DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urriola (U.S. 5,810,510).
As for claim 1, Urriola teaches a system for collecting fluid (col. 2, first paragraph), said system comprising:
a plurality of modular fluid collectors (figures 6 through 8c), each modular fluid collector comprising:
a geocellular module (11);
a containment membrane (9) below and at least partially disposed around said geocellular module;
PNG
media_image1.png
545
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a filter (e.g. the additional layer of 9 above 17 or the clean fill sand layer 10 above the module in figure 5) disposed above said geocellular module;
PNG
media_image2.png
411
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said modular fluid collector disposed at a gradient: 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)--clearly evidencing a gradient.
at least one said modular fluid collector in communication with another said modular fluid collector (e.g. the modules making up channel 15).
As for claim 3, the edge of 9 is necessarily a folding flap (see figure 6, bottom, right side).
As for claim 4, the ends of the conduit of geocellular modules can be open (col. 5, lines 24-25) and necessarily form a flow port.
As for claim 7, Urriola also teaches a drainage core (figure 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
533
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claims 8 and 9, the core includes a fabric or a liner (the geotextile fabric of the bag 46 or the liner 9 about the pipe section 50).
As for claim 10, the core also includes drainage cells 49.
As for claim 11, as shown in figure 7, the edges of each cell sections comprises means to attach to other cell sections.
As for claim 12, the drainage core is in communication to the plurality of modular fluid collectors via pipe 45 (col. 5, lines 43-45).
As for claims 14-16, the pipe sections 50 form an outlet or collection conduit and tank 44 is a collection sump.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Carlton (U.S. 5,689,921).
Urriola doesn’t specify a vent conduit but such is taught by Carlton. Carlton teaches a drainage system from e.g. a house, wherein a drainage connector 10 located at the housing includes vents and a detector 66 for radon or other dangerous gas (col. 4, first full paragraph). 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 vent (with 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 housing (figure 9, col. 2, lines 52-53).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Harvey (U.S. 10,577,177 B2).
Urriola doesn’t specify his “containment membrane” geotextile 9 to include a flange or staking tab. But such is taught by Harvey. Harvey teaches a liner 402 to include flanges or tabs (412, 414). 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 flanges or tabs of Harvey for the membrane 9 of Urriola, since Harvey teaches the benefits of staking to the ground or tensioning for securing the liner (col. 7, lines 1-5) and that mitigates liner displacement and damage (col. 1, first paragraph under Summary section).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urriola in view of Bass (U.S. 2013/0216310 A1). Urriola doesn’t specify his geotextile membrane or liner to comprise a polymer but such is taught by Bass. Bass teaches a geotextile fabric that comprises polypropylene (a polymer) [as in claim 13]. 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 geotextile membrane 9 of Urriola to comprises polypropylene as in Bass, since Bass teaches the benefits of Polypropylene being a preferred material for geotextile fabric for fluid containment systems because it is resistant to commonly encountered soil chemicals, mildew and insects, is UV resistant, and is non-biodegradable [0050].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Urriola does not teach a containment membrane since his water permeable geotextile 9 does not function to direct the flow of fluid down a slope as shown in figure 1 of the specification. However, it is pointed out that Applicant’s claims do not require the containment membrane to have such a function. It is also pointed out that although the 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). Applicant’s claim 1 only requires the containment membrane to be below and at least partially disposed around the geocellular module. This is anticipated by Urriola’s geotextile 9--as shown in e.g. figure 6 and explained in the rejection.
Regarding claims 7-12, Applicant argues that the drainage core of Urriola (as shown in figure 14) does not anticipate the claimed drainage core of claims 7-12 since the core of Urriola does not function to direct fluid flow down a slope into a geocellular module as taught in Applicant’s specification. However, it is pointed out that Applicant’s claims do not require the drainage core to have such a function. It is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims, as shown above.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that the tank of figure 14 of Urriola is not a collection sump since it does not function to store fluid. However, during extensive rainfall, the tank would inherently function to retain and hold water until such time water could drain through exit pipe 45 (which depends on conditions downstream thereof).
As for claims 2 and 5, Applicant argues that the tensioning tabs of Harvey "are designed to be folded upward and tensioned against an external surface of a reservoir sidewall” and “in contrast, the flanges (34) of pending claim 2 "are disposed around and completely enclose geocellular module bed 18. Specification at [0040].” This is not found convincing since claims 2 and 5 do not require the tensioning tabs to be disposed around and completely enclose geocellular module bed. As stated before, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. Also, Harvey explicitly teaches that the tabs can be “secured to the ground (e.g., staked into place or buried within an anchor trench)” col. 4, lines 1-4.
The claims are rejected to the same specificity as claimed. Applicant has not pointed out how the claimed invention is structurally different from the applied art.
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