DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 16 July 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 15-21 are pending;
Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are currently amended;
Claim 15 was previously presented;
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn;
Claims 1-7 and 15-21 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 16 July 2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Regarding the membrane in both Schneider and Ghosh, examiner contends the term is broad and can be defined simply as a “thin layer of something” (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/membrane). Membrane is also a synonym for liner or cover. Therefore, the elements identified as membranes in the references read on the definition of the term. The remaining arguments are based on intended use considering that the limitations use terms like “for” or “to”. Each interpreted element of Schneider and the elements missing in Schneider present in Ghost are capable of performing the claimed function or intended use. Lastly, the secondary reference does not need to recite each and every single limitation as the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Providing a pressure relief valve would be obvious for an array of reasons including preventing excessive buildup of gases that could compromise the safe operation of the system.
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 1-4, 7, 15-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (U.S. Patent No. 4,670,148) in view of Ghosh (U.S. Patent No. 4,323,367).
As to Claim 1, Schneider discloses a fail-safe gas collection system for collecting waste gas from a waste pile, the pile, the gas collection system comprising:
An impermeable membrane (4) covering substantially all of the waste pile (7; Column 4, Lines 18-20: “The deposited refuse is covered with a similarly substantially gastight cover 4 that is preferably made of PVC”);
An anti-lift topping (6) for biasing the membrane (4) to remain in place in the presence of winds;
A network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) positioned beneath and extending beneath the membrane (4);
A plurality of collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) at spaced-apart positions on the network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3), wherein the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) are positioned beneath the impermeable membrane (4) and the impermeable membrane is not perforated at the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3; Figures 1 and 3 show that the collection nodes do not perforate membrane 4);
A negative pressure pump (13) for drawing gas through the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) of the network of conduits (Column 5, Lines 3-6: “By means of a conveying mechanism 13 (a pump, blower, compressor, etc.), the gaseous decomposition products are suctioned or withdrawn from the gas wells 8”);
An adjustable control valve (11.1, 11.2, 11.3 grouped together) positioned between the network of conduits and the negative pressure pump (13).
However, Schneider is silent about at least one pressure relief valve to prevent the membrane from ballooning in the event that the negative pressure pump stops operating. Ghosh discloses at least one pressure relief valve (17) to prevent a membrane (14) from ballooning in the event that a negative pressure pump (18) stops operating. 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 pressure relief valve to prevent the membrane from ballooning in the event that the negative pressure pump stops operating. The motivation would have been to prevent excessive buildup of gases that could compromise the safe operation of the system.
As to Claim 2, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the at least one pressure relief valve comprises a plurality of pressure relief valves spaced apart from one another at a spacing of between about one per two acres and one per acre. 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 plurality of pressure relief valves spaced apart from one another at a spacing of between about one per two acres and one per acre since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
As to Claim 3, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the plurality of pressure relief valves are provided at least one or more per acre. 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 plurality of pressure relief valves at least one or more per acre since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
As to Claim 4, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Schneider as modified also teaches wherein the network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) comprises a grid of non-perforated pipes and the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) comprises orifices positioned at distributed locations on the grid of non-perforated pipes.
As to Claim 7, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Although Schneider as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of pressure relief valves are adapted to vent waste gas at pressures of between 3 inches and 30 inches of water column head, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the pressure limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 15, Schneider discloses a fail-safe gas collection system for collecting waste gas from a waste pile, the gas collection system comprising:
An impermeable membrane (4) covering substantially all of the waste pile (7; Column 4, Lines 18-20: “The deposited refuse is covered with a similarly substantially gastight cover 4 that is preferably made of PVC”);
An anti-lift topping (6) for biasing the membrane (4) to remain in place in the presence of winds;
A network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) positioned beneath and extending beneath the membrane (4);
A plurality of collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) at spaced-apart positions on the network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3), wherein the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) are positioned beneath the impermeable membrane (4) and the impermeable membrane is not perforated at the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3; Figures 1 and 3 show that the collection nodes do not perforate membrane 4);
A negative pressure pump (13) for drawing waste gas from the network of conduits (Column 5, Lines 3-6: “By means of a conveying mechanism 13 (a pump, blower, compressor, etc.), the gaseous decomposition products are suctioned or withdrawn from the gas wells 8”);
An adjustable control valve (11.1, 11.2, 11.3 grouped together) positioned between the network of conduits and the negative pressure pump (13).
However, Schneider is silent about a plurality of pressure relief valves to prevent the membrane from ballooning in the event that the negative pressure pump stops operating. Ghosh discloses a pressure relief valve (17) to prevent a membrane (14) from ballooning in the event that a negative pressure pump (18) stops operating. 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 pressure relief valve to prevent the membrane from ballooning in the event that the negative pressure pump stops operating. The motivation would have been to prevent excessive buildup of gases that could compromise the safe operation of the system.
Although Schneider as modified is silent about a plurality of pressure relief valves, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of pressure relief valves since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. Duplicating the amount of pressure relief valves would be obvious as a matter of design choice in order to cover sites of considerable size.
As to Claim 16, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the plurality of pressure relief valves spaced are apart from one another at a spacing of between about one per two acres and one per acre. 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 plurality of pressure relief valves spaced apart from one another at a spacing of between about one per two acres and one per acre since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
As to Claim 17, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the plurality of pressure relief valves are provided at least one or more per acre. 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 plurality of pressure relief valves at least one or more per acre since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
As to Claim 18, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). Schneider as modified also teaches wherein the network of conduits (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) comprises a grid of non-perforated pipes and the collection nodes (8.1, 8.2, 8.3) comprises orifices positioned at distributed locations on the grid of non-perforated pipes.
As to Claim 21, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 16 (Refer to Claim 16 discussion). Although Schneider as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of pressure relief valves are adapted to vent waste gas at pressures of between 0.5 inches and 30 inches of water column head, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the pressure limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5, 6, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (U.S. Patent No. 4,670,148) in view of Ghosh (U.S. Patent No. 4,323,367); and further in view of Ayers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0069642).
As to Claim 5, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the anti-lift topping comprises synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically. Ayers discloses an anti-lift topping (100) comprising synthetic turf (103/104) and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically (Paragraph 0029: “a synthetic grass that is engineered with polyethylene fibers with a length of 2 to 2.5 inches tufted into two fabrics consisting of needle punch non-woven polyester and woven polypropylene geotextiles; and (3) a sand layer of about 0.5 to about 1.0 inches that is placed as infill to ballast the material and protect the system against wind uplift”). 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 anti-lift topping comprise synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically. The motivation would have been to improve the aesthetics of the field.
As to Claim 6, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the anti-lift topping comprises synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and provided with a ballast. Ayers discloses an anti-lift topping (100) comprising synthetic turf (103/104) and provided with a ballast (Paragraph 0029: “a synthetic grass that is engineered with polyethylene fibers with a length of 2 to 2.5 inches tufted into two fabrics consisting of needle punch non-woven polyester and woven polypropylene geotextiles; and (3) a sand layer of about 0.5 to about 1.0 inches that is placed as infill to ballast the material and protect the system against wind uplift”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the anti-lift toping comprise synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and provided with a ballast. The motivation would have been to improve the aesthetics of the field.
As to Claim 19, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the anti-lift topping comprises synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically. Ayers discloses an anti-lift topping (100) comprising synthetic turf (103/104) and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically (Paragraph 0029: “a synthetic grass that is engineered with polyethylene fibers with a length of 2 to 2.5 inches tufted into two fabrics consisting of needle punch non-woven polyester and woven polypropylene geotextiles; and (3) a sand layer of about 0.5 to about 1.0 inches that is placed as infill to ballast the material and protect the system against wind uplift”). 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 anti-lift topping comprise synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and being adapted to resist up-lift of the membrane aerodynamically. The motivation would have been to improve the aesthetics of the field.
As to Claim 20, Schneider as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). However, Schneider as modified is silent about wherein the anti-lift topping comprises synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and provided with a ballast. Ayers discloses an anti-lift topping (100) comprising synthetic turf (103/104) and provided with a ballast (Paragraph 0029: “a synthetic grass that is engineered with polyethylene fibers with a length of 2 to 2.5 inches tufted into two fabrics consisting of needle punch non-woven polyester and woven polypropylene geotextiles; and (3) a sand layer of about 0.5 to about 1.0 inches that is placed as infill to ballast the material and protect the system against wind uplift”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the anti-lift toping comprise synthetic turf positioned above the membrane and provided with a ballast. The motivation would have been to improve the aesthetics of the field.
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 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