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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of the shredder, the first sand screw, the second sand screw, the separator, the hopper, the tiller as described in the specification and claims. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadate et al. (JP 2003300055 A) in view of Nishimura (JPH09192531 A).
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Imadate discloses a system for remediating contaminated soil comprising an inlet (12), a sand screw (6), and a separator (14) wherein: the inlet is configured to: receive a feed stream of contaminated soil; introduce a metal catalyst and chemical oxidant into the shredder; and feed the contaminated soil into the sand screw (eg. fig. 1) , the sand screw is configured to: receive a feed stream of partially treated contaminated soil (figs. 1,5); receive a feed stream of chemical oxidant; receive a feed stream of water and/or chemical additive (via 13); and feed the contaminated soil into the separator, and the separator is configured to separate the contaminated soil fed into it into at least a treated soil stream and an organic solids and/or liquids stream (eg. para 0025).
Imadate discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the inlet is a shredder.
Nishimura discloses a system for remediating contaminated soil wherein an inlet comprising a shredder (2; paras 0012-0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Imadate and utilize a shredder as taught in Nishimura, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the size of the raw material.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Imadate further discloses the sand screw is a first sand screw (6) and further comprising a second sand screw (7) configured to receive contaminated soil from the first sand screw (paras 0022, 0027).
With regard to claim 3, Imadate further discloses the second sand screw is configured to receive a feed stream of chemical oxidant; receive a feed stream of water and/or chemical additive; and feed the contaminated soil into the separator (eg. para 0011; figs. 2-3).
With regard to claim 4, Imadate further an operator can selectively deliver water and or chemical additives to none, one or both of the sand screws (eg. para 0011).
With regard to claims 5-6, Imadate, as modified, further discloses a hopper configured to feed contaminated soil into the shredder, wherein in the hopper can be configured to control a flow rate of the contaminated soil fed into the shredder (Nishimura, fig. 1, paras 0012-0013).
With regard to claims 7-8, Imadate further discloses the separator is a screen which separates solids from the contaminated soil and a separator configured to separate liquids from the contaminated soil (para 0016).
With regard to claims 14-15, Imadate further discloses a chemical oxidant is employed wherein the chemical oxidant is hydrogen peroxide (para 0009).
With regard to claims 17-18, Imadate further discloses contaminated soil is soil which has been contaminated with refined crude oil (eg. para 0002).
With regard to claim 19, Imadate further discloses employing a chemical additive (para 0009).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadate et al. (JP 2003300055 A) in view of Nishimura (JPH09192531 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slattery et al. (6,857,998).
With regard to claim 9, Imadate, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a tiller which is configured to accept treated contaminated soil and further aerate the soil exiting the system.
Slattery discloses a system for remediating contaminated soil comprising a tiller which is configured to accept treated contaminated soil and further aerate the soil exiting the system (col. 3, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Imadate and utilize a tiller as taught in Slattery, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to aerate the soil.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadate et al. (JP 2003300055 A) in view of Nishimura (JPH09192531 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (2023/0249998).
With regard to claims 12-13, Imadate, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a metal catalyst is employed wherein the metal catalyst is an iron fertilizer.
Wang discloses a system for remediating contaminated soil comprising (abstract) a metal catalyst is employed wherein the metal catalyst is an iron fertilizer (para 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Imadate and utilize an iron fertilizer as taught in Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order address specific contaminants based on the design conditions at hand and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadate et al. (JP 2003300055 A) in view of Nishimura (JPH09192531 A) as applied to claim 115 and 19 above, and further in view of Lestan (2014/0126965).
With regard to claims 16 and 20, Imadate, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a chelant or surfactant.
Lestan discloses a system for remediating contaminated soil (abstract) utilizing a chelant or surfactant (para 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Imadate and utilize a chelant or surfactant as taught in Lestan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order address specific contaminants based on the design conditions at hand and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
06/15/2026
Prosecution Insights