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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 2-22 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not commensurate with the claimed invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-12, 18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilsey (4,290,246).
With regard to claim 2, Hilsey discloses an impoundment structure (eg. figs. 10, 14a-14b) configured to store a volume of fluid, the impoundment structure comprising: an inner wall (50/72a) defining at least a portion of a cavity (figs. 10, 14a-14b), the cavity being configured to store the volume of fluid (col. 10, lines 3-26), the inner wall including precast segments (figs. 10, 14a-14b; col. 10, lines 3-26); and an outer wall (51/72b) defining at least a portion of an outer boundary of the impoundment structure (figs. 10, 14a-14b), the outer wall including precast segments, the outer wall being separated from the inner wall by a distance (figs. 10, 14a-14b).
With regard to claim 3, Hilsey further discloses at least one of the inner wall or the outer wall is substantially orthogonal to a lower surface (figs. 10, 14a-14b).
With regard to claim 4, Hilsey further discloses at least one of the inner wall or the outer wall is angled relative to a lower surface (col. 10, lines 18-21, tapered slab).
With regard to claim 9, Hilsey further discloses the distance between the inner wall and the outer wall includes a structural fill material (53).
With regard to claim 10, Hilsey discloses at least one intermediate precast segment (50b) couples the inner wall and the outer wall.
With regard to claim 11, Hilsey further discloses at least two of the precast segments are shaped differently (fig. 14b).
With regard to claim 12, Hilsey further discloses at least two of the precast segments are interconnected via complimentary coupling elements (figs. 6-9a).
With regard to claim 18, Hilsey further discloses the inner wall defines the boundaries of the cavity (fig. 10).
With regard to claim 21, Hilsey further discloses the inner wall and the outer wall are separate stand-alone structures (figs. 10, 14a-14b).
With regard to claim 22, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above. Hilsey further discloses wherein the distance between the inner wall and the outer wall is constructed and arranged to allow vehicles to pass between the inner wall and the outer wall (figs. 10, 14b; pg. 25).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-12, 14, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scandaliato (7,785,042).
With regard to claim 2, Scandaliato discloses an impoundment structure (fig. 1) configured to store a volume of fluid (18), the impoundment structure comprising: an inner wall (12) defining at least a portion of a cavity (fig. 1), the cavity being configured to store the volume of fluid (fig. 1), the inner wall including precast segments (col. 4, lines 9-19) and an outer wall (14) defining at least a portion of an outer boundary of the impoundment structure (fig. 1), the outer wall including precast segments, the outer wall being separated from the inner wall by a distance (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 3, Scandaliato further discloses at least one of the inner wall or the outer wall is substantially orthogonal to a lower surface (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 9, Scandaliato further discloses the distance between the inner wall and the outer wall includes a structural fill material (22).
With regard to claim 10, Scandaliato discloses at least one intermediate precast segment (3/4/5/6) couples the inner wall and the outer wall.
With regard to claim 11, Scandaliato further discloses at least two of the precast segments are shaped differently (col. 4, lines 52-63).
With regard to claim 12, Scandaliato further discloses at least two of the precast segments are interconnected via complimentary coupling elements (col. 5, lines 14-16).
With regard to claim 14, Scandaliato further discloses at least one of the inner wall or the outer wall includes a precast cap segment (3).
With regard to claim 17, Scandaliato further discloses a roof (3).
With regard to claim 18, Scandaliato further discloses the inner wall defines the boundaries of the cavity (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 21, Scandaliato further discloses the inner wall and the outer wall are separate stand-alone structures (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 22, Scandaliato discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above. Scandaliato further discloses wherein the distance between the inner wall and the outer wall is constructed and arranged to allow vehicles to pass between the inner wall and the outer wall (col. 4, lines 16-19).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of List et al. (4,090,363).
With regard to claim 5, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a cutoff wall positioned between the inner wall and the outer wall, the cutoff wall being constructed and arranged to extend in a vertical direction and be water impermeable.
List discloses an impoundment structure (eg. fig. 7) comprising a cutoff wall (100/101) positioned between the inner wall (104) and the outer wall (105), the cutoff wall being constructed and arranged to extend in a vertical direction (fig. 7) and be water impermeable (col. 5, lines 17-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize a cutoff wall as taught in List, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the volume of fluid does not leak through the structure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) and List et al. (4,090,363) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Terrel (5,078,543).
With regard to claim 6, Hilsey, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a moisture sensor located at the cutoff wall.
Terrel discloses a containment system wherein a moisture sensor located at a sealing wall (col. 2, lines 58-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hilsey and utilize a moisture sensor as taught in Terrel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to alert personnel of a leak within the system.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of List et al. (4,090,363) and Sine (7,563,057).
With regard to claims 7-8, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a cutoff wall formed of precast segments, the precast segments being coated with nanomaterials to give the precast segments a water impermeable characteristic.
List discloses a cutoff (100/101; fig. 7) wall being coated with nanomaterials to give the cutoff wall a water impermeable characteristic (col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 12; “bentonite”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize a cutoff wall as taught in List, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the volume of fluid does not leak through the structure.
Hilsey, as modified, is silent regarding the cutoff wall being precast. Sine discloses constructing a cutoff wall (10) from precast or cast in place (col. 5, lines 30-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize a precast wall as taught in Sine, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create the wall offsite.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of Hammer et al. (2015/0071715).
With regard to claim 13, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding at least one of the inner wall or the outer wall includes at least one corner precast segment.
Hammer discloses a precast wall wherein the wall includes at least one corner precast segment (200).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize a corner segment as taught in Hammer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow custom designed walls to be built.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of Webber et al. (7,029,204).
With regard to claim 15, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding at least one rock anchor constructed and arranged to secure the impoundment structure to a lower surface.
Webber discloses a wall comprising at least one rock anchor (12/30) constructed and arranged to secure the impoundment structure to a lower surface (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize a rock anchor as taught in Webber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further strengthen the wall system.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of Odgaard et al. (4,711,597).
With regard to claim 15, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding at least one energy dissipation element.
Odgaard discloses a system utilizing energy dissipation elements (figs. 2-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize energy dissipation as taught in Odgaard, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect the walls from erosion from the liquid.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsey (4,290,246) in view of Damiano (1,438,812).
With regard to claims 19-20, Hilsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the inner wall defines at least one aperture constructed and arranged to facilitate fluid flow into the cavity or fluid flow out of the cavity and a fluid conduit coupled to at least one of the at least one aperture.
Damiano discloses a system wherein the inner wall defines at least one aperture constructed and arranged to facilitate fluid flow into the cavity or fluid flow out of the cavity and a fluid conduit (12) coupled to at least one of the at least one aperture (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hilsey and utilize an aperture with a conduit as taught in Damiano, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide means to direct water flow as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
07/02/2026
Prosecution Insights