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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “central connector” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,781; Claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,971; and Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,846,094. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all are drawn to wells and a conduit connecting the wells with the subsurface having a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-5 cm/s and located at a depth of at least 10 feet.
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 1-22 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites “a volume of water to a subsurface region”. It is unclear if this refers to the subsurface region in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 9, the claim recites “at least a well”. It is unclear if this well is part of the “two or more wells” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 11, the claim recites “a volume of water to a subsurface region”. It is unclear if this refers to the subsurface region in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 19, the claim recites “at least a well”. It is unclear if this well is part of the “two or more wells” of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 22, the claim recites “a volume of water to a subsurface region”. It is unclear if this refers to the subsurface region in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims are also rejected for depending on their respecting rejected independent claims.
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, 5-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al (China Patent Publication No. 112814120A).
As to Claim 1, Yi discloses a system for directing water to a subsurface region, comprising:
A network comprising two or more wells (3), each well comprising:
A conduit (4) for directing a volume of water to a subsurface region located below a land surface, the subsurface region being formed from an earth surface adapted to contact the water and having a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-5 cm/s (Paragraph 0038: “In response to the serious problems of non-point source pollution and initial rainwater runoff pollution on both sides of urban rivers, geological survey data or geological drilling have revealed medium-coarse sand strata (permeability coefficient K greater than 0.006 cm/s, and medium-coarse sand strata are common on both sides of rivers) within a burial depth of 10 meters”),
Wherein an upper portion of the subsurface region is located at a distance of at least 10 feet below the land surface (Paragraph 0065: “Since it was found through geological survey data or geological drilling that there are medium-coarse sand strata within a burial depth of 10 meters, in order to better utilize the drainage capacity of the natural medium-coarse sand strata, the preferred deployment depth range of the initial rain purification well 3 is 4-10 meters”).
As to Claim 2, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising at least one trench (1) fluidically coupled to the network.
As to Claim 5, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein the network is fluidically connected to a central connector (1).
As to Claim 6, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 5 (Refer to Claim 5 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein the central connector (1) connects the two or more wells (3).
As to Claim 7, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein a well (3) of the two or more wells is a drainage well.
As to Claim 8, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein the subsurface region is located in a ground layer (7) of bedrock.
As to Claim 9, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein the conduit (4) is in fluidic communication with a combination of at least a trench (1) and at least a well (3).
As to Claim 10, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yi also discloses wherein the two or more wells (3) of the network are positioned around a perimeter of a land structure (Figure 1).
As to Claim 11, Yi discloses a method of directing water to a subsurface region, comprising:
Directing a volume of water through a network (Figure 1), the network comprising two or more wells (3), each well comprising:
A conduit (4) for directing a volume of water to a subsurface region located below a land surface, the subsurface region being formed from an earth surface adapted to contact the water and having a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-5 cm/s (Paragraph 0038: “In response to the serious problems of non-point source pollution and initial rainwater runoff pollution on both sides of urban rivers, geological survey data or geological drilling have revealed medium-coarse sand strata (permeability coefficient K greater than 0.006 cm/s, and medium-coarse sand strata are common on both sides of rivers) within a burial depth of 10 meters”); and
Wherein an upper portion of the subsurface region is located at a distance of at least 10 feet below the land surface (Paragraph 0065: “Since it was found through geological survey data or geological drilling that there are medium-coarse sand strata within a burial depth of 10 meters, in order to better utilize the drainage capacity of the natural medium-coarse sand strata, the preferred deployment depth range of the initial rain purification well 3 is 4-10 meters”).
As to Claim 12, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising at least one trench (1) fluidically coupled to the network.
As to Claim 15, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein the network is fluidically connected to a central connector (1).
As to Claim 16, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein the central connector (1) connects the two or more wells (3).
As to Claim 17, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein a well of the two or more wells (3) is a drainage well.
As to Claim 18, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein the subsurface region is located in a ground layer (7) of bedrock.
As to Claim 19, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein the conduit (4) is in fluidic communication with a combination of at least a trench (1) and at least a well (3).
As to Claim 20, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Yi also discloses further comprising wherein the two or more wells (3) of the network are positioned around a perimeter of a land structure (Figure 1).
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 3, 4, 13, 14, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (China Patent Publication No. 112814120A) alone.
As to Claim 3, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). However, Yi is silent about wherein the at least one trench has a depth of about 6 feet. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the at least one trench of a depth of about 6 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 4, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). However, Yi is silent about wherein the at least one trench has an exfiltration capacity of about 6 gallons per minute (gpm). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the at least one trench with an exfiltration capacity of about 6 gallons per minute (gpm), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 13, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). owever, Yi is silent about wherein the at least one trench has a depth of about 6 feet. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the at least one trench of a depth of about 6 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 14, Yi discloses the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). However, Yi is silent about wherein the at least one trench has an exfiltration capacity of about 6 gallons per minute (gpm). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the at least one trench with an exfiltration capacity of about 6 gallons per minute (gpm), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 21, Yi discloses a system for directing water to a subsurface region, the system comprising:
A network (Figure 1) comprising two or more drainage wells (3), each well comprising:
A conduit (4) for directing a volume of water to a subsurface region below a land surface, the subsurface region being formed from an earth surface adapted to contact the water and having a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-5 cm/s (Paragraph 0038: “In response to the serious problems of non-point source pollution and initial rainwater runoff pollution on both sides of urban rivers, geological survey data or geological drilling have revealed medium-coarse sand strata (permeability coefficient K greater than 0.006 cm/s, and medium-coarse sand strata are common on both sides of rivers) within a burial depth of 10 meters”),
Wherein the conduit (4) is adapted to handle fluid volume flows.
However, Yi is silent about wherein the conduit is adapted to handle fluid volume flows generated during a 100 year storm. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a conduit adapted to handle fluid volume flows generated during a 100 year storm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 22, Yi as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Yi as modified also teaches further comprising wherein a well of the two or more wells (3) is a drainage well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights