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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 February 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “62” has been used to designate both “socket” and “pocket”.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 3, it appears that reference characters “26” and “66” have been used to designate “column”. Only one reference character and its associated lead line should be used to designate a specific structural element in any given figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “a slot extending radially inwardly from each of the plurality of holes”. However, the figures (see Figs. 10B, 11A, and 14 - 17) illustrate a slot extending radially outwardly rather than inwardly from each of the plurality of holes. Additionally, the original disclosure does not describe how a slot can extend into a hole. A slot is an narrow aperture or slit and a hole is a hollow space, and the original disclosure does not describe how a slit can be formed in a hollow space.
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 35 - 38 and 40 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.
Regarding claim 35, it is unclear whether “the plurality slots” refers to the plurality of slots of the first intermediate plate or to the plurality of slots of the second intermediate plate.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22 - 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,383. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 2 of the ‘383 patent recites all of the limitations recited in claim 22 of the present application except explicitly reciting “a top plate comprising a plurality of pockets” and “one or more intermediate plate”. Examiner takes the position that the “third plate having a plurality of holes” as recited in claim 2 of the ‘383 is functionally equivalent to the “top plate comprising a plurality of pockets” as recited in claim 22 of the present application and the “second plate” as recited in claim 1 of the ’383 patent is functionally equivalent to the “one or more intermediate plate” as recited in claim 22 of the present application.
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.
Claims 22 - 29, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guizzardi (US 2002/0046982).
Regarding claim 22, Guizzardi discloses a module for receiving stormwater when buried in permeable media, comprising: a base plate (lowermost shelf 3) comprising a plurality of fittings (couplings 5) configured to receive a lower end of a plurality of columns (uprights 2); a top plate (uppermost shelf 3) comprising a plurality of pockets (couplings 5) configured to receive an upper end of the plurality of columns (2); the plurality of columns extending vertically from the base plate to the top plate, wherein each of the plurality of columns (2) comprises the lower end configured to mate with one of the plurality of fittings (5) and the upper end configured to mate with one of the plurality of pockets (5); one or more intermediate plate (middle shelf 3; see Fig. 1) located between the base plate and the top plate comprising a plurality of holes (through housings 9) configured to allow the at least one intermediate plate to slide vertically along the plurality of columns; and a plurality of self-acting fasteners (projections 8) comprising a plurality of latches and a plurality of receivers (housings 4) configured to secure each of the one or more intermediate plate to each of the plurality of columns at an elevation and to prevent downward motion of the one or more intermediate plate (Figs. 1, 3, and 5 - 7; abstract; paragraphs 0020 - 0029, 0038, and 0041).
Regarding claim 23, Guizzardi further discloses each of the plurality of pockets (couplings 5 in uppermost shelf 3) comprises one of the plurality of receivers (4) configured to engage with the upper end of each of the plurality of columns (2) (Figs. 1, 6, and 7).
Regarding claim 24, Guizzardi further discloses each of the plurality of pockets (couplings 5 in uppermost shelf 3) comprises one of the plurality of receivers (4) configured to engage with the upper end of each of the plurality of columns (2) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Guizzardi further discloses each of the plurality of pockets (couplings 5 in uppermost shelf 3) comprises a nub (portion of unlabeled plug that extends into the upright 2; Fig. 1) extending downwardly to fit within a bore of the upper end of each of the plurality of columns (2) (Fig. 1; paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 26, Guizzardi further discloses the top plate (uppermost shelf 3) is configured to be secured to the upper end of each of the plurality of columns (2) by at least one of: a latch or a fastener (projection 8) (Figs. 1, 6, and 7; paragraphs 0027, 0028, and 0041).
Regarding claim 27, Guizzardi further discloses the plurality of fittings (5), the plurality of pockets (5), and the plurality of holes (9) are arranged according to a pattern (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 28, Guizzardi further discloses the plurality of latches (8) are attached to each of the plurality of columns (2) (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 29, Guizzardi further discloses the plurality of receivers (4) are attached to each of the one or more intermediate plate (middle shelf 3) (Figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 39, Guizzardi further discloses the plurality of self-acting fasteners (8) further prevent upward movement of the one or more intermediate plate (middle shelf 3; see Fig. 1) (Figs. 1, 6, and 7; paragraphs 0027, 0028, and 0041).
Regarding claim 40, Guizzardi further discloses the lower end of the plurality of columns (2) is fastened or latchingly engaged (via projections 8 and housings 4) with the base (lowermost shelf 3) (Figs. 1 and 7; paragraphs 0027, 0028, and 0041).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guizzardi.
Regarding claim 33, Guizzardi discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a second intermediate plate. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the at least one intermediate plate as disclosed by Guizzardi to include both a first intermediate plate and a second intermediate plate since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 (vi)(B).
Regarding claim 34, Guizzardi further discloses a plurality of plates (3) located at different elevations and the first intermediate plate is configured to be located at a first elevation between the top plate and the base plate (Fig. 1). Guizzardi fails to discloses the second intermediate plate is configured to be located at a second elevation between the top plate and the base plate. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the at least one intermediate plate as disclosed by Guizzardi to include both a first intermediate plate and a second intermediate plate, wherein the second intermediate plate is at a second elevation between the top plate and the base plate since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 (vi)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Der Scheer et al. (US 10,132,069) discloses stormwater modules comprising a base plate, a top plate, at least one intermediate plate, and a plurality of columns. However, Van Der Scheer fails to disclose a plurality of self-acting fasteners comprising a plurality of latches and a plurality of receivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights