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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,075,801).
Regarding claim 1, Alper et al. discloses a relocatable tank (10, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of support members (20) arrangeable in a spaced apart configuration along a perimeter of the tank; a plurality of precast wall panels (18) arrangeable between, and received at least partially within the plurality of support members to form a continuous wall (12) along the perimeter of the tank; and a tensioning system comprising a plurality of cables (16) configured to extend around an outside of the continuous wall (Figs. 5 and 6); wherein at least some of the support members comprise at least one aperture (openings approximate 34a, 34b or 34, Figs. 5 and 6) and at least one elongate slot (34a, 34b or 34) to receive respective cables of the tensioning system to retain a shape of the tank.
Regarding claim 2, Alper et al. discloses wherein the wall panels (18) are precast concrete panels (Abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected for being dependent upon a claim that recites limitations in the alternative, wherein the alternative limitation was not selected or positively recited. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the side walls”. However, the limitation of the wall panels being precast concrete panels were selected.
Regarding claim 4, Alper et al. discloses the support members (20) comprise standard support members and tensioning support members (36).
Regarding claim 5, Alper et al. discloses the support members (20) comprise an I-beam attached to a base portion (22), the I-beam comprising a central portion (32) and substantially perpendicular flanges (28, 30) coupled to ends of the central portion, wherein the wall panels (18) are received between the flanges of the I-beam.
Regarding claim 6, Alper et al. discloses the support member (20) in the form of the tensioning support member comprises at least one aperture (approximate 34a, 34b, or 34) in the central portion thereof and at least one elongate slot (34a, 34b or 34) in the central portion thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Alper et al. discloses the at least one elongate slot (34a, 34b, or 34) comprises a channel extending into at least one of the substantially perpendicular flanges to receive a cable therein (Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Alper et al. discloses the support member (20) in the form of the tensioning support member comprises a plurality of apertures (approximate 34a, 34b or 34) in the central portion (32) thereof and a plurality of elongate slots (34a, 34b, considered to be the slots located on the lower portion of the central portion) below said apertures (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Alper et al. discloses the support member (20) in the form of the tensioning support member comprises a plurality of elongate slots (34) above said apertures (approximate 34a, 34b or 34), said elongate slots (34a, 34b) below said apertures being of a greater depth than the elongate slots (34) above the apertures.
Regarding claim 10, Alper et al. discloses the apertures (approximate 34a, 34b or 34) in a first type of the tensioning support member (considered portions to be located near the upper portion of the wall, Figs. 3-4) are vertically offset with respect to the apertures (approximate 34a, 34b or 34) in a second type of the tensioning support member (considered portions located near the lower portion of the wall, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Alper et al. discloses plurality of cables (16) collectively extends around the continuous wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Alper et al. discloses the tensioning cables (16) are in greater concentration towards the base of the panels, or in a lower portion of the panels (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Alper et al. discloses at least one of the tensioning support members (36) is provided for at least every quarter of a circular tank (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Alper et al. discloses at least one of the tensioning support members (36) and at least one of the standard support members (20) are provided in a group periodically around a perimeter of a circular tank (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Alper et al. discloses at least two of the tensioning support members (36) and at least two of the standard support members (20) are provided in a group periodically around a perimeter of a circular tank.
Regarding claim 16, Alper et al. discloses at least one cable anchor (36) is provided to retain one or more of the cables at the support members (20).
Regarding claim 17, Alper et al. discloses a first type of the tensioning support member comprises a plurality of spaced apart cable anchors (36) which are vertically offset with respect to a plurality of spaced apart cable anchors (36) of a second type of the tensioning support member (Figs. 1 and 6). The are no limitations that distinguishes the cable anchors from being different.
Regarding claim 18, Alper et al. discloses at least one liner configured to fluidly seal the wall panels and a floor of the relocatable tank (Col. 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 23, Alper et al. discloses a portion of the floor (14) of the tank inside the perimeter of the tank slopes towards the wall of the tank (portions underneath approximate 40, 44, 48-49, Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 24, Alper et al. discloses an overflow arrangement (Col. 5, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 25, Alper et al. discloses a floating cover (Col. 5, lines 9-14).
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 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(s) 19-22 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,075,801) in view of Crowther et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,538,384).
Regarding claim 19, Alper et al. discloses the tank comprises a liner as set forth above, but does not disclose the liner being a double liner or the tank comprising a leak detection system. However, Crowther et al. teaches that it is known to have a tank that is relocatable (Fig. 9) having a double liner (Col. 7, lines 51-60) and a leak detection system (Col. 3, lines 9-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a double liner to better help protect the water from contamination, evaporation and treatment chemicals and to have a leak detection system to help leakage be easily detected, located and repaired.
Regarding claim 20, Crowther et al. further discloses the leak detection system comprises a leak detection layer fluidly connected to an outlet (Col. 5, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 21, Crowther et al. discloses the outlet as set forth above, but does not necessarily disclose the outlet being a sump having a height greater than the continuous wall with a pump configured to return fluid from the sump back into the relocatable tank or discharged elsewhere. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an outlet that comprised of a sump along with a pump as it is well known to have system where excess water can be collected, removed and displaced to a more desirable location including back into the tank.
Regarding claim 22, Alper et al. discloses one or more water ballast tubes inside the perimeter of the tank to retain the at least one liner (Col. 14, lines 42-51).
Concerning method claims 26-27 in view of the structure disclosed by Alper et al., the method of assembling the tank on site would have been obvious, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be assembled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights