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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases "optionally" and “such as” which render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “The system of any of claim 1” where the Examiner is unclear if there are supposed to be a plurality of claim 1s. A review of the claims and specification shows that there is only one claim 1 and therefore claim 13 ill be treated as “The system of claim 1”.
Claim 13 recites “comprising first and second geotextile fabric layers” where the Examiner is unclear as to which first and second layer the Applicant is referring back to. A review of claim 1 shows an allusion to the possibility of at least two layers however they are not clear. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be treated as “wherein the fabric layer disposed on either side of the liner comprises a first geotextile fabric layer and a second geotextile fabric layer ”.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The interpretation of claims 1, 2, 14, and 19 will treat any limitation after the terms “optionally” or “such as” as a separate possibility and the Examiner can choose to treat these limitations.
Claims 3-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0195557 (Emery hereinafter) in view of R-Tank Stormwater Detention System (R-Tank hereinafter, this reference is the NPL submitted by the Applicant on 12/31/2023) as evidenced by the Module Installation Guide (Stormtank hereinafter, this reference is the 16 Page NPL submitted by the Applicant on 12/31/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Emery teaches a drainage system that discloses a permeable top surface, such as polyethylene plastic or another plastic (Figure 2, Polyethylene layer 24 per ¶ 28); a cellular confinement layer (Confinement layer 40 per ¶ 32); a fabric coated geo-grid (Layer 31 per ¶ 30); one or more sand or aggregate layer (Aggregate layers 64+50); one or more geotextile fabric layer (Layers 68+80); and a watertight liner (Liner 72 per ¶ 39). Emery does disclose the use of internal panels 42.
Emery is silent with respect to one or more drainage blocks.
However, R-Tank, with the evidence of Stormtank, discloses the use of a one or more drainage blocks (Pages 2-4 of R-tank shows a stack of drainage blocks as well as Page 6 of Stormtank)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drainage system of Emery with the drainage blocks of Emery to increase the ground support while provide sufficient drainage.
Regarding claim 2, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the one or more drainage blocks are located above the watertight liner, and are optionally R-Tank panels (Blocks of R-Tank would be above the liner 72 of Emery in the proposed combination).
Regarding claim 3, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the one or more drainage blocks comprise a plurality of drainage blocks arranged across the width or area of the drainage system (Evident of R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Page 6 of Stormtank).
Regarding claim 4, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the one or more drainage blocks comprise R-Tank panels arranged in rows and/or R-Tank panels arranged in a stacked configuration (Evident of R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Page 6 of Stormtank).
Regarding claim 5, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose a first sand layer is disposed between the one or more drainage blocks and the cellular confinement layer (Portions of aggregate 50 would be between the drainage block of R-Tank and cellular confinement layer of Emery as well as the equivalent material per Appendix C of Stormtank).
Regarding claim 6, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the fabric coated geo-grid is disposed between a first sand layer and the cellular confinement layer (Evident from Figure 2 of Emery).
Regarding claim 7, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose a first sand layer is disposed between a geotextile fabric layer and the fabric coated geo-grid (Aggregate 50 of Emery in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the watertight liner is an HDPE or PVC liner (Emery ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 9, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose a first and second geotextile fabric layers disposed above and/or below the watertight liner (Upper/first liner per ¶ 38 of Emery and Lower/second liner per ¶ 40 of Emery).
Regarding claim 10, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that a woven geotextile fabric layer disposed between the one or more drainage blocks and a first sand layer (Layer surrounding the R-Tank blocks per R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Stormtank Page 6).
Regarding claim 11, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the cellular confinement layer is filled with sand or aggregates (¶ 32 of Emery).
Regarding claim 12, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose comprising one or more drain pipe (Pipes 106 per ¶ 51 and Figure 3 of Emery)
Regarding claim 13, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that one or more sump in operable communication with one or more of the drainage blocks to remove water from the system (Inherent operation of Emery).
Regarding claim 14, Emery teaches a drainage system that discloses a first layer comprising a wear surface (Figure 2, Polyethylene layer 24 per ¶ 28); a second layer comprising a cellular confinement system (Confinement layer 40 per ¶ 32); a third layer comprising a fabric covered geo-grid (Layer 31 per ¶ 30); a fourth layer comprising sand (Aggregate layers 64+50); a sixth layer comprising a watertight liner (Liner 72 per ¶ 39). Emery does disclose the use of internal panels 42.
Emery is silent with respect to one or more drainage blocks covered with a woven geotextile fabric.
However, R-Tank, with the evidence of Stormtank, discloses the use of a one or more drainage blocks covered with a woven geotextile fabric (Pages 2-4 of R-tank shows a stack of drainage blocks as well as Page 6 of Stormtank)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drainage system of Emery with the drainage blocks of Emery to increase the ground support while provide sufficient drainage.
Regarding claim 15, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the sixth layer further comprises one or more geotextile fabric layers on either side of the liner (Upper/first liner per ¶ 38 of Emery and Lower/second liner per ¶ 40 of Emery).
Regarding claim 16, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the watertight liner is an HDPE or PVC liner (Emery ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 17, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose a woven geotextile fabric layer disposed on top of and/or along the sides of the drainage blocks (Layer surrounding the R-Tank blocks per R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Stormtank Page 6).
Regarding claim 18, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the fourth layer further comprises one or more drainage blocks covered in woven geotextile fabric disposed within the sand (Evident of R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Page 6 of Stormtank).
Regarding claim 19, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose two or more drainage blocks are stacked, such as the fifth layer comprising at least one layer of drainage blocks arranged side by side and disposed over one or more stacked drainage blocks (Evident of R-Tank Pages 2-4 and Page 6 of Stormtank).
Regarding claim 20, Emery’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Emery, R-Tank, and Stormtank would further disclose that the watertight liner rests on or above a sloped subgrade (Evident from Figures 2 and 3 of Emery).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762