DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 27 January 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claim 20 is currently amended;
Claims 1-19 were previously presented;
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 27 January 2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. The claim recites many broad terms. A “cap” is an element that covers. A “dam” is a structural element capable of holding water. “Preexisting” is a relative term. A “contaminant” can range from sewage, debris, vegetation, sludge, dirt, bacteria, etc. “Entombing” is defined as “trapped in or under something” or “the act of depositing in”. In this case the filter 25 collects contaminants while located and trapped under cap 37. Since the claims are broadly written, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claim limitations are met. The Taisei reference provided in the IDS from 27 January 2026 is being used to reject the claims.
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 20 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.
As to Claim 20, the claim recites “the contamination zone” but there is no “contamination zone” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291).
As to Claim 1, Perkins discloses a dam system for entombing contaminants in a river, the dam system comprising:
A preexisting structure (14) in the river having associated therewith a contamination zone (25) defined by a location of contaminants (26, 27);
A dam (16) constructed upriver or downriver of the preexisting structure (14); and
A cap (37) coupled to the preexisting structure and the dam, the cap spanning and entombing the contaminants in at least a portion of the contamination zone.
As to Claim 2, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Perkins also discloses wherein the preexisting structure (14) includes a preexisting dam.
As to Claim 3, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Perkins also discloses wherein the cap (37) extends from a first riverbank to a second riverbank, the first riverbank and the second riverbank being on different sides of the river.
As to Claim 4, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Perkins also discloses wherein the dam (16) includes at least one precast segment.
As to Claim 5, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Perkins also discloses wherein the cap (37) includes at least one precast segment.
As to Claim 12, Perkins discloses a method for entombing contaminants in a river, the method comprising:
Constructing a dam (16) adjacent to a preexisting structure (14); and
Applying a cap (37) over the preexisting structure (14) and contaminants (26, 27) associated with the preexisting structure to entomb the contaminants (at 25) in the river, the applying the cap (37) including:
Coupling a first end of the cap (37) to a riverbed (The first end of the cap 37 is coupled to the riverbed indirectly via preexisting structure 14 as “coupling to” does not require a direct contact connection); and
Coupling a second end of the cap (37) to the dam (16).
As to Claim 13, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). Perkins also discloses wherein the dam (16) includes at least one precast segment.
As to Claim 14, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). Perkins also discloses further comprising stabilizing the contaminants using a binding agent (26. The sand layer 26 will trap the contaminants and therefore bind some of the contaminants to the layer).
As to Claim 19, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). Perkins also discloses further comprising removing a top portion (The top portion of 14 has a recess at the top which receives the first end of the cap 37) of the preexisting structure (14) before applying the cap.
As to Claim 20, Perkins discloses a dam system for entombing contaminants in a river, the dam system comprising:
A dam (16) coupled to a riverbed and obstructing water flow for at least a portion of a width of a river, the dam (16) being adjacent to a preexisting structure (14) and contaminants (26, 27); and
A cap (37) coupled to the preexisting structure and the dam, the cap spanning and entombing the contaminants in at least a portion of the contamination zone (25).
Claims 1, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taisei (Japan Patent Publication No. JP3175356U).
As to Claim 1, Taisei discloses a dam system for entombing contaminants in a river, the dam system comprising:
A preexisting structure (4) in the river having associated therewith a contamination zone (1) defined by a location of contaminants (Contaminants in 1);
A dam (2) constructed upriver or downriver of the preexisting structure (4); and
A cap (3) coupled to the preexisting structure (4) and the dam (2), the cap spanning and entombing the contaminants (Contaminants in 1) in at least a portion of the contamination zone.
As to Claim 12, Taisei discloses a method for entombing contaminants in a river, the method comprising:
Constructing a dam (2) adjacent to a preexisting structure (4); and
Applying a cap (3) over the preexisting structure (4) and contaminants (Contaminants in 1) associated with the preexisting structure to entomb the contaminants in the river, the applying the cap (3) including:
Coupling a first end of the cap (3) to a riverbed (The first end of the cap 3 is coupled to the riverbed indirectly via preexisting structure 4 as “coupling to” does not require a direct contact connection); and
Coupling a second end of the cap (3) to the dam (2).
As to Claim 20, Taisei discloses a dam system for entombing contaminants in a river, the dam system comprising:
A dam (2) coupled to a riverbed and obstructing water flow for at least a portion of a width of a river, the dam (2) being adjacent to a preexisting structure (4) and contaminants (Contaminants in 1); and
A cap (3) coupled to the preexisting structure and the dam, the cap spanning and entombing the contaminants (Contaminants in 1) in at least a portion of the contamination zone (1).
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.
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291) in view of Eftekharzadeh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0369491).
As to Claim 6, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising a stabilizing blanket, the stabilizing blanket being positioned between the cap and the contaminants. Eftekharzadeh discloses a stabilizing blanket (114), the stabilizing blanket being positioned between a cap (114) and contaminants (Debris or dirt at 115). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stabilizing blanket, the stabilizing blanket being positioned between the cap and the contaminants. The motivation would have been to provide another layer of filtration.
As to Claim 15, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising covering the contaminants with a stabilizing blanket. . Eftekharzadeh discloses a stabilizing blanket (114) covering contaminants (Debris or dirt at 115). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stabilizing blanket covering the contaminants. The motivation would have been to provide another layer of filtration.
Claims 7, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291) in view of Spencer (U.S. Patent No. 1,640,099).
As to Claim 7, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about wherein a region between the preexisting structure and the dam includes an impermeable fill. Spencer discloses a region between a preexisting structure (Left F) and a dam (Right F) including an impermeable fill (18). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an impermeable fill in a region between the preexisting structure and the dam below layer 27. The motivation would have been to avoid seepage below the granular layers.
As to Claim 8, Perkins as modified teaches the invention of Claim 7 (Refer to Claim 7 discussion). Perkins as modified also teaches wherein the cap (Perkins: 37) is positioned over at least a portion of the impermeable fill.
As to Claim 16, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising adding impermeable fill between the preexisting structure and the dam. Spencer discloses a region between a preexisting structure (Left F) and a dam (Right F) including an impermeable fill (18). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an impermeable fill in a region between the preexisting structure and the dam below layer 27. The motivation would have been to avoid seepage below the granular layers.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291) in view of Iskra et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,352,593).
As to Claim 9, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about wherein the dam includes a pneumatic crest gate. Iskra discloses a dam with a crest gate (4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the dam include a pneumatic crest gate. The motivation would have been to control the flow rate.
Claims 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291) in view of Broome (U.S. Patent No. 4,540,313).
As to Claim 10, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising a powerhouse, the powerhouse being functionally coupled with the dam. Broome discloses a dam (3) with a powerhouse (1) functionally coupled thereto. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a powerhouse, the powerhouse being functionally coupled with the dam. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the device by producing power.
As to Claim 17, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising a powerhouse, the powerhouse being functionally coupled with the dam. Broome discloses a dam (3) with a powerhouse (1) functionally coupled thereto. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a powerhouse, the powerhouse being functionally coupled with the dam. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the device by producing power.
Claims 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. Patent No. 3,854,291) in view of Dohrer (U.S. Patent No. 2,922,282).
As to Claim 11, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising a fish ladder associated with the dam. Dohrer discloses a fish ladder (B) associated with a dam (10). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a fish ladder associated with the dam. The motivation would have been to transport fish upstream or downstream.
As to Claim 18, Perkins discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion). However, Perkins is silent about further comprising assembling a fish ladder or other animal passageway at the dam to enable fish or other animals to travel upriver and downriver of the dam. Dohrer discloses a fish ladder (Figure 1, H) associated with a dam (10). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a fish ladder associated with the dam. The motivation would have been to transport fish upstream or downstream.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 27 January 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights