DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola (U.S. 5,810,510) in view of Thayer et al. (U.S. 8,467,049 B2), hereinafter “Thayer” and in view of Carlton (U.S. 5,689,921).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Urriola teaches a system for collecting fluid (col. 2, first paragraph) comprising
a geocellular modular 11;
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 above the module in figure 3); and
a reinforcement sublayer (e.g. 10 shown at the bottom of figure 6 or the cellular confinement layer 29/50 shown in figures 12-14).
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.
Urriola doesn’t specify a geometric monitoring module but such is taught by Thayer. Thayer teaches using e.g. radar and lasers (lidar) or GPS or sonar (col. 3, lines 20-25) in sensor head 103 in subsurface fluid collection systems (“other voids”: abstract) [as in claim 1]. 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 geometric monitoring module of Thayer in the invention of Urriola since Thayer teaches the benefits of locating and determining the nature of defects or damage and also creating a model that can be used to make maintenance or repair decisions and that can be used to compare changes in manhole conditions over time (col. 3, lines 35-45).
Urriola also doesn’t specify a chemical monitoring module. But such is taught by Carlton. Carlton teaches a drainage system from e.g. a house (building), wherein a drainage connector 10 located at the house includes vents and a detector 66 for radon or other dangerous gas (col. 4, first full paragraph) [as in claim 1]. 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 detector 66 of Carlton in the invention of Urriola, since Carlton teaches the benefit of removing dangerous gases from the housing draining system. This is particularly relevant to Urriola since Urriola teaches his geocellular fluid collection system can be used with a house/building (figure 9, col. 2, lines 52-53).
As for claim 2, Urriola teaches a cover (e.g. the combination of 17 and its wrap 9 or the cover shown in figure 14 connected to the inlet pipe.
As for claims 3-4 and 7, the modified Urriola teaches a lidar and GPS dimensional measurement system, as shown above by Thayer.
As for claims 8-9, Urriola teaches an earth (clean sand) and cellular confinement layer (29/50).
As for claims 10-11 and 13-14, the modified Urriola teaches a gas detection module comprising an air vent, radon detector, and gas sampler: as expanded above Carlton teaches an air vent 58 with a fan 66 and radon gas detector 66, wherein the air vent would have the ability to sample gases from the drainage system. Reasons for modifying the teachings of Urriola with that of Carlton was given above.
As for claim 19, Urriola teaches a wet well 44 in communication with a geocellular module.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola, as modified in the rejection of claim 19, and in further view of Mills (U.S. 10,488,293).
The modified Urriola doesn’t specify an anti-static layer, but such is taught by Mills. Mills teaches a geotextile that is conductive (abstract). 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 anti-static layer upon a geotextile of Mills in the invention of the modified Urriola since Mills teaches the benefit of leak detection (abstract). Such a geotextile about the drainage cells 49 of the modified Urriola would detect leaks in tank 45 that comprises the delivery of water through pipe opening 45.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola, as modified in the rejection of claim 4, and in further view of Morgan et al. (U.S. 8,018,329), hereinafter “Morgan”. As expanded above, the modified Urriola teaches a dimensional measuring system including GPS for mapping out a drainage system and also for locating and determining the nature of defects or damage that can be used to make maintenance or repair decisions and that can be used to compare changes in manhole conditions over time (see col. 3, lines 35-45 Thayer). The modified Urriola doesn’t specify a geofence. However, Morgan teaches a geofence (abstract). 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 geofence of Morgan in the invention of the modified Urriola since Morgan teaches the benefit of determining when an asset moves beyond a boundary. This would detect damage to the drainage system caused by collapse or movement of the earth and thereby provide an alert—further perfecting the goal of monitoring damage to make repair decisions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola, as modified in the rejection of claim 4, and in further view of WO 2018/176274 A1, hereinafter ‘274. The modified Urriola teaches spinning laser systems for dimensioning (col. 6, line 38) but do not specify the inclusion of a prism. However, ‘274 teaches a Lidar including a prism steering system [as in claim 6]. 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 prism laser steering system of ‘274 in the invention the modified Urriola, since ‘274 teaches the benefits of compactness, relative insensitivity to vibration, and high scanning speed [71]—which would further perfect the invention of the modified Urriola.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola, as modified in the rejection of claim 10, and in further view of Hunniford et al (U.S. 7,087,172 B2), hereinafter “Hunniford”.
The modified Urriola, as expanded above teaches a chemical monitoring system, but he doesn’t specify a H2S detector. However, Hunniford teaches a H2S detector in wastewater collection systems (abstract) [as in claim 12]. 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 H2S detector of Hunniford in the invention of the modified Urriola, since Hunniford teaches detection of H2S to determine the need for treatment. This would be relevant to Urriola, since Urriola teaches that polluted water enters his system (col. 3, lines 30-32) and a build-up of H2S would be odoriferous indicating a need for maintenance of the collection system.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola, as modified in the rejection of claim 10, and in further view of DE 10323518 A1, hereinafter ‘518.
As expanded above in the rejection of claim 12, the modified Urriola teaches treating collected wastewater with additives to reduce hydrogen sulfide, etc. Urriola doesn’t specify a chemical mixing bag. However, such is taught by ‘518. ‘518 teaches a chemical mixing system including bags [0015] [as in claim 15] for removal of odoriferous substances (abstract). 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 bags of ‘518 in the invention of the modified Urriola since the modified Urriola desires treatment for removal of odoriferous substances (e.g. from a container 455 of Hunniford)—further perfecting the goal of the modified Urriola. As for claim 17, the additive mixture taught by Hunniford includes a caustic (an alkaline mineral); as for claims 16 and 18, ‘518 teaches control of pH; and other odor causing contaminants such that the additives of claims 16-18 would have been obvious depending upon the contaminants present and the treatment goals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
As for claim 1, Applicant argues that Urriola doesn’t teach the claimed reinforcement sublayer since the sand layer 10 is a structural support for the geocellular module. This is not convincing since the claims do not require the reinforcement sublayer to have any particular function nor claim any particular location relative to the geocellular module. Though 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). As shown in the rejection, the sand layer 10 shown at the bottom of figure 6 or the cellular confinement layer 29/50 shown in figures 12-14 is sufficient to teach the reinforcement sublayer, as presently claimed.
Applicant argues essentially that the balance of the claims are also not taught because the modified Urriola doesn’t teach a reinforcement layer. This is not found to be convincing since as shown above, Urriola teaches the reinforcement layer as presently claimed.
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 repeated 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