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 . 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/662,475 application filed on May 13, 2024. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 11-19 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024, 2/25/2025, 7/17/2025, 08/05/2025, 1/21/2026, 05/07/2026 and 08/31/2026. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al. (US20070028514, Urban) in view of Guo (CN102165910)(English Machine Translation attached)(each reference in IDS of 08-05-2025).
Regarding claims 11-15, Urban discloses a drainage system (Abstract, Figs. 6, 12, 14, 15) comprising:
a one or more water storage units 600 ([0073]), each storage unit comprising an outer shell 604 with a first side and a second side adjacent the first side (see sides with tabs 606, 608),
wherein a top water storage unit comprises a water storage lid 612 ([0073], Fig. 15),
a catch basin 286 ([0070], Fig. 12);an inlet pipe comprising a first end and a second end 282, 284 ([0070], Fig. 12), the first end residing in a water storage unit and the second end being positioned to redirect water from the plurality of water storage units to the catch basin ([0070], Fig. 12; riser pipe 282 has overflow holes 290 positioned at the first end in a layer of the structural cells);
wherein the plurality of water storage units reside underneath a hardscape ([0073]).
Therefore, Urban discloses the claimed invention except the first side comprising a first plurality of openings and the second side comprising a second plurality of openings; wherein at least one of the first side or second side comprises a plurality of secondary openings, wherein each secondary opening is between an opening and a comer of the outer shell; and the inlet pipe first end residing in an opening of the first or second plurality of openings of a water storage unit.
Gao discloses a self-help circulating drainage and irrigation system of farmland irrigation, comprising three self-help circulating drainage and irrigation technologies which mainly comprise the underground drainage and irrigation method, the ground drainage and irrigation method and the interactive drainage and irrigation method (Abstract). Guo teaches the first side comprising a first plurality of openings ([0107], Fig. 6, a first central pair of connection ports) and the second side comprising a second plurality of openings ([0107], Fig. 6); wherein at least one of the first side or second side comprises a plurality of secondary openings (a second outer pair of connection ports; [0107]; Fig. 6), wherein each secondary opening is between an opening and a comer of the outer shell (Fig. 6); and the inlet pipe first end residing in an opening of the first or second plurality of openings of a water storage unit (the first end of a drainage and storage pipe 10 connects to one of the connection ports on the short end second side; [0107]; Fig. 6).
To improve water flow control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Urban’s drainage system to include sides with numerous openings as taught by Guo, to provide solid side walls with specific openings which will help control water retention and infiltration.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 12: The outer shell comprises: a third side comprising a third plurality of openings (Urban, Fig. 14), wherein the third side is opposite the first side and the third plurality of openings are aligned with the first plurality of openings; and a fourth side comprising a fourth plurality of openings (Guo, [0107], Fig. 6), wherein the fourth side is opposite the second side and the fourth plurality of openings are aligned with the second plurality of openings (Guo, [0107], Fig. 6; claim 11 analysis); Claim 13: The one or more water storage units comprise a plurality of stacks of water storage units (Urban, Figs. 13, 15); Claim 14: Each stack of water storage units comprises two vertically stacked water storage units (Urban, [0057], claim 7, Fig. 15); and Claim 15: The one or more water storage units are wrapped in a geotextile material (Urban, [0060]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al. (US20070028514) in view of Guo (CN102165910), as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Hu et al. (CN110409558, Hu)(IDS of 08-05-2025)(English Machine Translation attached)
Regarding claim 16, Urban and Guo combined discloses the drainage system of claim 11, except wherein the one or more water storage units are surrounded by bio-retention soil and a compact backfill.
Hu discloses a green area rainwater utilization system and construction method relating to municipal public engineering fields comprising a drainage tube and a water drain tank collecting and the drainage of rainwater (Abstract).
Hu teaches wherein the one or more vertically stacked water storage units are surrounded by bio-retention soil ([0091], Fig. 4, where plates 115 of water storage tank 110 are surrounded by a sand and gravel filter layer 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Urban’s water storage system to include the bio-retention soil to provide continuous infiltration of the contained water that filters out some debris and contaminates.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al. (US20070028514) in view of Guo (CN102165910), as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Messerschmidt et al. (US20210388581, Messerschmidt)(IDS of 08-05-2025).
Regarding claim 17, Urban and Guo combined discloses the drainage system of claim 11, except wherein the watering system comprises one or more soil moisture sensors configured to measure moisture levels of soil surrounding the one or more water storage units.
Messerschmidt discloses a drainage system comprising at least one infiltration device (10, 40) adapted to receive fluid, a collecting device (30) in fluid communication with the at least one infiltration device (10, 40) adapted to receive fluid from the at least one infiltration device (10, 40) and to discharge it to a fluid system (4), wherein a gateway device (52) is provided, which is adapted to receive and transmit sensor data to a receiving unit (60), wherein at least one sensor (6, 6′, 7, 11, 11′, 14, 31, 31′, 32, 33, 41, 44, 42, 45) is provided, which is communicatively connected to the gateway device (52) for providing sensor data (Abstract).
Thus, in Messerschmidt, the watering system comprises one or more soil moisture sensors configured to measure moisture levels of soil surrounding the one or more water storage units ([0068], Fig. 1, moisture sensor 7 is provided in the vicinity of the tree 3 to determine the soil moisture content near the tree 3 and collecting device 30).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Urban’s drainage system to include a soil moisture sensor to facilitate appropriate soil monitoring to determine if the soil is maintained at a desired moisture level.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urban et al. (US20070028514) in view of Guo (CN102165910), as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Hoekstra et al. (20100200600; Hoekstra)(IDS of 06-03-2024).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Urban and Guo combined discloses the drainage system of claim 11, except wherein each water storage unit comprises: a first set of cross-bodies spanning a width of the outer shell; and a second set of cross-bodies spanning a length of the outer shell and intersecting the first set of cross-bodies.
Hoekstra discloses a box-shaped device for holding water, such as a rainwater box, comprising at least four partially open side walls and a panel extending between the side walls and having a rectangular shape, the width of which is half the length, where the panel is provided with an inspection passage which is positioned centrally in one of the two square panel halves of the panel defined by the rectangular shape, so that whenever the rainwater boxes are stacked, a vertical passage is always provided for passing through, for example, an inspection camera (Abstract).
Hoekstra teaches wherein each water storage unit comprises: a first set of cross-bodies spanning a width of the outer shell ([0034], Figs. 1, 3; ribs 21 extend in the transverse direction across the width of the rainwater box); and a second set of cross-bodies spanning a length of the outer shell ([0034], Figs. 1, 3, ribs 20 extend in the longitudinal direction across the length of the rainwater box) and intersecting the first set of cross bodies (the longitudinal ribs 20 intersect the transverse ribs 21; Figs. 1, 3).
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Urban’s water storage units to include the described cross bodies to strengthen the unit and reduce its vulnerability to bending forces across the horizontal surfaces.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 19: Each water storage unit comprises a plurality of vertical pillars 12, the pillars supporting intersection points of the first and second sets of cross-bodies (Hoekstra, [0031], Figs. 1, 3).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights