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 .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/25/2024.
Claim Status
Claims 1-24 filed on 04/25/2024 are currently under examination in this application.
Claim objections
Claims 1 and 14 are single run-on paragraphs without line break indentations. MPEP 608.01(i) requires “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 3, line 2: “adapted to be secure to” should read “adapted to be secured to”.
claim 16, line 2: “adapted to be secure to” should read “adapted to be secured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13, 15-17 and 19-24 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.
As for claim 1: “the one or more elongated cavities” lacks antecedent basis. The claim earlier recites “one or more cavities”, not elongated cavities.
As for claims 2 and 15: “the two elongated cavities” lacks antecedent basis. Each claim recites only “two cavities”.
As for claim 5: “the two or more half-tubular wall sections” lacks antecedent basis.
As for claim 6: “each the inner wall section” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis.
As for claim 10: “the filtering layer” lacks antecedent basis because the claim as written depends on itself.
As for claim 13: “the stackable half-wastewater treatment basin” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether it refers to the stackable wastewater treatment basin section of claim 1.
As for claim 19: “the wastewater treatment basin assembly 14” is unclear. The examiner will treat claim 19 as intended to depend from claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
As for claim 20: “the upwardly facing cavity” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-13, 16-17 and 21-24 are also rejected because they depend on a rejected claim and do not cure its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 depends from itself. For examination purposes, claim 10 is treated as depending from claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al (US 9,840,040 B2; hereinafter Moore 040).
As for claim 1, Moore 040 discloses:
“A stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: tank half-shell 22,122 for a wastewater tank (abstract, line 1-4; column 3, lines 14-15).
“A wall defining one or more elongated cavities”: a semi-cylindrical half-shell extending along length axis L (“two semi cylindrical half shells 22 mate with each other to form the cylindrical (tubular) body of the tank”); (Figures 1-2; column 3, lines 64-66)
“Configured to retain wastewater”: storage tanks and septic tanks for wastewater treatment (abstract, lines 1-4).
“An inner side of the wall being adapted to receive an outer side of the wall of another… inspection of the same configuration”: Figure 3 shows how the half shell 22 nest for convenience storage or shipment.
Accordingly, Moore 040 discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.
As for claim 14, Moore 040 teaches:
“a wastewater treatment basin assembly comprising a first and 2nd stackable wastewater treatment basin sections”: Identical half-shells 122, 222 (column 6, lines 58-63; Figure 4, 9).
Each section as recited in claim 1: see the mapping of claim 1 above, which applies to each half-shell 122, 222.
“Attached to one another to form an enclosed wastewater treatment basin adapted to receive a fluid”: the half-shells 22 are connected to each other at lengthwise joints 26 to form a tubular body and a pair of end caps 24 close off the ends of the body (column 4, lines 16-19; Figures 1, 9A).
Accordingly, Moore 040 discloses each and every limitation of claim 14.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo et al. (JP2006255608A with page and paragraph reference made to Clarivate Analytics machine translation obtained on 24 Sep 2026)).
As for claim 1, Matsuo discloses:
“A stackable wastewater treatment basin section “: A lower tank 120 of a water treatment apparatus for treating wastewater from households and factories. A plurality of lower tanks 120 are stacked for storage and transport (page 2; lines 7-9).
“Comprising a wall defining one or more cavities”: The bowl-shaped body of lower tank 120, with sidewall surfaces 120b and joint flange 120a, which defines an interior cavity.
“One or more elongated cavities”: the cavity is substantially rectangular in plan view, with a long side direction (center line L1) and a short side direction (center line L2) (figure 3). A cavity whose long side exceeds its short side is elongated under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
“Configured to retain wastewater”: When joined to upper tank 110, the lower tank forms tank body 101. Tank body 101 houses water treatment mechanism 102 and holds the water being treated (Figure 1; page 4 lines 31-36).
“An inner side of the wall being adapted to receive an outer side of the wall of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: One lower tank 120 is rotated 180° about center point P and inserted into another lower tank 120. The corrugated portions 122 of one tank then fit into the corrugated portions 121 of the other, and vice versa (figures 4-5).
“Of the same configuration”: The nested tanks are identical lower tanks 120. The same nesting is shown for identical lower tanks 220 (figures 8-9) and 320 (figures 10-11).
Accordingly, Matsuo discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.
As for claim 4, Matsuo discloses the section of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“A securing portion”: a joint flange 120a of lower tank 120 (figures 1-3).
“Adapted to mate with a securing portion of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: the joint flange surface of flange 120a is overlapped with and joined to the joint flange surface of a flange 110a of upper tank 110 (Figure 1). Upper tank 110 is itself a stackable section (other embodiments).
As for claim 6, Matsuo discloses the section of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“corrugations along each the inner wall section” (interpreted as corrugations along the inner side of the wall): corrugated portions 121, 122, formed where sidewall surface 120b is recessed toward the inner peripheral side (figures 2-3).
“The corrugations being adapted to meet with corresponding corrugations present on an outer wall of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: when two lower tanks 120 are stacked, corrugated portion 122 of the upper tank fits into corrugated portion 121 of the lower tank, and vice versa (figures 4-5).
As for claim 7, Matsuo discloses the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“the cavity being U-shaped”: lower tank 120 is bowl shaped, with a bottom and upstanding sidewalls 120b, it therefore has a U-shaped cross section (Figures 2, 5).
As for claim 8, Matsuo discloses the limitations of claim one, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“stacking connectors on an inner side of the wall”: upper ends 121a of the first corrugated portion 121, which project toward the tank interior (Figures 2, 5).
“mating with stacking connectors of an outer side of the wall of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: in the stacked state, upper ends 122a of the second corrugated portion 122 of the upper tank rests on upper ends 121a of the lower tank at 4 locations, holding the stack in a stable, spaced condition (Figures 4-5).
As for claim 11, Matsuo discloses the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“Ports configured to allow fluid communications with other fluid systems”: inflow portion 103 and discharge portion 104 of upper tank 110 (Figure 1). Upper tank 110 is itself a stackable section. Matsuo teaches that its corrugated portion 111 is configured like corrugated portions 121, 122, and that upper tanks may be stacked on one another in the same way (Figure 1, other embodiments).
As for claim 14, Matsuo discloses:
“A wastewater treatment basin assembly”: tank body 101 of water treatment apparatus 100 (Figure 1).
“a first and second stackable wastewater treatment basin sections”: lower tank 120 and upper tank 110 (Figure 1).
“Each stackable wastewater treatment basin section comprising a wall defining one or more elongated cavities”: both tanks are bowl shaped with long side and short side directions L1, L2 (Figures 1, 3).
“configured to retain wastewater”: the tanks house water treatment mechanism 102 and the water being treated (Figure 1).
“An inner side of the wall being adapted to receive an outer side of the wall of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section of the same configuration”: identical lower tanks nest when one is rotated 180° (figures 4-5). Matsuo teaches that upper tanks may likewise be stacked on one another (other embodiments).
“wherein the first and second wastewater treatment basin sections are attached to one another to form an enclosed wastewater treatment basin adapted to receive a fluid”: joint flanges 110a, 120a are overlapped and joined to form the flange-joined tank body 101. The tank body receives water through inflow portion 103 (Figure 1).
As for claim 18, Matsuo discloses the limitations of claim 14, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“each stackable wastewater treatment basin section comprising corrugations along its inner wall section”: corrugated portions 121, 122 of lower tank 120, and corrugated portion 111 of upper tank 110, which Matsuo describes as configured like 121, 122 (Figures 1-3).
“adapted to mate with corresponding corrugations present on an outer wall of another stackable wastewater treatment basin section”: When like tanks are stacked, the corrugated portions fit together (figures 4-5, other embodiments).
As for claim 20, Matsuo discloses:
“A method of installing a wastewater treatment basin”: forming the flange-joined tank body 101 (figure 1; page 1, lines 18-19).
“laying a first stackable wastewater treatment basin section on a surface of an inner wall defining one or more elongated cavities to face upward”: lower tank 120 is disposed as the lower part of tank body 101, with its bowl-shaped cavity opening upward (figure 1-3; page 4, lines 43-45). Supporting the lower tank on a surface with its cavity facing up is necessarily present when the upper tank is placed on it (MPEP 2112).
“positioning a second stackable wastewater treatment basin section on top of the upwardly facing cavity of the first stackable wastewater treatment basin section” (interpreted as the cavity of the first section): upper tank 110 is disposed on top of lower tank 120 (figure 1; page 4, line 42).
“to form an enclosed wastewater treatment basin between the inner walls of the cavities of the first and second stackable wastewater treatment basin sections”: The joined upper and lower tanks form tank body 101, which encloses water treatment mechanism 102 (figure 1; page 4, lines 30-31).
“securing the first stackable wastewater treatment basin to the second stackable wastewater treatment basin”: the joint flange surfaces of joint flanges 110a, 120a are overlapped and joined (figure 1; page 4, lines 46-47).
As for claim 24, Matsuo discloses the limitations of claim 20, as set forth above, and further discloses:
“fluidly connecting a port of the formed wastewater treatment basin to another fluid system”: inflow portion 103 receives water to be treated, such as domestic wastewater from a household, and discharge portion 104 discharges the treated water (figure 1).
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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Presby et al (US 11,021,380 B2).
As for claims 9 and 10, Matsuo teaches the stackable wastewater treatment basin section of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Matsuo does not teach:
- A filtering layer over an outer surface of the cavity (claim 9); or
- The filtering layer extending away from extremities of the section (claim 10, treated as depending from claim 9).
Presby teaches:
A membrane or fabric surrounds the sidewall of central distribution unit 100, which is a wastewater holding treatment unit. The fabric is wrapped over the unit to cover it (figure 58 F; column 2, lines 6-10).
The fabric overlaps into sleeve 427 and connects to treatment fins 200. The fins outer fabric layer extends radially outward, away from the central unit (figures 58D-58F, 59, column 13, lines 48-50; column 2, lines 12-14).
Both Matsuo and Presby teach buried plastic wastewater treatment units shipped as nested shell parts and assembled on site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Matsuo’s section with a filtering layer over its outer surface, as taught by Presby. Presby teaches that a geotextile covering on a buried wastewater treatment unit provides filtration, separation, reinforcement, protection, erosion control, and stability for the unit (column 32; lines 15-19).
As for claim 12, Matsuo teaches the section of claim 11, including inflow portion 103 and discharge portion 104 (Figure 1). Matsuo does not teach that the ports are detachable.
Presby teaches that the openings in the wastewater unit’s sidewall receive pipes through any standard and/or custom pipe fitting connections such as threaded, snap-fit, bayonet and retainer-and-tab fittings. Presby also teaches a threaded inspection port cap 431 (figures 2E-2F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to make Matsuo’s ports detachable, as taught by Presby. Matsuo’s stated goal is compact and stable stacking of tank sections during storage and transport. A skilled artisan would have recognized that permanently fixed and protruding ports interfere with that nesting. Making the ports detachable lets the sections nest flush and lets the piping be attached in the field as Presby teaches.
As for claims 19 and 22, Matsuo teaches:
The assembly of claim 14 with the claim 19 treated as depending from claim 14; and
The method of claim 20, as set forth above, in which the upper and lower tanks are secured by overlapping and joining joint flanges 110a ,120a (Figure 1).
Matsuo does not teach:
Male and female securing means (claim 19); or
Aligning a first securing connector with a second securing connector and securing the connectors to one another (claim 22).
Presby teaches:
The nested clamshell halves 730 of central distribution unit 100 are joined using alignment tabs 426 and connectors 425 (column 14; lines 8-15).
At the point of use, the mating bottom and side edges of the two halves are brought together and registered by alignment tabs 426 (figures 58A-58B).
The halves are then fastened with connectors 425 such as screws or bolts with sealant at the joints (column 14, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Matsuo’s joint flanges with the mating alignment and securing connectors taught by Presby. Presby teaches that such connectors let nested shell parts be joined in proper alignment at the installation site. A skilled artisan joining Matsuo's nested tank sections would have been motivated to use them for the same reasons: to ensure the flanges line up for a proper seal and to assemble the tank mechanically in the field.
As for claim 21, Matsuo teaches the method of claim 20 as set forth above. The upper tank 110 and lower tank 120 are positioned and joined at flanges 110a,120a to form enclosed tank body 101 (Figure 1).
Matsuo does not teach surrounding the positioned 1st and 2nd sections with a filtering membrane.
Presby teaches installing a buried wastewater treatment unit by:
Assembling the units nested halves;
placing the assembled unit; and
putting a membrane around its exterior before backfilling (Presby claim 11; figure 58F).
Presby further teaches that the covering may be a permeable geotextile fabric that passes liquid while retaining undissolved solids, and that it provides filtration, drainage and separation. It is therefore a “filtering membrane” (column 32; lines 15-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to surround Matsuo’s positioned tank sections with a filtering membrane, as taught by Presby. Presby teaches that a geotextile membrane around a buried wastewater treatment unit keeps surrounding backfill out of the unit, stabilizes and protects it, and filters liquid passing to the soil.
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Moore 040.
As for claims 13 and 23, Matsuo teaches:
The basin section of claim 1, with claim 13 interpreted as referring to that section; and
The method of claim 20, forming enclosed tank body 101 from flanged-joined sections (figure 1).
Matsuo does not teach:
A first connector at a first longitudinal end and a second connector at a second longitudinal end, the first connector mating with the second connector at another section (claim 13); and
Mating such a connector of the formed basin to the connector of another formed basin (claim 23).
Moore 040 teaches:
A wastewater tank half-shell 122 with opposing semi-circumferential end flanges 143, each with a joining surface 138. These flanges are the 1st and 2nd connectors at the longitudinal ends.
Joining the end flange of one tubular body 123 to the end flange 143A of a like tubular body 123A to form joint 134 (Figure 11, column 5, lines 58-61; column 8, lines 3-7).
The purpose of this end-to-end joining: Two or more tubular bodies can be connected so the assembler can select the desired length and volume capacity of the tank (column 4; line 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Matsuo’s sections with Moore 040’s longitudinal end connectors and to join formed tanks end to end. Moore 040 teaches that this lets a single set of molded and nestable parts produce tanks of different capacities to match the required wastewater flow, without new tooling. Several further reasons support the combination:
Matsuo already joins its sections by mating flanges, so adding end flanges extends Matsuo’s own joining technique.
Matsuo’s compartments are arranged in series along the tank’s long direction, separated by partition plate 130 (Figure 12-13). Joining tanks lengthwise simply extends that treatment train.
Moore 040 shows that flanged half-shells still nest for shipment (figure 3), so a skilled artisan would have expected the modified section to keep Matsuo’s nesting function.
Claims 2, 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore 040 in view of de Bruijn et al (US 7,798,747 B2) and Moore et al (US5,890,838A; hereinafter Moore 838).
As for claim 2, Moore 040 teaches the section of claim 1: a semi-cylindrical tank half-shell 122 for a wastewater or septic tank, defining an elongated cavity. Identical half-shells nest within one another (Figures 3, 4, 9). Moore 040 does not teach “two cavities and a securing portion between each of the two elongated cavities”.
de Bruijn teaches a single unitary module with two or more side-by-side elongated chambers (claim 1, figure 2).
Moore 838 teaches adjacent parallel, nestable chambers whose base flanges (30, 30A) extend toward each other and interlock along their lengths (flange connection 78, Figure 9). The interlocked flanges are a securing portion between two elongated cavities (column 7, lines 60-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form Moore 040’s section with two side-by-side cavities joined by an interlocking flange between them. de Bruijn teaches that one multi-chamber unit places more storage volume per installation and reduces labor. Moore 838 teaches that interlocking flanges between parallel chambers fix their spacing and prevent shifting. Molding the cavities and flanges as one piece, and duplicating the cavity, are obvious variations.
As for claim 3, Moore 040 /de Bruijn/Moore 838 teaches the section of claim 2, as set forth above. de Bruijn/Moore 838 does not teach each cavity having an outer lip adapted to be secured to an outer lip of another section of the same configuration.
Moore 040 teaches that each half-shell 122 has lengthwise flanges 132 that are mated and secured to flanges 232 of an identical half-shell 222 (Figures 9, 9A and 12; column 6, lines 58-63; claim 1, steps (a) and (f)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an outer lip along the outer edge of each cavity of the two-cavity section. Moore 040 teaches that providing a flange at every joint between mating shell parts stiffens the joint region and enlarges the joining surface, which gives a stronger and a liquid tight seal. A skilled artisan securing the two-cavity section to an identical inverted section would have provided such a lip on each cavity for the same reasons.
As for claim 15, Moore 040 teaches the assembly of claim 14. Identical and nestable half shells 122, 222 are joined to form an enclosed tubular tank body 123 adopted to receive a fluid (figures 4-6, 9A). Moore 040 does not teach “each of the first and second wastewater treatment basin sections comprising two cavities and a securing portion between each of the two elongated cavities”.
de Bruijn teaches a single unitary module with two or more side-by-side elongated chambers (claim 1, figure 2). Moore 838 teaches interlocking flanges 30, 30A running between adjacent parallel chambers (flange connection 78, Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to form each of Moore 040 first and second sections with two side-by-side elongated cavities and a securing portion between them. de Bruijn teaches that a single unit with side-by-side chambers increases the storage volume for installation and reduces handling. Moore 838 further teaches that interlocking flanges between adjacent parallel chambers “limit lateral chamber movement and ensure positive locating” (column 7, lines 60-63). A skilled artisan would therefore have joined the two cavities of each section with such a flange, to hold them at a fixed spacing aligned with the cavities of the mating section.
As for claim 16, Moore 040/ de Bruijn/ Moore 838 teach the assembly of claim 15, as set forth above. de Bruijn and Moore 838 do not teach each cavity having an outer lip adapted to be secured to an outer lip of another section of the same configuration.
Moore 040 teaches that lengthwise flanges 132 are mated and secured to flanges 232 of identical half-shell 222 to close the tank body (Figures 9, 9A, and 12; claim 1 and column 7, lines 30-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an outer lip on each cavity of both sections of the assembly. When one two-cavity section is inverted into an identical section, each cavity must be closed against its opposing cavity to form an enclosed volume. Moore 040 teaches doing this by mating and securing opposed flanges and teaches that the flanges stiffen the joint and enlarge the sealing surface. A skilled artisan would have lipped each cavity so that every opposing cavity pair seals along its outer edge, with the securing portion closing the joint between the cavities.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore 040 in view of Holbrook et al (US 9,233,775 B1).
Moore 040 teaches the section of claims 1 and 4. Half-shell 122 nests with identical half-shells, and its lengthwise flange 132 mates with flange 232 of identical half-shell 222 (figures 3, 9, 9A). Moore 040 does not teach a securing portion allowing relative adjustment between the half tubular walls. Its flanges are welded and fixed.
Holbrook teaches the identical half chambers joined by a lengthwise hinged joint (36, 38). The joint lets the walls pivot relative to each other between a flat transport position and an arch-shaped use position (Figures 3-4, 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to form Moore 040 securing flanges as Holbrook’s hinged joint because Holbrook teaches that this lets factory-joined half-shells ships flat, at roughly double the stacking density, and be installed on site without fixtures.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore 040/de Bruijn/Moore 838 and further is view of Holbrook.
Moore 040/de Bruijn/Moore 838 teach, in combination, the assembly of claim 15, including the interlocking flange securing portion between the two cavities of each section (Moore 838, flange connection 78, Figure 9) but do not teach the securing portion allowing relative adjustment between the walls of the two cavities. The flanges of Moore 838 interlock in a fixed position.
Holbrook teaches a lengthwise hinged joint (36, 38) connecting two or more molded chamber walls. The joint lets the walls pivot relative to each other between a flat transport position and a use position (figures 3-4, 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the securing portion between the two cavities as Holbrook’s hinged joint. Holbrook teaches that this lets the joined parts fold flat for shipping, at roughly double the stacking density, and then be installed into position on site without fixtures. That reduces shipping costs for Moore 040 multi-cavity sections which are otherwise bulky.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bachar EL Haj Hassan whose telephone number is (571)270-0121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Insuk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BACHAR EL HAJ HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
