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.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a dry vacuum pump dynamically sealed to the first vessel”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what exactly constitutes a dynamic seal, as the metes and bounds of this limitation are not present in the instant specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Crosby (US 5514286).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, Crosby discloses a system and method for restoring a contaminated soil, the system comprising: a first vessel [10] configured to receive the contaminated soil; an agitator [18] configured to disturb the contaminated soil; a heat source [16] configured to heat the contaminated soil; and a vacuum pump [26] coupled to the first vessel [Figures 1 & 5], wherein the coupling enables an evaporated contaminant to escape from the first vessel [via pipe 22; Figure 3].
Regarding claims 2-4 and 18, Crosby further discloses the agitator disturbs the contaminated soil by rotation [Column 5, Line 15 to Column 6, Line 55]; an insulation [36] on the first vessel; and the first vessel comprises at least one fin [18] that protrudes into the first vessel.
Regarding claims 10, 13 and 17, Crosby further discloses a second vessel [52] coupled to the vacuum pump to contain the condensed evaporated contaminant.
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby (US 5514286) alone.
Regarding claims 15, and 16, although Crosby is silent as to the specific values of the vacuum pump pressure and heating temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize values of .001 Torr and greater than 325 Kelvin respectively depending on a number of factors including the size of the tanks, the operative ability of the pump, the volume and type of soil, the type of contaminant, 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).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby (US 5514286) in view of Hamilton (US 20140363234).
Crosby fails to disclose the use of temperature/pressure sensors and a control unit with the device.
Hamilton teaches an apparatus and method for soil remediation wherein temperature and pressure sensors, and a control unit is utilized in the system [Paragraphs 78 & 79].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Crosby by adding the sensing and control system as described by Hamilton to provide a more accurate indication of the operating conditions for both increasing safety and the quality of the remediation.
Claim(s) 9, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby (US 5514286) in view of Tomiuci (JP 2003019434 A).
Crosby fails to disclose the vacuum pump is specifically a dry pump.
Tomiuci discloses a soil remediation system wherein a dry pump [43] is utilized in the process.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Crosby by substituting the vacuum pump for a dry vacuum pump as described by Tomuici since it is pulling dry vapor after the saturated vapor has passed through the condensing chamber, thereby it can last longer and require less frequent and costly maintenance thus saving time and money.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vermeulen (US 2007/0278086) discloses a thermal desorption process and device 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
Prosecution Insights