DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
The examiner has noted on record an inconsistency between the oath/declaration filed 03 October 2006 and priority document 60/697,390, filed 08 July 2005 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)1.
The examiner has identified claimed subject matter that does not qualify for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)2.
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 “impervious structure” of claims 16, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is advised to update the status of all related applications in the first paragraph of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-19, 21-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19, 21-25
With respect to claim 16, the originally filed specification fails to support the limitation of “an impervious structure positioned within the sand base.” In paragraph 047, Applicant discloses a “Clay lens or other impervious layer installed below porous soil (sand or gravel bed) to direct water through porous soils.” [underlining added]
Claims 17-19 and 21-25 are rejected as depending from claim 16.
Claims 27-29
With respect to claim 27, the originally filed specification fails to support the limitation of “an impervious structure disposed within a base of at least one of said aquatic beds.” In paragraph 047, Applicant discloses a “Clay lens or other impervious layer installed below porous soil (sand or gravel bed) to direct water through porous soils.” [underlining added]
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected as depending from claim 27.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09 December 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,047,125 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 32 and 33 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 December 2025 with the appeal brief have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Priority
Applicant’s statements with respect to priority are noted.
Drawings
Applicant again fails to comply with the drawing requirement.
Applicant challenges the objection to the drawings on the basis that 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) does not mandate illustration of every claimed feature. The examiner contends the claimed feature is essential for proper understanding of the invention because it remains a point of contention and must be shown.
Both claims 16 and 27 recite an impervious structure disposed within a (sand) base, and the drawings fail to identify an impervious structure in any of the views shown. Additionally, the originally filed specification only supports an impervious structure installed below a porous base ([047]). Thus, illustration of the impervious structure is essential to the understanding of the claimed invention. The examiner provides the following scenarios to clarify the Office position, wherein the shaded figures represent cross-sectional views of a sand base.
The bolded line through the middle represents an impervious structure disposed within the base.
[AltContent: ]
[AltContent: connector]
The bolded line along the bottom perimeter represents an impervious structure disposed below the base.
[AltContent: ]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
WITHIN ≠ BELOW
Rejections Under §112, First Paragraph
Applicant challenges the rejection of claims 16-19, 21-25 and 27-29 under §112, first paragraph on the basis that one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the statement "installed below the porous soil" means at least a portion of the impervious structure extends into the sand base or below the top portion of the porous soil.
The examiner disagrees. As addressed above in section II, within is not synonymous with below, and certainly do not produce the same effect.
In Scenario A above, an impervious structure positioned within the porous structure would allow for the movement of water both above and below the impervious structure.
However, in Scenario B, an impervious structure is positioned below the porous structure, and water within the regenerative stormwater conveyance (RSC) system infiltrates the porous structure and travels along the impervious structure, remaining within the system. Additionally, any fluid seepage from bordering earth formations is prevented from entering the RSC system.
For these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
22 February 2026
1 The inconsistency was first noted by the examiner in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 23 October 2023.
2 The claimed subject matter not entitled to the benefit of priority was first identified by the examiner in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 23 October 2023.