DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s reply filed on September 25, 2025. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the abstract, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to claims 10 and 16 to correct issues of antecedent basis, the rejection of claims 10 and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The new ground of rejection set forth below for claim 17 is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on September 25, 2025. In particular, claim 17 has been amended to include “wherein an opening at a base of the first container is coupled to the second container to allow flow of the waste matter from the first container to the second container”. The remaining grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16 are the same as those set forth in the previous Office action mailed on July 1, 2025. For these reasons, the present action is properly made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 11, and 13, Applicant has argued that Mathena, US 2014/0131030 (hereinafter Mathena) in view of Wilmington, Australia Patent No. AU 2020257162 A1 (hereinafter Wilmington) fail to disclose the limitations of “”mechanical structure of the first container…adapted to reduce a speed of waster fluids”. The Examiner disagrees with this position.
Applicant has pointed out that the mechanical structure of the of claim 1 has been mapped to valves, manifolds, and chokes that regulate flow from the wellbore before entry into the vessel 12 as disclosed by Mathena. Specifically, Applicant indicates that under BRI consistent with the Specification as filed on 7/24/2024 (hereinafter Specification) that the “mechanical structure of the first container” requires a structure in the first container that reduces the speed of incoming waster fluids. However there are no limitations in claim 1 that require the mechanical structure to be located “in” the first container. Instead, claim 1 recites “a mechanical structure of the first container”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a mechanical structure located in the first container) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
As the valves, manifolds, and chokes that regulate flow from the wellbore before entry into the vessel 12 are flow regulating structures of vessel 12, clearly they meet the limitations of a “mechanical structure of the first container”…adapted to reduce a speed of waster fluids. Applicant has pointed out that the Examiner’s mapping for dependent claim 4 treats Mathena’s wear plate 208 (an internal plate) as “the mechanical structure” and that this underscores that external flow-control components are cannot be considered as “mechanical structures of the first container” as they are external components. However, the Examiner reiterates that there are no limitations in claim 1 which require that the mechanical structures be internal to the first container. Additionally, dependent claim 4 introduces additional limitations to the mechanical structure of “one of a perpendicular and inclined wall adapted to reduce a pressure of the waster fluids”. The Examiner asserts that the wear plate 208 is not a substitute for the valves, manifolds, and chokes but merely an additional mechanical structure of the first container.
Applicant’s have also argued that Mathena and Wilmington fail to disclose “second container…placed in a flare pit constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level”. Applicant points out that Mathena does not disclose placing of catch tank 14 in a flare pit and so the rejection has relied on Wilmington. Applicant asserts that Wilmington does not disclose not a discrete, mobile container placed in a pit and instead describes a flare pit “excavated onsite and lined with rock and a non-porous linear. The applicant further asserts that the rejection characterizes the flare pit as ”a tank” but that it is actually a pit in the ground and not a second container placed within the pit as recited. However, the lined flare pit as disclosed by Wilmington can be considered “a tank” as a tank is merely defined as a receptable or storage chamber. Further, in the current rejection Wilmington is not relied upon to meet the limitations of the second container. Instead Wilmington is relied upon to disclose a tank located in a flare pit at a predetermined depth below the ground level. The location of the second container of Mathena is than modified by Wilmington to place the second container in a flare pit at a predetermined depth below the ground level . This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the use of a tank located in a flare pit is a known manner for safely managing the return stream from an oil or gas well (Wilmington, par [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the second container to be located in a flare pit in order thereby yielding the predictable results of managing the flowback fluids (return stream) from the wellbore.
Regarding claim 13, Applicants have argued that Mathena and Wilmington fail to disclose “an opening provided within a base of the first container…and coupled to the second container”. Applicant has indicated that claim 13 requires an opening in the base of the first container that is coupled to the second container. Applicant further indicates that this requires a base-opening coupling, such as a drain at the base of the first container to an opening at the top of the second container. However there are no limitations in the claims that require a drain type opening, only that the opening be located within the base of the first container. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., drain type opening) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
As clearly disclosed in the current rejection, Wilmington meets the limitations of “an opening within the base of the container” as the mud-gas mixture from intake 130 is located within in the base of vessel 12 as clearly shown in Fig 5A. The mud-gas mixture from intake 130 is coupled to the second container (catch tank 14) through horizontal segment 132, valve 134, and overflow outlet 136 (Wilmington, Fig 5A-B, par [0038]).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 14, Applicant has argued that Lowery et al., US 2009/0023973 (hereinafter Lowery) is in a different context (waste vitrification furnaces ) and does not involve the first container of Mathena where combustion is performed at a separate flare stack.
In response to applicant's argument that Lowery is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mathena, Lowery, and the applicants specification are concerned with treatment of mud-gas and other waste materials using a flare or heating element and therefore are all dealing with heated waste materials.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, applicant has argued that the limitation of “one or more floating sticks with reflecting colors” is not disclosed by Al-Shammari et al., US 2022/0275710 (hereinafter AL-Shammari) as Al-Shammari’s colored markings are static bands on the tank wall are not “floating sticks”. The Examiner disagrees, as the red colored band 222 and the yellow color band 224 as described in Al-Shammari can be considered to be “floating” in relation to the wall of the tank as they are each located partially up the wall. There are no limitations in the claims which require the “floating sticks” to float with the fluid level. Instead the fluid sticks are only required to monitor fluid level and the red and yellow color bands 222, 224 perform this function.
Regarding claim 8, applicant admits the claim language is broad and maintains the amendment as presented. However, no amendment has been made to claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al-Shammari et al., US 2022/0275710 (hereinafter AL-Shammari).
Claim 17: Al-Shammari discloses a for containment of flowback fluids of a wellbore, the system comprising:
one or more pipelines extending from a wellhead of the wellbore (wellbore 102) to carry the flowback fluids (flowback fluid 104), wherein the flowback fluids (104) comprise waste matter and waste gases (Fig 1, par [0002]);
a first container (flare chute 202) to receive the waste matter from at least one pipeline (line 212) that carries the waste matter from the wellhead (at wellbore 102), wherein a mechanical structure of the first container is adapted to reduce a speed of waste fluids present in the waste matter received from the at least one pipeline (212);
at least one heating unit (flame 214 or flare) arranged at a portion of the first container (212) to:
receive the waste gases (flame 214 or flare to burn off hydrocarbons such as gas, par [0221]) from at least one pipeline (212), wherein the at least one pipeline (212) carries the waste gases from the wellhead (line 212 is from wellhead, par [0020]-[0021]) , and burn the waste gases into non-combustible byproducts (line 212 ends in a flame 214, or flare, to burn off hydrocarbons, such as gas, entrained in the fluid, par [0021]); and
a second container (open top tank 204), coupled to the first container (202), to receive the waste matter from the first container (see Fig 2, par [0020]);
one or more floating sticks (filling limit marker 222, pre-notification limit marker 224) coupled to the second container (204), wherein the one or more floating sticks include one or more reflecting colors filling limit marker 222 is red, pre-notification limit marker 224 is yellow) for monitoring a fluid level of the waste matter in the second container (marking 222 at 85% capacity, marking 224 at 65% capacity, par [0025]);
wherein an opening (open end of flare chute 202 between pivot mounts 206) at a base (see Fig 2) of the first container (202) is coupled to the second container (204) to allow flow of the waste matter (shown by arrow 210) from the first container (202) to the second container (204) (see Fig 2, par [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathena, US 2014/0131030 (hereinafter Mathena) in view of Wilmington, Australia Patent No. AU 2020257162 A1 (hereinafter Wilmington).
Claim 1: Mathena discloses a system for containment of flowback fluids of a wellbore (mud-gas containment system for flowback fluids of a wellbore, Fig 1-3) , the system comprising:
one or more pipelines (panic line 18, gas tube 28) extending from a wellhead of the wellbore to carry the flowback fluids (wellbore 24 sends the mud-gas mixture to vessel 12, Fig 1-3, 5A-B, and 12A-B, par [0026], [0030]), wherein the flowback fluids comprise waste matter and waste gases (containment system for waste mud-gas flowback fluids of a wellbore, Fig 1-3, par [0006]);
a first container (vessel 12) to receive the waste matter from at least one pipeline (18) that carries the waste matter from the wellhead (at wellbore 24) (Fig 1-3, 5A-5B, 12A-B, par [0030]), wherein a mechanical structure of the first container is adapted to reduce a speed of waste fluids present in the waste matter received from the at least one pipeline (valves, manifolds and chokes to regulate part of the flow from well bore 24 to vessel 12, preventing excessive flow of the mud gas mixture into vessel 12, par [0030]);
at least one heating unit (flare stack 20) arranged at a portion of the first container (12) to:
receive the waste gases from at least one pipeline (panic line 18, gas tube 28), wherein the at least one pipeline (28) carries the waste gases from the wellhead, and burn the waste gases into non-combustible byproducts (T-joint 64 provides a fluid communication from vent line 16 to flare stack 20, and flare stack 20 carries flare stack feed lines 66, 68, igniter 82, and burner 21, par [0027], released entrained gas is a waste gas that is communicated to flare stack 20 to be burned in burner 21, par [0062]); and
a second container (catch tank 14), coupled (via vessel drain line 120 and overflow line 128) to the first container (12), to receive the waste matter from the first container (12) (Fig 1-3, 5A-B, 12A-B, par [0026], [0037], [0039]), wherein the first container (12) is placed in line with a ground level (see Fig 1-3).
Mathena fails to disclose the second container is placed in a flare pit constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level.
Wilmington discloses a method and apparatus for processing a return stream from an oil or gas well during such operations (par [0001]). The return stream can be managed with a tank (non-porous liner, par [0006], forms a tank) placed in a flare pit (area excavated on site forms pit) constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level (area excavated on site and lined with rock and non-porous liners into which the flare line is pointed to capture the retuned fluids and solids, par [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to be placed in a flare pit constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level as disclosed by Wilmington, as the use of a tank located in a flare pit is a known manner for safely managing the return stream from an oil or gas well (Wilmington, par [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the second container to be located in a flare pit in order thereby yielding the predictable results of managing the flowback fluids (return stream) from the wellbore.
Claim 4: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, discloses the mechanical structure, is one of a perpendicular and an inclined wall (Mathena, wear plate 208) adapted to reduce a pressure of the waste fluids prior to collection of the waste fluids in the second container (14) (Mathena, wear plate 208 is a replaceable material designed to absorb the abrasive wear thereby protecting vessel wall 93 from erosion.to prevent excessive splashing, wear plate 208, baffle plate 102 and top splash plate 106 are employed internal to vessel 12, Fig 5A-B, par [0033], [0036]).
Claim 7: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose wherein a length, a width and a height of the second container is 12 meter (m), 3m and 2.3m, respectively; and wherein a length, a width and a height of the mechanical structure is 13m, 2.5m and 1.7m, respectively.
Mathena further teaches the second container has a volume and a defined opening (dump opening 98 has an oblong configuration measuring about 4 inches wide by about sixteen 16 inches long. In addition to minimizing panic line 18 back pressure, dump opening 18 may vary in configuration depending upon the volume of vessel 12. Preferably, vessel 12 has a volume capacity of about 55 barrels, paragraph [0035]). Mathena also teaches a length, a width and a height of the mechanical structure (conical adapter 88 accepts an input ranging from 4 inches to 6 inches, thereby permitting use of a corresponding 4 or 6 inch panic line, as shown in Fig 2-3, 5A-5B, par [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate a length, a width and a height of the second container to be 12 m, 3m and 2.3 m, respectively; and wherein a length, a width and a height of the mechanical structure is 13 m, 2.5 m and 1.7 m, respectively since such a modification would involve mere change in the size of a component and would have minimized excess back pressure in a wellbore system (Mathena, Fig 2-3, 5A-5B, par [0035])
Claim 11: Mathena discloses a method for containing flowback fluids of a wellbore (wellbore 24), wherein the flowback fluids comprise waste matter and waste gases (mud-gas containment system for flowback fluids of a wellbore, Fig 1-3) the method comprising:
provisioning a first container (vessel 12) having an inbuilt mechanical structure (shown in Fig 5A-5B) for receiving the waste matter from at least one pipeline (panic line 18, gas tube 28) that carries the waste matter from a wellhead of the wellbore (wellbore 24 sends the mud-gas mixture to vessel 12, Fig 1-3, 5A-5B, 12A-B, par [0026]), wherein the inbuilt mechanical structure is adapted to reduce a speed of waste fluids present in the waste matter (wear plate 208 is a replaceable material designed to absorb the abrasive wear thereby protecting vessel wall 93 from erosion to prevent excessive splashing, wear plate 208, baffle plate 102 and top splash plate 106 are employed internal to vessel 12, Fig 5A-BB, par [0033], [0036]);
coupling (via vessel drain line 120 and overflow line 128) a second container (catch tank 14), to the first container (12), wherein the second container is configured to receive the waste matter from the first container (sufficient volume is achieved within vessel 12, horizontal segment 132 receives the mud-gas mixture from intake 130 and communicates the mud-gas mixture through valve 134 and subsequently out of overflow outlet 136 into catch tank 14, Fig 1-3, 5A-B, 12A-B, par [0026], [0037], [0039]);
arranging at least one heating unit (flare stack 20) at a portion of the first container (12) to:
receive the waste gases from at least one pipeline (panic line 18, gas tube 28), wherein the at least one pipeline (28) is configured to carry waste gases from the wellhead, and burn the gases into non-combustible byproducts (T-joint 64 provides a fluid communication from vent line 16 to flare stack 20, and flare stack 20 carries flare stack feed lines 66, 68, igniter 82, and burner 21, par [0027], released entrained gas is a waste gas that is communicated to flare stack 20 to be burned in burner 21, par [0062]); and
wherein the first container (12) is placed in line with a ground level (see Fig 1-3).
Mathena fails to disclose the second container is placed in a flare pit constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level.
Wilmington discloses a method and apparatus for processing a return stream from an oil or gas well during such operations (par [0001]). The return stream can be managed with a tank (non-porous liner, par [0006], forms a tank) placed in a flare pit (area excavated on site forms pit) constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level (area excavated on site and lined with rock and non-porous liners into which the flare line is pointed to capture the retuned fluids and solids, par [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to be placed in a flare pit constructed at a predetermined depth below the ground level as disclosed by Wilmington, as the use of a tank located in a flare pit is a known manner for safely managing the return stream from an oil or gas well (Wilmington, par [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the second container to be located in a flare pit in order thereby yielding the predictable results of managing the flowback fluids (return stream) from the wellbore.
Claim 13: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, discloses wherein the mechanical structure is an inclined wall (wear plate 208), adapted to reduce a pressure of the waste fluids in order to facilitate collection of the waste matter at an opening provided within a base of the first container (wear plate 208 (inclined wall) is a replaceable material designed to absorb the abrasive wear thereby protecting vessel wall 93 from erosion to prevent excessive splashing, wear plate 208, baffle plate 102 and top splash plate 106 are employed internal to vessel 12, Fig 5A-B, par [0033], [0036]) wherein the opening is coupled to the second container and allows flow of the waste matter from the first container to the second container (14) (once a sufficient volume is achieved within vessel 12, horizontal segment 132 receives the
mud-gas mixture from intake 130 and communicates the mud-gas mixture through valve 134 and subsequently out of overflow outlet 136 into catch tank 14, Fig 5A-B, par [0038]).
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathena in view of Wilmington as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Lowery et al., US 2009/0023973 (hereinafter Lowery).
Claim 3: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose the first container is layered with a plurality of refractory bricks configured to withstand heat generated during burning of the waste gases.
Lowery discloses a first container (treatment vessel) is layered with a plurality of refractory bricks configured to withstand heat generated during burning of the waste gases (a thermally insulating layer 16 in contact with the interior of the treatment vessel and a layer of refractory materials 18 in thermal contact with the insulating material, which is interposed between the insulating layer and the material to be melted, par [0024], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first container of Mathena, to include the use of refractory bricks as disclosed by Lowery, as this modification would have provided a fire/heat-chamber to contain the melt and maintain the heart within the container (Lowery, par [0081]).
Claim 9: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose wherein the at least one heating unit is operated up to 1500 degrees Celsius.
Lowery teaches the operation temperature of the heating unit being up to 1500 degrees Celsius (For typical, naturally-occurring soil materials, the melting process may be performed in the temperature range of about 1200° to 2000° C, par [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Mathena and Wilmington, to include the operation temperature being up to 1500 degrees Celsius as disclosed by Lowery, as this modification would have provided a controlled temperature based on the composition of the materials being melted and for optimizing equipment due in part to the reduction in melt-container lifetime (Lowery, par [0053]).
Claim 14: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose further comprising: layering an inner surface of the first container with a plurality of refractory bricks to withstand the heat generated during burning of the waste gases.
Lowery discloses a first container (treatment vessel) is layered with a plurality of refractory bricks configured to withstand heat generated during burning of the waste gases (a thermally insulating layer 16 in contact with the interior of the treatment vessel and a layer of refractory materials 18 in thermal contact with the insulating material, which is interposed between the insulating layer and the material to be melted, par [0024], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first container of Mathena, to include the use of refractory bricks as disclosed by Lowery, as this modification would have provided a fire/heat-chamber to contain the melt and maintain the heart within the container (Lowery, par [0081]).
Claim(s) 5-6, 10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathena in view of Wilmington as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Al-Shammari.
Claim 5: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to discloses the second container further comprises: a valve configured to discharge the waste matter from the second container into a hose, wherein the hose is configured to carry the waste matter from the valve into a storage tank via a pump
Al-Shammari discloses a second container (open top tank 204) further comprises:
a valve (discharge valve 226) configured to discharge the waste matter from the second container into a hose (discharge valve 226, installed at the bottom of the open top tank 204 will allow a vacuum truck to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025], vacuum truck includes hose, par [0036]), wherein the hose is configured to carry the waste matter from the valve into a storage tank via a pump (vacuum truck to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025], [0036], vacuum truck includes hose and storage tank).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to include the valve as disclosed by Al-Shammari as this modification would have yielded the predictable results of providing an outlet for discharging fluid from the second container when full (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and one of ordinary skill would have been capable of adding said discharge valve to the second container.
Claim 6: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to discloses one or more floating sticks coupled to the second container, wherein the one or more floating sticks include one or more reflecting colors for monitoring a fluid level of the waste matter in the second container.
Al-Shammari discloses one or more floating sticks (filling limit marker 222, pre-notification limit marker 224) coupled to a second container (204), wherein the one or more floating sticks include one or more reflecting colors filling limit marker 222 is red, pre-notification limit marker 224 is yellow) for monitoring a fluid level of the waste matter in the second container (marking 222 at 85% capacity, marking 224 at 65% capacity, par [0025], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to include the one or more floating sticks as disclosed by Al-Shammari as this modification would have yielded the predictable results providing a filling limit marking to indicate when the second container is nearing capacity (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and one of ordinary skill would have been capable of adding said floating sticks to the second container.
Claim 10: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose wherein the second container comprises: an access with at least one abutment installed at a top portion of the second container for holding the hose to facilitate sucking of the waste matter.
Al-Shammari discloses further comprises wherein the second container comprises an access with at least one abutment (clamps or hose) at a top portion of the second container (204) for holding the hose to facilitate sucking of the waste matter (clamps or hose mount installed at top to allow a discharge hose to be mounted to open top tank 204 to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to include an access with at least one abutment as disclosed by Al-Shammari as this modification would have yielded the predictable results or allowing a discharge hose to be mounted to the second container to pump out fluid, for example, as an emergency solution (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and one of ordinary skill would have been capable of adding said access and abutment.
Claim 15: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to discloses further comprising: facilitating a discharge of the waste matter from a valve of the second container into a hose, wherein the hose is configured to carry the waste matter from the valve to a storage tank via a pump; and coupling one or more floating sticks to the second container, wherein the one or more floating sticks include one or more reflecting colors for monitoring a fluid level in the second container.
Al-Shammari discloses facilitating a discharge of the waste matter from a valve (discharge valve 226) of the second container (open top tank 204) into a hose (discharge valve 226, installed at the bottom of the open top tank 204 will allow a vacuum truck to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025], vacuum truck includes hose, par [0036]),
wherein the hose is configured to carry the waste matter from the valve to a storage tank via a pump (vacuum truck to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025], [0036], vacuum truck includes hose and storage tank); and
coupling one or more floating sticks (filling limit marker 222, pre-notification limit marker 224) to the second container (204), wherein the one or more floating sticks include one or more reflecting colors (filling limit marker 222 is red, pre-notification limit marker 224 is yellow) for monitoring a fluid level of the waste matter in the second container (marking 222 at 85% capacity, marking 224 at 65% capacity, par [0025], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to include the valve and the one or more floating sticks as disclosed by Al-Shammari as this modification would have yielded the predictable results providing an outlet for discharging fluid from the second container when full (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and providing a filling limit marking to indicate when the second container is nearing capacity (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and one of ordinary skill would have been capable of adding said valve and floating sticks to the second container.
Claim 16: Mathena, as modified by Wilmington, fails to disclose further comprises: installing an access with at least one abutment an abutment(s) at a top of the second container for holding the hose to facilitate sucking of the waste matter.
Al-Shammari discloses further comprises: installing an access with at least one abutment (claps or hose)at a top of the second container (204) for holding the hose to facilitate sucking of the waste matter (clamps or hose mount installed at top to allow a discharge hose to be mounted to open top tank 204 to pump out the fluid 210, par [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second container of Mathena to include an access with at least one abutment as disclosed by Al-Shammari as this modification would have yielded the predictable results or allowing a discharge hose to be mounted to the second container to pump out fluid, for example, as an emergency solution (Al-Shammari, par [0025], [0036]) and one of ordinary skill would have been capable of adding said access and abutment.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathena in view of Wilmington as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gyemant et al., WIPO No. WO 2005/106153 A1 (hereinafter Gyemant).
Claim 8: Mathena fails to disclose wherein the second container is coated with a chemical and a fire resistant material.
Gyemant discloses wherein the second container is coated (layer or coating) with a chemical and a fire resistant material (comprising at least one layer or coating, fabricated from at least one material from the group consisting of: a fire resistant coating or layer; a coating or layer resistant to chemical attack, par [0007], [0046], claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mathena to include the use of fire/heat and chemically resistant coatings as disclosed by Gyemant to coat the second container as this modification would have yield the predictable results of protecting the second container from excessive heat and chemical attack (Gyemant, par [0007], [0046], claim 7).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676