DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 10 October 2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-28, 20 and 21 are pending;
Claims 1 and 21 are currently amended;
Claims 2-7, 9-18 and 20 were previously presented;
Claims 8 and 19 are cancelled;
Claims 1-7, 9-18, 20 and 21 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10 October 2025 have been fully considered and they are moot since the new limitations necessitate the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 1-5, 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037).
As to Claim 1, Urban discloses a water storage system comprising:
A water storage unit (A first 600) comprising:
An outer shell (Outer peripheral wall of a first 600) with a first side (Side with 608) and a second side (Side with 606) adjacent the first side;
A first set of cross-bodies (Figure 14 show three crossbodies widthwise) spanning a width of the outer shell; and
A second set of cross-bodies (Figure 14 show three crossbodies lengthwise) spanning a length of the outer shell and intersecting the first set of cross-bodies (They intersect near pillar 602 and pillars 604); and
A plurality of vertical pillars (602, 604 of a first 600), the pillars supporting intersection points of the first and second sets of cross-bodies;
A water storage lid (612) configured to be attached to the water storage unit (A first 600);
Wherein the water storage unit (A first 600) is configured to connect to a top of a second water storage unit (A second 600) via each of the plurality of vertical pillars (Figure 15) directly connecting to and contacting a second plurality of vertical pillars (602, 604 of a second 600) of the second water storage unit,
Wherein the second water storage unit (A second 600) is further configured to receive a second water storage lid (612 can be received by any of the storage units 600) via each of the second plurality of vertical pillars directly connecting to and contacting the second water storage lid (Figure 15).
However, Urban is silent about the first side comprising a first plurality of openings and the second side comprising a second plurality of openings. Culleton discloses an outer shell (11, 12, 13) with a first side (First 13) comprising a first plurality of openings (19) and a second side (Second 13 perpendicular to first 13) adjacent the first side comprising a second plurality of openings (19). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first side with a first plurality of openings and the second side with a second plurality of openings. The motivation would have been to provide solid walls with specific openings to control water retention and infiltration.
As to Claim 2, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the outer shell comprises a third side comprising a third plurality of openings (Culleton: 19), wherein the third side is opposite the first side and the third plurality of openings (Culleton: 19) are aligned with the first plurality of openings (Culleton: 19); and a fourth side comprising a fourth plurality of openings, wherein the fourth side is opposite the second side and the fourth plurality of openings are aligned with the second plurality of openings.
As to Claim 3, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein at least one of the first side or second side comprises a plurality of secondary openings, wherein each secondary opening is between an opening and a corner of the outer shell (Culleton: A group from the many openings in the sides can be interpreted as secondary openings).
As to Claim 4, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein each of the plurality of secondary openings are approximately rectangular in shape (Culleton: A group from the many openings in the sides can be interpreted as secondary openings which are approximately rectangular).
As to Claim 5, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the water storage lid comprises a plurality of perforations (Urban: Figure 16).
As to Claim 9, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein each intersection point comprises a male connection mechanism (Urban: Figure 15).
As to Claim 20, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein each of the first and second pluralities of openings (Culleton: 19) comprise two openings.
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037); and further in view of Hoekstra et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0200600).
As to Claim 15, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about wherein each of the first and second pluralities of openings is circular. Hoekstra as modified also teaches wherein each of the first and second pluralities of openings (17, 18, 19) is circular (Figure 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the first and second pluralities of openings circular since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 16, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about wherein each of the first and second pluralities of openings has a diameter of about 128 mm. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the first and second pluralities of openings of a diameter of about 128 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037); and further in view of Ray et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0295812).
As to Claim 6, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 5 (Refer to Claim 5 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about wherein each of the plurality of perforations are hexagonally shaped. Ray discloses a plurality of perforations that are hexagonally shaped (Figure 2A, hexagonal openings of 120). 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 plurality of perforations hexagonally shaped since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037); and further in view of Holbrook et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,851,867).
As to Claim 7, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about wherein the water storage lid comprises a plurality of flaps configured to cover a portion of the outer shell. Holbrook discloses a water storage lid comprising a plurality of flaps (28TF) configured to cover a portion of the outer shell. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the water storage lid with a plurality of flaps configured to cover a portion of the outer shell. The motivation would have been to strengthen the lid.
Claims 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037); and further in view of Masser (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,681).
As to Claim 10, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about wherein the male connection mechanism comprises a plurality of prongs. Masser discloses a male connection mechanism (“X” shaped protrusion at center of box in Figure 3) comprising a plurality of prongs (Each of the four diagonal lines of the “X” is a prong). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the male connection mechanism with a plurality of prongs since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to Claim 11, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the male connection mechanism comprises four prongs (Masser: Each of the four diagonal lines of the “X” is a prong).
As to Claim 12, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the lid comprises a plurality of female connection mechanisms (Urban: Figure 15).
As to Claim 13, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the female connection mechanisms (Urban: Figure 15) are aligned with the male connection mechanisms (Urban: Figure 15).
As to Claim 14, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein each of the female connection mechanisms comprises a plurality of slots (Urban: Figure 15), each slot being configured to receive a prong of a respective male connection mechanism.
Claims 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028514) in view of Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037); and further in view of Canney et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0255624).
As to Claim 17, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Urban as modified is silent about comprises at least one flow restrictor configured to block an opening. Canney discloses a flow restrictor (35) configured to partially block (Paragraph 0022: “Preferably, a plurality of additional elements is provided with which the drainage bodies may be constructed into drainage systems. These include in particular cover elements that are provided for covering openings in the surface units. These, for example, are openings in the region of the supporting elements formed as hollow bodies. That is to say, if the spacers formed as hollow bodies have openings for allowing water that is intended to seep away to pass through, then the cover elements provided for them are also provided with openings such that the water that is intended to seep away can also penetrate through these covers into the surrounding soil”) an opening (23, 23’). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one flow restrictor configured to partially block an opening. The motivation would have been to avoid the passage of fluid via the conduit when necessary.
As to Claim 18, Urban as modified teaches the invention of Claim 17 (Refer to Claim 17 discussion). Urban as modified also teaches wherein the at least one flow restrictor (Canney: 35) is slotted.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culleton et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,790,037) in view of Terry et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,789).
As to Claim 21, Culleton discloses a water storage system comprising:
A water storage unit (31) comprising:
An outer shell (11, 12, 13) with a first side (First 13) comprising a first plurality of openings (19) and a second side (Second 13 perpendicular to first 13) adjacent the first side comprising a second plurality of openings (19);
A first set of cross-bodies (Widthwise ribs in Figure 6) spanning a width of the outer shell; and
A second set of cross-bodies (Lengthwise ribs in Figure 6) spanning a length of the outer shell and intersecting the first set of cross-bodies (Figure 6);
A water storage lid (400 in Figure 15) configured to be attached to the water storage unit (31).
However, Culleton as modified is silent about at least one flow restrictor configured to partially block an opening, the at least one flow restrictor comprising an aperture configured to rotate within a casing and the at least one flow restrictor restricts an amount of flow based on an orientation of the aperture within the casing, wherein the casing blocks at least a portion of the aperture. Terry discloses a water storage box (50) with at least one flow restrictor (10) configured to partially block an opening (55), the at least one flow restrictor comprising an aperture (41) configured to rotate within a casing (Figures 8a-d) and the at least one flow restrictor (10) restricts an amount of flow based on an orientation of the aperture within the casing, wherein the casing blocks at least a portion of the aperture (Wall 22 which is part of the casing 43 partially blocks aperture 41 leaving only 30 open). at least one flow restrictor configured to partially block an opening, the at least one flow restrictor comprising an aperture configured to rotate within a casing and the at least one flow restrictor restricts an amount of flow based on an orientation of the aperture within the casing, wherein the casing blocks at least a portion of the aperture. The motivation would have been to filter out debris and control the flow of fluid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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