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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 4/20/2026. Claims 1-14 remain pending. Claims 1 has been amended. Claims 17-20 are new. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that neither Ginn nor Boller anticipate or render obvious each and every limitation of claim 1 because the depressions as taught by Boller are not set back from the planar exterior side-wall face as required in claim 1. However, this limitation this limitation is claimed very broadly and the depressions of Boller can be interpreted to meet this limitation. See how the depressions are set back away and outside of the planar exterior side-wall face as shown in Fig. 3.
Applicant also argues that the purpose of Applicant’s invention is distinct and unique from Ginn and Boller. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s invention does have features that are unique to Ginn and Boller, but each and every limitation in the claimed invention with respect to claim 1 is still met by Ginn and Boller.
Applicant also argues that Boller doesn’t teach wherein the projections have outermost surfaces that are coplanar, defining a planar exterior side-wall face that extends between the top wall and the bottom wall and lies in a plane perpendicular to planes of the top and bottom walls as required in claim 1. Applicant refers to the structure of the flaring fin tips which define a non-planar diverging surface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In Fig. 3 of Boller, the outer surface at the bottom tip at each of 10 do in fact lie on the same plane.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 2 are not persuasive because Fig. 3 of Boller clearly teaches the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 3 are not persuasive because this limitation is claimed broadly and is met by Boller.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 11 are not persuasive because Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim merely requires end flanges which are shown in Exhibit A of Ginn and the tank of Ginn is at least capable of meeting the functional limitation of the end flanges.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 14 are not persuasive because the wall accessories are not positively recited. In the event that wall accessories are positively recited and required by the claim as a system claim, the rejection would be reconsidered.
For at least these reasons, the 103 rejection over Ginn in view of Boller is maintained.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginn (US 2015/0217899) in view of Boller (EP 3168374).
Regarding claim 1, Ginn discloses a plastic tank (100), comprising: a substantially rectangular outer shape having top, bottom, end, and side walls (Figs. 1-10); wherein the side walls comprise alternating depressions and projections (Fig. 1; para. [0025] – [0026]; see the alternating depressions and projections along the side walls); but fails to disclose wherein the depressions are set back from the planar exterior side-wall face and increase in depth from top to bottom to decrease internal volume of the plastic tank from top to bottom so that, in use, the side walls resist bulging under internal pressure from water stored in the plastic tank, wherein the projections have outermost surfaces that are coplanar, defining a planar exterior side-wall face that extends between the top wall and the bottom wall and lies in a plane perpendicular to planes of the top and bottom walls.
Boller teaches depressions (the depressions within 10) that are set back from the planar exterior side-wall face (the depressions are set back away and outside of the planar exterior side-wall face as shown in Fig. 3) and increase in depth from top to bottom (as shown in Fig. 3) to decrease internal volume of the plastic tank from top to bottom so that, in use, the side walls resist bulging under internal pressure from water stored in the plastic tank (para. [0017]; these functional limitations that the tank of Boller is at least capable of meeting), wherein the projections have outermost surfaces that are coplanar, defining a planar exterior side-wall face that extends between the top wall and the bottom wall and lies in a plane perpendicular to planes of the top and bottom walls (see how the outermost part at the bottom part of each projection lies on the same vertical plane that is perpendicular to a plane formed along the top and bottom walls).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the alternating depressions and projections of Ginn to increase in depth from top to bottom as taught by Boller in order to provide the necessary support based on the forces acting outward from the fluid contained within the container. (para. [0017])
Regarding claim 2, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein the projections increase in height from top to bottom in proportion to the increasing depth of the depressions so as to maintain the coplanarity of the outermost surfaces of the projections (as taught by Boller). (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 3, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein the depressions and projections have a substantially constant wall thickness from top to bottom. (Fig. 3 – Boller)
Regarding claim 4, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the depressions and projections comprise concave scallops and convex scallops, respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the transitions between the projections and depressions to be concave and convex since applicant has not disclosed that having convex and concave edges solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having convex and concave edges, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, Applicant merely states in para. [0025] that:
The depressions 20 and projections 22 may, for example, be concave scallops 20 and convex scallops 22, respectively. The concave and convex scallops 20, 22 may be arranged in parallel, vertically staggered relationship.
Regarding claim 5, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 4, wherein the concave and convex scallops are arranged in parallel, vertically staggered relationship. (Figs. 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 6, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein the side walls comprise two pairs of vertical rebates (the rebates on the ends of the projections along the long side of 100) to receive two pairs of support columns to support the plastic tank. (note that the support columns are not positively recited)
Regarding claim 7, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 6, wherein the top wall comprises a pair of horizontal rebates to receive a pair of top brackets to interlock tops of the two pairs of support columns. (Fig. 8; para. [0044]; see how multiple 100 are configured to interlock with one another)
Regarding claim 8, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 7, further comprising a pair of bottom brackets to interlock bottoms of the two pairs of support columns. (Fig. 8; para. [0044])
Regarding claim 9, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 8, wherein the pair of bottom brackets and the bottoms of the two pairs of support columns are set in a pair of concrete footings. (the bottom brackets and support columns are at least capable of being set in a pair of concrete footings)
Regarding claim 10, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein a pair of water connection ports (104) is provided at top and bottom of each end wall to receive rainwater in the plastic tank and overflow rainwater out of the plastic tank.
Regarding claim 11, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein end flanges are provided on each end wall to mount spacer panels to join the plastic tank to another plastic tank and cover space between the two plastic tanks. (Exhibit A)
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
938
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 1, wherein solid internal voids (102) are provided between the side walls to mount wall cladding to cover the side walls of the plastic tank.
Regarding claim 13, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 7, wherein top recesses are provided in the pair of top brackets (the top brackets necessarily include recesses as shown in Fig. 8) to mount wall accessories on top of the plastic tank.
Regarding claim 14, Ginn in view of Boller further disclose the plastic tank of claim 13, wherein the wall accessories are selected from the group comprising lattice panels, water misters, sprinklers, vertical gardens, solar panels, battery storage, lighting, and sound speakers. (note that the wall accessories are not positively recited so this limitation is necessarily met)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights