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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered. The amendment to claims filed 2/9/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pastor et al (WO 2014/147012) in view of JP-H04185695 (Japanese Reference, herein referred as JP’695 and evidenced by English Translations).
In the preamble, the limitation, “for containing a chemical compound or composition that may pollute groundwater within a containment structure” in claim 1, lines 1-2 or “forming or repairing a containment structure for containing a chemical compound or composition that may pollute groundwater” in claim 2, lines 1-2, respectively, would be considered to be a functional and intended use so no patentable weight is given to this limitation.
With respect to claim 1, Pastor et al disclose a method of waterproofing underground structures/tanks 10 having a base formed from soil, comprising applying a polyurethane resin to the soil (see page 1, lines 26-27; page 2, lines 18-21), wherein said polyurethane resin is adapted to incorporate soil particles into a matrix as it penetrates the soil to make the soil substantially impermeable to the periphery of the soil (see Figs. 1-5, abstract, pages 2-3; page 9, lines 16-19).
With respect to claim 2, Pastor et al disclose a method of water proofing/, comprising the inherent steps of:
constructing a containment structure 10 with a base formed from soil (see Figs. 1-2);
applying a polyurethane resin to the soil, wherein said polyurethane resin is adapted to incorporate soil particles into a matrix as it penetrates the soil to make the soil substantially impermeable to the periphery of the soil (see Figs.6-7).
Pastor et al fails to disclose the impermeable layer of soil and polyurethane resin being from about 2 to 12 cm deep and the polyurethane resin having low viscosity to allow it to penetrate the soil.
JP’695 disclose the agent of polyurethane-base having a low viscosity by mixing specific liquid and the agent adapted to incorporate soil particles (sand or mud) into a matrix to make the soil layer hardened as a foundation (see abstract and under “[Field of Invention]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to produce the polyurethane compound as taught by JP’695 in order to improvement self-adhesiveness and effectiveness in sticking or concreting rocks, sand and mud (soil particles).
Although Pastor et al fails to specifically the polyurethane resins adapted to incorporate soil particles into a matrix to make the soil impermeable to the chemical compound or composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to inject the polyurethane around the basement wall of Pastor et al in order to protect the containment/basement from the chemical compound or composition for treating contaminated area in the soil properly.
Although Pastor et al fails to teach the depth of impermeable later from about 2 to 12 cm deep, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have such a thickness in order to achieve desired results of impermeability depending upon the on-site/in-situ soil condition.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, although Pastor et al fails to teach the depth of impermeable later from about 3 to 10 cm, or 4 to 7 cm deep, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have such a thickness in order to achieve desired results of impermeability depending upon the on-site/in-situ soil condition.
With respect to claim 8, Pastor et al disclose the polyurethane resin comprises a single-component water-activated polyurethane resin for injection (see page 5, lines 28-30).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Pastor et al disclose the polyurethane resin is formulated as a composition that further comprises a carrier such as polyester (see page 6, lines 9-13).
With respect to claim 13, Pastor et al disclose the polyurethane resin is sprayed or poured/injected onto the soil (see page 2, lines 18-21).
With respect to claim 14, Pastor et al disclose the polyurethane is applied in multiple coats to progressively build the substantially impermeable layer (see Figs. 6-10).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, although Pastor et al fails to teach the soil is made substantially impermeable to hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon-based compositions or to a fuel selected from the group consisting of diesel, M91 fuel, M 95 fuel, kerosene and crude oil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have the soil made impermeable to hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon-based compositions or kerosene or crude oil where is normally stored in the underground oil tank in order to prevent oil leakage from contaminating the soil.
With respect to claim 17, in preamble limitation, “for storing a chemical compound or composition that may pollute groundwater” is considered to be functional and intended use so no patentable weight is given to the preamble limitation.
Pasto et al disclose a containment structure 10 that surrounds a storage facility wherein the base of the containment structure is formed from soil and includes a layer comprising a matrix of polyurethane resin and soil particles that makes the soil substantially impermeable to the periphery of the soil so that it will be contained within the containment structure if a leak or spill occurs (see page 1, lines 26-27; page 2, lines 18-21).
Although Pastor et al fails to specifically disclose a layer comprising a matrix of poly urethane resin and soil particles that makes the soil impermeable to the chemical compound or composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to inject the polyurethane around the basement wall of Pastor et al in order to protect the storage facility within the containment structure from the chemical compound or composition for treating contaminated area in the periphery of the soil properly.
Although Pastor et al fails to teach the depth of impermeable later from about 2 to 12 cm deep, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have such a thickness in order to achieve desired results of impermeability depending upon the on-site/in-situ soil condition.
With respect to claim 18, Pastor et al disclose the containment structure surrounds a tank farm (see page 1, lines 26-27).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, although Pastor et al fails to specifically teach the containment structure contains the leak or spill for a period of at least 7 days or 14 days, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have the underground oil tank with a leakage of period of at least 7 or 14 days in order to effectively install impermeable layer for protecting the soil of the oil tank’s periphery.
With respect to claims 21, although Pastor et al fails to specifically teach a method of repairing or replacing a containment structure, comprising: (a) breaking up the existing matrix in the repair area; (b) replacing the broken-up matrix of the repair area with soil particles; and (c) applying a polyurethane resin to the soil particles in the repair area, wherein said polyurethane resin is adapted to incorporate soil particles into a matrix as it penetrates the soil to make the soil in the repair area substantially impermeable to a chemical compound or composition that is capable of polluting ground water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have such specific method steps of repair area of contamination in order to prevent oil leakage from contaminating the soil.
However, Pastor et al fails to disclose the impermeable layer of soil and polyurethane resin being from about 2 to 12 cm deep and the polyurethane resin having low viscosity to allow it to penetrate the soil.
JP’695 disclose the agent of polyurethane-base having a low viscosity by mixing specific liquid and the agent adapted to incorporate soil particles (sand or mud) into a matrix to make the soil layer hardened as a foundation (see abstract and under “[Field of Invention]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to produce the polyurethane compound as taught by JP’695 in order to improvement self-adhesiveness and effectiveness in sticking or concreting rocks, sand and mud (soil particles).
Although Pastor et al fails to specifically the polyurethane resins adapted to incorporate soil particles into a matrix to make the soil impermeable to the chemical compound or composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to inject the polyurethane around the basement wall of Pastor et al in order to protect the containment/basement from the chemical compound or composition for treating contaminated area in the soil properly.
Although Pastor et al fails to teach the depth of impermeable later from about 2 to 12 cm deep, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have such a thickness in order to achieve desired results of impermeability depending upon the on-site/in-situ soil condition.
Claims 9, 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastor et al Pastor et al (WO 2014/147012) as modified by JP’695, further in view of Jorczak et al (US 3367892).
With respect to claim 9, however, Pastor et al fails to specifically disclose cross-linking occurs subsequently to the application of the single-component water-activated polyurethane resin to the soil.
Jorczak et al disclose the lower range of free NCO content gives rise to a soil stabilizing composition which cures too slowly for the purpose sought and the degree of cross-linking of the polymer is lower than desired (see col.2, lines 65-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to control the range of NCO content in order to effectively cure the material for building impermeable layers.
With respect to claim 10, However, Pastor et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest a catalyst for accelerating the reaction of isocyanate groups in the polyurethane resin with water is introduced just prior to application of the single-component water-activated polyurethane resin to the soil.
Jorczak et al disclose a method and composition for application to soil or sand whereby soil or sand is stabilized to permit supporting heavy loads. The inventive concept is a resinous polyurethane composition has added there to a curing agent/a catalyst or inert diluents to control the free NCO percent content by varying the proportion of the isocyanate used while holding the other component (see Col.2, lines 50-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to use a catalyst with a resinous polyurethane composition in order to effectively cure the material for building impermeable layers.
With respect to claim 22, however, Pastor et al fails to teach the soil particles that replace the broken-up matrix of the repair area are from sand.
Jorczak et al disclose a method and composition for application to soil or sand whereby soil or sand is stabilized to permit supporting heavy loads The inventive concept is a resinous polyurethane composition has added there to a curing agent (see col.1 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to apply a resinous polyurethane composition to soil or sand in order to effectively cure the material for building the roadways to permit supporting heavy loads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875