete, or other sufficiently sealing media” to mean “further comprising forming a trench in said at least one ground location to more easily accept the insertion of vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber followed by repacking the trench with soil, concrete, or other sufficiently sealing media”.
Regarding claim 43, it is 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(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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for distributing liquid in claims 22-24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(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 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: at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 12, Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1); at least one means for distributing liquid through the length of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 32/40, Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 6-10); at least one sidewall of said at least one leaching chamber inserted to a depth below grade (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) and below at least one soil-liquid interface to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 10, wherein the entire leaching chamber is positioned below a soil-liquid interface defined at the surface of top soil 50, and/or wherein the leaching chamber is configured to be positioned at any depth and below any soil-liquid interface inasmuch as the leaching chamber of the instant application because of their similar structure and design).
Regarding claim 2, Bracone further discloses that said at least one leaching chamber comprises at least one roof (e.g. 34, Fig. 2), 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 said at least one leaching chamber comprises at least one roof component that can be opened or removed to allow maintenance access to the inside of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 34, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Bracone further discloses that said at least one 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 said at least one 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 said at least one 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 said at least one leaching chamber passes heat from the external environment to the 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 said at least one 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 said at least one 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 said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 36 with 38, Fig. 8, col. 4, lines 58-60) connecting an external distribution manifold to said internal 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 can be loaded into the void space of said at least one leaching chamber to encourage biological nutrient removal of remaining soluble nutrients in the 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, comprising: providing the components of the device of claim 1 (e.g. Fig. 10, as explained above); providing at least one ground location to accommodate said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 10); assembling the components of said 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 at least one embedded infiltration device of claim 1 operably engaged with at least one ground location (e.g. Fig. 10, as explained above); providing at least one source of liquid for infiltration (e.g. 18/20, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 56-60); flowing said liquid into said at least one embedded infiltration device (e.g. col. 3, lines 56-60); wherein said liquid is distributed into said at least one 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: at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, or in the alternative 10c, Fig. 9); at least one means for distributing liquid through the length of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. open flow path of 10, Fig. 3, paragraph 0029, or in the alternative 32, Fig. 10, paragraph 0034); at least one sidewall of said at least one leaching chamber inserted to a depth below grade and below at least one soil-liquid interface to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 1, or in the alternative Fig. 9, paragraph 0028, wherein the entire leaching chamber is buried and therefore positioned below a soil-liquid interface defined at the ground surface, and/or wherein the leaching chamber is configured to be positioned at any depth and below any soil-liquid interface inasmuch as the leaching chamber of the instant application because of their similar structure and design).
Regarding claim 2, King further discloses that said at least one leaching chamber comprises at least one roof (e.g. top of body 18, Fig. 1), 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 said at least one roof, at least one sidewall, and at least one end-cap of said at least one 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 said at least one 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 said at least one 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 said at least one leaching chamber passes heat from the external environment to the 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 said at least one 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 said at least one means for distributing liquid comprises an unobstructed overland flow path through the length of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, King further discloses that said at least one 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 can be loaded into the void space of said at least one leaching chamber to encourage biological nutrient removal of remaining soluble nutrients in the liquid stream and composting of remaining solids in the 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, comprising: providing the components of the device of claim 1 (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, as explained above); providing at least one ground location to accommodate said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. trench, paragraph 0010); assembling the components of said device on or in said at least one ground location (e.g. paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 42, King further discloses that said at least one ground location is prepared by trenching to more easily accept the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one 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 at least one embedded infiltration device of claim 1 operably engaged with at least one ground location (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, as explained above, paragraph 0010); providing at least one source of liquid for infiltration (e.g. paragraph 0008); flowing said liquid into said at least one embedded infiltration device (e.g. paragraph 0008); wherein said liquid is distributed into said at least one leaching chamber and onto soil (e.g. paragraph 0009).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spires et al (US 2020/0354941).
Regarding claim 1, Spires discloses an embedded infiltration device, comprising: at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 110, Fig. 3A); at least one means for distributing liquid through the length of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. open flow path of 110, Fig. 3A); at least one sidewall of said at least one leaching chamber inserted to a depth below grade and below at least one soil-liquid interface to facilitate infiltration while preventing the presence of liquid on the soil surface outside of the leaching chamber (e.g. Fig. 3A, wherein the entire leaching chamber is positioned below a soil-liquid interface defined at surface 280, and/or wherein the leaching chamber is configured to be positioned at any depth and below any soil-liquid interface inasmuch as the leaching chamber of the instant application because of their similar structure and design).
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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spires et al (US 2020/0354941) alone.
Regarding claim 35, Spires discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses a plastic fiber mat that rests on said soil-liquid interface (e.g. 130, Fig. 3A, paragraph 0049) but Spires does not explicitly disclose at least one biomat that develops on the plastic fiber mat. The examiner takes official notice 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 develop a biomat on the plastic fiber mat of Spires because such is a known element that naturally grows in leaching systems and that provides the expected benefit of additional filtering.
Claims 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 40, Bracone discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber are placed on said at least one ground location (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) but Bracone does not explicitly disclose that the vertical members 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 on 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 and further discloses that said at least one ground location accepts the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) but Bracone does not explicitly disclose that the ground is prepared by slicing or sawing. 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 digging (thereby slicing) the ground 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 that said at least one ground location accepts the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) 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 that the ground is prepared by trenching. 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 digging 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 vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber are placed on said at least one ground location (e.g. paragraph 0010) but King does not explicitly disclose that the vertical members 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 on 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 said at least one ground location accepts the insertion of the vertical members of said at least one leaching chamber (e.g. 30, Fig.’s 2 and 10) but King does not explicitly disclose that the ground is prepared by slicing or sawing. 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
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