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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "21" and "23" have both been used to designate side walls. 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. 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 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 and 2 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
For purposes of further consideration, claims 3 and 4 are being interpreted as stating the following:
Claim 1. A liner for a frame of a collapsible portable liquid holding tank, the tank having top and bottom rails spaced apart by vertical struts, the liner comprising: pliant, impervious side walls and a floor panel, said side walls and said floor panel being contoured to store a volume of liquid within an interior space defined by the frame, at least one of said side walls having at least one opening therethrough, each [[said]] opening being disposed between the top and bottom rails and two adjacent struts of the tank; and at least one pliant, impervious collapsible bag, each [[said]] bag having a mouth with a perimeter defined by a respective one of said at least one openings, each [[said]] bag being extendable outwardly from [[a]] the respective [[said]] opening, [[proximate and]] over the bottom rail of the tank, and away from the tank, each [[said]] bag being contoured to store an additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each [[said]] bag being simultaneously and continuously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively.
Claim 2. [[A]] The liner according to claim 1, further comprising at least one [[other said]] additional pliant, impervious collapsible bag being extendable outwardly from a respective [[said]] opening away from the tank in a different direction than said [[at least one said]] previous pliant, impervious collapsible bag, said [[another]] additional bag being contoured to store another additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said [[another]] additional bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each [[said]] bag [[and said respective bag]] being simultaneously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US 7905368) in view of Shaw et al. (US 5813680) (hereinafter Shaw).
Regarding Claim 1
Christensen teaches a liner for a frame of a collapsible portable liquid holding tank (below – Fig. 1), the tank having top (20/26) and bottom rails (22/28) spaced apart by vertical struts (24/30), the liner comprising: pliant, impervious side walls (10) and a floor panel (8), said side walls and said floor panel being contoured to store a volume of liquid within an interior space defined by the frame, at least one of said side walls having at least one opening (40) therethrough, each opening being disposed between the top and bottom rails and two adjacent struts of the tank (Col. 1, Ln. 49-68).
Christensen further teaches at least one drain sleeve (38), each having a mouth with a perimeter defined by a respective one of said at least one openings, each drain sleeve being extendable outwardly from the respective opening, over the bottom rail of the tank, and away from the tank, each drain sleeve being contoured to store an additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said drain sleeve when attached to another tank to provide a greater capacity over the single tank (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Christensen does not teach at least one pliant, impervious collapsible bag, each bag having a mouth with a perimeter defined by a respective one of said at least one openings, each bag being extendable outwardly from the respective opening, over the bottom rail of the tank, and away from the tank, each bag being contoured to store an additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each bag being simultaneously and continuously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively.
Shaw teaches portable liquid holding tank (below – Fig. 4), the tank having at least one pliant, impervious collapsible bag (24), each bag having a mouth with a perimeter defined by a respective opening (26), each bag being extendable outwardly from the respective opening and away from the tank, each bag being contoured to store an additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each bag being simultaneously and continuously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively (Cl. 4, Ln. 11-17 and 21-31).
PNG
media_image2.png
285
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Christensen and Shaw are analogous inventions in the field of fluid containment systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the liner of Christensen with the teachings of the collapsible bag of Shaw in order to provide a container where the volume may be increased without a secondary container being required (Col. 2, Ln. 57-62).
Regarding Claim 2
Christensen in view of Shaw teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Christensen further teaches an additional drain sleeve extendable outwardly from a respective opening from the tank in a different direction than said previous drain sleeve. Christensen does not teach at least one additional pliant, impervious collapsible bag being extendable outwardly from a respective opening away from the tank in a different direction than said previous pliant, impervious collapsible bag, said additional bag being contoured to store another additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said additional bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each bag being simultaneously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively.
Shaw teaches at least one additional pliant, impervious collapsible bag (below – Fig. 5) being extendable outwardly from a respective opening (26, right) away from the tank in a different direction than said previous pliant, impervious collapsible bag (left), said additional bag being contoured to store another additional volume of liquid within an interior space defined by said additional bag, a level of liquid in said liner and in each bag being simultaneously increased and decreased as said volume of liquid stored in said liner is increased and decreased, respectively (Cl. 4, Ln. 11-17 and 21-31).
PNG
media_image3.png
339
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to further modify the liner of Christensen in view of Shaw with the teachings of the additional collapsible bag of Shaw in order to provide a container where the volume may further be increased without a secondary container being required (Col. 2, Ln. 57-62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 1 April 2026