DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 2 and 12 are restricted to a species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Both claims recite a closed polygon having a rectangular base. The species presented for original presentation is limited to a closed polygon having a non-rectangular base.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 2 and 12 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: misspelling(s); grammatical errors.
Correct the grammar throughout claim 5.
Correct the grammar throughout claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeles (US 2018/0305882 A1) in view of Adams (US 2015/0354161 A1) and Maddock (US 2,243,164 A).
CLAIM 1 Abeles ‘882 (“Abeles”) shows (Figs. 13, 15A) an inflatable container (1300) for retaining a liquid for storage and for a stackable self-supporting flood barrier comprising:
an inflatable container having liquid impervious material walls (“heavy plastic” ¶0056) with reinforced edges (“tyvec or liquid rubber” ¶0056), the inflatable container edge coupled to loops (306), the inflatable container with a shape formed from a closed polygon base (“triangular or trapezoidal” ¶0075) having all container lateral sides along an axis that is normal to the cross-section plane base1 (Fig. 13), the inflatable container with an attached sheet (1502) of liquid impervious material (Fig. 15D) reinforceably attached (“hook-and-loop or lacing eyelets” ¶0078) to the inflatable container base edge, and an orifice (304), whereby containers placed lateral side wall-to-lateral-side-wall (Fig. 15B) will enable the lateral sides to complement each other is such a way as to transfer container front wall forces to lateral container side wall from filled container to filled container barrier members such that the internal pressure across the wall of containers will be transferred to the lateral wall of stacked neighbors to reinforce each water container individually by support from neighbor or laterally adjacent filled containers.
Abeles fails to teach expressly the loops (306) contiguous with the reinforced container edges. Adams ‘161 (“Adams”) shows (Fig. 1) a container useful for storage and forming a stackable flood barrier (¶0031), the container including loops (174 ) contiguous with the container edge (172). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the loops (Abeles, 306) contiguously with the edges of the container (Abeles, 1300), as suggested by Adams. The motivation for making the modification would have been ease of locating the same, especially when the container is stacked, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Abeles teaches an alternative double-walled embodiment (¶¶0010, 0067, Fig. 10) but fails to disclose a two concentric orifices. Maddock ‘164 (“Maddock”) shows a liquid storage container comprising double walls (cl. 1) and two concentric orifices on one side (Fig. 6, cl. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art orifice (Abeles, 304) such that it would have comprised two concentric orifices, as suggested by Maddock. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for safeguarding against leakage, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 3 In the prior art combination, the loops (Abeles, 306) are used for coupling a filled inflatable container (Abeles, 1300) with at least one adjacent filled inflatable container (“interconnection loops” ¶0057).
CLAIM 4 In the prior art combination, the non-rectangular base lateral sidewalls in a filled container lateral side surface are conformably angular to adjacent container lateral surface such that an external applied pressure to a filled inflatable container front wall will transfer the external pressure to an adjacent lateral surface wall aligned adjacent container lateral surface wall (Figs. 14A-15B).
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, the reinforced edge loops (Abeles, 306) coupled to adjacent container reinforced loops for continuity and cohesive flood barrier stabilization (Fig. 12).
CLAIM 8 In the prior art combination, none of the references teaches grommets. However, it would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the loops (Abeles, 306) with the addition of grommets, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same as known reinforcements. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for enhancing the strength of the loops2.
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, a container wall is reinforced (Abeles, Figs. 12 and 15D) with an attached flexible sheet or flap (Abeles, 1200, 1502) extending substantially along the container wall length and extendable outward from the container for connectivity and stability with adjacent containers.
CLAIM 11 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams and Maddock, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 13 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams and Maddock, as applied above to claim 3.
CLAIM 14 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams and Maddock, as applied above to claim 4.
CLAIM 16 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams and Maddock, as applied above to claim 7.
CLAIM 173 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams and Maddock, as applied above to claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeles (US 2018/0305882 A1) in view of Adams (US 2015/0354161 A1) and Maddock (US 2,243,164 A), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dai (CN 215482734 U).
CLAIM 10 In the prior art combination, the container (Abeles, 1300) comprises exterior walls of liquid impervious material (Abeles, “heavy plastics” ¶0056) with at least one wall surface having frictional resistance (¶¶0004, 0015). The prior art combination fails to teach raised portions of strips. Dai shows a container (1) having utility as a stackable flood barrier and comprising raised portions of strips (102) for increasing friction between adjacent surfaces. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a raised strip (Dai, 102) to at least one wall surface of the container (Abeles, 1300). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for increasing the relative friction of the container and reducing the probability of sliding during use (Dai, p. 3/13 in the attached translation), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 18 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the containers taught by the combination of Abeles, Adams, Maddock and Dai, as applied above to claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as corrected for any minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the combination of Abeles and Maddock on the basis that the prior art container is double-walled, while Applicant’s invention is a single-walled container. The examiner notes the claims are drafted open-ended with the transitional phrase “comprising.” Thus, the double-walled construction of the prior art container is not excluded.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 are moot because the claim is withdrawn from consideration for reasons set forth above in section 2.
Applicant asserts modification of the prior art container to include the raised portions or strips of Dai is somehow precluded because the Dai containers are manufactured from nylon. The examiner disagrees and contends frictional resistance between stacked containers of any material is useful for maintaining a stacked configuration.
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/
15 January 2026
1 The examiner notes a discrepancy between claim 1 as filed 10 July 2025 and claim 1 as amended in the response filed 04 December 2025. Applicant is reminded to correctly mark any text deleted from or added to the claims in all future responses.
2 With regard to claim 8, Applicant fails to positively recite the at least one stabilizing rod as a structural part of the claimed invention; rather, the at least one stabilizing rod is included in a functional recitation of the loops (i.e., “for insertion of at least one stabilizing rod”).
3 Id.