DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 4-7, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urriola (U.S. 5,810,510).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
641
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
422
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Urriola teaches a system for collecting fluid (col. 2, first paragraph) comprising
a geocellular modular 11 forming a cavity;
a liner 9 below and at least partially around the geocellular modular;
a filter disposed above the geocellular module (e.g. the additional layer of 9 above 17 or the clean fill sand layer 10 which surrounds the entire system; see col. 3, lines 62-63 and col. 4, lines 15-20);
a cover (e.g. 17 or the combination of 17 and its wrap 9, wherein the sand layer 10 would be the filter thereabove or the cover shown in figure 14 connected to the inlet pipe).
the system disposed at a gradient: referring to figure 5, Urriola explains that channel 15 is constructed of modules 11 (see figures 7 and 8a-8c and col. 4, lines 15-19) and that the resulting channel is provided with "fall" allowing runoff to be transported to other areas (col. 4, lines 43-50). This clearly evidences that Urriola discloses the limitation "said system disposed at a gradient". In addition, the flow arrows of figure 5 indicate a gradient.
As for claim 2, Urriola also comprises a drainage board (e.g. 45 made of sections 50).
As for claims 4 and 5, Urriola also comprises a subdrain (e.g. 45 made of sections 50) and a separation tank (e.g. 16 or 44).
As for claim 6, the geocellular modules comprise non-reactive material (e.g. plastic, see col. 5, lines 19-20).
As for claim 7, the liner 9 is a porous geomembrane liner.
As for claim 10, Urriola also teaches the cover 17 (figure 5) being modular (made of units11 shown in figure 7; see col. 4, lines 9-14).
As for claim 12, the system comprises a dewatering bag 46 at least partially disposed above the geocellular module (e.g. as shown in figure 14, the bag is above the drainage cells 49 (each as described in figure 7) and also above the cells 45 of the pipe 50.
As for claim 18, Urriola teaches a tailings system1 comprising:
a fluid collection system comprising: a geocellular module 11 forming a cavity;
a liner 9 below and at least partially disposed around said module;
a filter disposed above said geocellular module (e.g. the additional layer of 9 above 17 or the clean fill sand layer 10 which surrounds the entire system; see col. 3, lines 62-63 and col. 4, lines 15-20;
a cover disposed above said geocellular module (e.g. 17 or the combination of 17 and its wrap 9, wherein the sand layer 10 would be the filter thereabove or the cover shown in figure 14 connected to the inlet pipe);
said system disposed at a gradient: referring to figure 5, Urriola explains that channel 15 is constructed of modules 11 (see figures 7 and 8a-8c and col. 4, lines 15-19) and that the resulting channel is provided with "fall" allowing runoff to be transported to other areas (col. 4, lines 43-50). This clearly evidences that Urriola discloses the limitation "said system disposed at a gradient". In addition, the flow arrows of figure 5 indicate a gradient; and
at least one dewatering bag 46; said least one dewatering bag at least partially disposed above said fluid collection system (the bag is above piping 50 and also above tank 16 and channel components 15 of e.g. figure 5) and including a conduit in communication with said at least one dewatering bag (two conduits are clearly shown in figure 14).
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.
The factual inquiries that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Emery et al. (U.S. 10,974,173 B1), hereinafter “Emery”.
Urriola doesn’t specify an aerator. But such is taught by Emery.
PNG
media_image4.png
509
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Emery teaches an aerator including air inlet pipe 16, valve 18, and cross slots 22 providing air to a system collecting fluid. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the aerator of Emery in the invention of Urriola, since Urriola desire aeration of the fluid being collecting (col. 1, lines 8-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola.
As for claim 11, Urriola teaches a plurality of modular units 11 each including a void space. Though he doesn’t specify a void space of the system to be about 20% to about 97%, such would have been obvious depending upon the expected water volume to be treated at the location of use.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of BRADLEY, SR. et al. (U.S. 2014/0010601 A1), hereinafter BRADLEY.
As expanded above, Urriola teaches a dewatering bag 44 but doesn’t specify a coating. However, BRADLEY teaches a system wherein said at least one dewatering bag comprises a coating [0044], "The geotextile material 37 forming the geotextile tube 30 desirably can be formed by being woven from synthetic fibers such as nylon, polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene or any combination of the foregoing fibers. Among the most widely used materials are polyesters laminated or coated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and woven fiberglass coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)".
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the coating of BRADLEY to the dewatering bag of Urriola to further increase the strength of the bags and reduce wear and tear.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of in further view of Wolfe (U.S. 7,157,010).
Wolfe teaches a flocculant material 30 within a bag formed by sheets 40, 43 (col 4, lines 1-6) [as in claim 14]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the flocculant of Wolfe in the dewatering bags of since Wolfe teaches the benefit of coagulating a portion of the colloidal particles which can then be filtered (abstract). Upon modification, the coagulating would further perfect the goal of Urriola to retain contaminants within the bag 44 and release purified water (col. 1, lines 5-8).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Happel (U.S. 10,287,768). Urriola doesn’t specify an internal washing system, but such is taught by Happel.
Happel teaches an internal washing system including a spray bar 17 and 21 and vacuum removal line mounted inside a vault for collecting stormwater. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the internal washing system of Happel in the system of Urriola, since Happel teaches the benefit of liquefying settled debris with removal thereof (abstract). Upon modification, the tank 15 of Happel would be in addition to or substituting for tank 44 of Urriola to removing debris from stormwater.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Early et al. (U.S. 9,217,244), hereinafter “Early”.
Urriola doesn’t specify a lift station. But such is taught by Early. Early teaches a lift station (figure 2) for use with stormwater (col. 1, line 35).
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the lift station of Early in the invention of Urriola since Early teaches the benefit of using collected stormwater for irrigation (col. 2, line 9) which is desired by Urriola (see e.g. figures 10-11). Upon modification, the lift station could be positioned downstream of tank 16 or channel 15 or 36 (figure 10) allowing irrigation of grass, etc. thereabove.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of CN202201785U, hereinafter ‘785.
Urriola teaches a dewatering bag, but doesn’t specify a plurality of bags that are stacked.
However, ‘785 teaches a system (Fig. 3; 0002) comprising a plurality of bags arranged in a stacked or pyramidal configuration [as in claim 20]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of dewatering bags of ‘785 in the invention of Urriola in order to handle more volumetric flow while preventing a single bag from becoming too heavy to move for replacement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for the following reasons:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the gradient creates a slope to functionally direct the flow of fluid in a single direction of claims 1 and 18) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also from the description of the flow of runoff from the road to the tank 16 and then after tank 16 become full to tank 15, a gradient is present (col. 4, lines 20-37). Also, channel 15 is described as being provided with “fall” which also clearly indicates a gradient.
Similarly, to claims 1 and 18, Applicant also improperly attempts to incorporate limitations from the specification for claim 2 (e.g. the drainage board being disposed between the cover and geocellular module); claim 5 (e.g. the separation tank configured to separate a fluid into aqueous and hydrophobic fluids); claim 12 (e.g. the dewatering bag configured to filter the water before water enters the container); claim 9 (e.g. that the aerator functions to accelerate fluid evaporation); and claim 20 (e.g. the dewatering bag configured to create a tailing dam).
As for claim 11, Applicant’s argument that Urriola teaches against the presence of void space within his system is not convincing since void space is provided by tanks (16, 36), cells, and channels 15 of his system.
As for claims 13 and 19, Applicant’s argument that Urriola doesn’t teach a dewatering bag comprising a coating because the coating of Urriola is not a separate component is not convincing since such is not required by claims and because Urriola specifically teaches woven fiberglass coated with PTFE [0044].
As for claim 14, Applicant’s argument that the modified Urriola fails to teach a dewatering bag comprising a flocculant Urriola’s bag 44 is not a dewatering bag is not convincing since Urriola’s bag 44 anticipates the broadly claimed dewatering bag of claim 12, as shown above.
As for claim 3, Applicant argues that having the spray bar of Happel in the tank 44 of Urriola would not work since liquifying the debris within the bag would be redundant and affect permeability of the bag. However, a shown in Happel (figure 1), the spray bar 17 is at the bottom of the tank such that upon modification the result would liquify the fines that passed through the bag 46 and accumulate over time to assist in preventing clogged at exit opening 45.
As for claim 8, Applicant argues that adding a lift station of Early would change the function of the system of Urriola. However this is not found to be convincing since Urriola desires irrigation and pumping water to root systems above the holding cell of figure 10 of Urriola would have been obvious and would further enhance the irrigating function thereof.
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 Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 Naming the system a “tailings” system fails to further structurally define the apparatus beyond the elements listed in the body of the claims.