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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10, 12 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 14-16 and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 13-16 and 19-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate both computer module and transducers. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "102" and "104" have both been used to designate computing module. 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 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.
Claim 21 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. There is no mention anywhere in the specification of what a second computing module is and how it is to be configured related to the first computing module. The only mention of a computing module is in the singular and shown inf Figs 3A-D only show a single controller #102. Moreover the specification at 0044 that describe the figures use #104 to indicate both transducer and computing module.
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 21 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.
The phrase second computing module can mean anything from a second computer or a second processor or display to a transmitter and receiver or relay system. It would not be possible for a person or ordinary skill to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation.
Claim limitation “second computing module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above in the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection it is unclear what the second computing module is let alone where it is located and how it interacts with the first computing module. Moreover it simply calls the limitation a computing module which may apply to anything from a second processor or display to a transmitter and receiver or relay system. The claim users a generic place holder for means namely the "second computing module" as a placeholder for means or steps. The functional language is that the computing module controls the transducer and the controlling module does not have any structure to explain how it is achieving this function beyond simply stating that it does the same. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasker (CA 2948991 A1) in view of Whitelaw (GB 2496397) or Cioanta (US 20170081000 A1) and Van Rens (WO 2014097054 A2) or Menzes (US 4922468 A) or Lindberg (US 5530683 A) and Courson (US 6468358 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tasker teaches An anti-fouling system for a vessel [Fig 1 ]comprising: a computing module[#18 in Fig 1];
a first set of teach independently controlled transducers capable of producing varying oscillations cooperatively connected to the computing module and mounted within a vessel[#14 are transducers in vessel #100; 0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside vessel; Abstract and 0016-0017 has optimizing transducer by modifying output frequency ie producing varying oscillations; See also claim 1];
a second set of teach independently controlled transducers capable of producing varying oscillations cooperatively connected to the computing module and mounted ..... to vessel[#14 are transducers in vessel #100; 0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside vessel; Abstract and 0016-0017 has optimizing transducer by modifying output frequency ie producing varying oscillations; See also claim 1]
wherein the transducers produce a sound wave able to impinge upon a submerged surface and , ... [ships hull];
at least one wave form generator cooperatively connected to the computing module and the transducers[#16 being waveform generator]:
at least one power amplifier cooperatively connected to the at least one wave form generator and the transducers[#24 is amplifier], .....;
and at least one sensor cooperatively connected to the computing module[#26 or #28 is sensor], wherein the at least one sensor collects data that the computing module processes to control the first set and the second set of transducers[#26 or #28 is sensor and 0016-0017 have sensors monitoring for feedback control].
…..and upon the collection of data from the at least one sensor, the first set or the second set of independently controlled transducers are activated.[ 0016-0017 have sensors monitoring for feedback control]
Tasker does not explicitly, …..external transducers... wherein the first and second set of transducers are steerable by the computing module..... wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches the impedance of the at least one waveform generator….. wherein the computing module activates the anti-fouling system through detection of the vessel at a predetermined location[this appears to be an intended use or an automated activation and would not have much patentable weight];
Whitelaw teaches independently controlled transducers capable of producing varying oscillations [Abstract has optimizing transducer operation Page 2 Lines 5-25 and claim 5 has each transducer being independently controlled with regards to frequency ie producing varying oscillations]and external transducers[Page 3 Lines 15-25 has externally mounted transducers] and
Cioanta also teaches external transducers [Fig 1 and 2 show transducers external to the vessel]….. wherein the computing module activates the anti-fouling system through detection of the vessel at a predetermined location[0054 and 0080 have the system working autonomously when the vessel is docked as shown in Fig 3]
Van Rens teaches wherein the first and second set of transducers are steerable by the computing module [Fig 1 and Page 6, Lines 15-25]. Similarly Menzes [Col 8, Lines 10-25 and Col 14; Lines 25-40 ] or Lindberg [Title and Abstract and Col 1 Lines 20-25 ]also teaches transducers are steerable
Courson teaches wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches the impedance of the at least one waveform generator[Claims 6, 7, 8 and Col 4, Lines 30-55 has amplifier and impedance matching];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the anti fouling system of Tasker with the with external transducers and automation of Cianta and independently controlled transducers of Whitelaw, the steerable transducers of Van Rens, or Menzes or Lindberg with the impedance matching of Courson and the wireless communication of Van Rens to reduce amount of transducers and impedance match the amplifier and generator and have wireless communications and as internal or external transducers would have been an obvious matter of design choice as neither design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with internal or external transducers.
Regarding claim 4, Tasker, as modified, teaches that wherein the computing module optimizes the transducers by varying frequency, amplitude, and waveform of the transducers. [Page 4; Lines 10-20 has frequency, output being optimized].
Regarding claim 5, Tasker, as modified, teaches that wherein the transducers are mounted to a vessel or a structure. [Fig 1 and 0005, 0016 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside and attached to hull which is a vessel or structure]
Regarding claim 6, Tasker, as modified, teaches that wherein the at least one power amplifier power, provides a variable voltage output between 5 and 45 root-means-square (RMS) voltage.[Page 4; Lines 10-20 has frequency, output being optimized, 0010 and 0017 -0018 have output voltage monitored].
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have 5 and 45 RMS voltage, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Tasker, as modified, teaches that wherein the transducers produce a sound wave with a frequency of at least 20kHz and not more than 1MHz. [0020 has the claimed frequency being taught].
Regarding claim 11, Tasker, as modified, teaches that , further comprising a substantially waterproof enclosure encapsulating the second group of transducers. [0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside waterproof vessel]
Cioanta also teaches, further comprising a substantially waterproof enclosure encapsulating the second group of transducers[Fig 1 and 2 show transducers external to the vessel and underwater meaning it is waterproof]
Whitelaw also teaches, further comprising a substantially waterproof enclosure encapsulating the second group of transducers[Page 3 Lines 15-25 has externally mounted transducers external to the vessel and underwater meaning it is waterproof]
Regarding claim 13, Tasker, as modified, teaches that wherein a first group of the at least one power amplifier, a first group of the at least one wave generator, and the first group of the transducer are contained within the substantially waterproof enclosure. [0005 has system in the boat meaning it is located inside a waterproof enclosure] .
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasker (CA 2948991 A1) in view of Whitelaw (GB 2496397) or Cioanta (US 20170081000 A1) and Van Rens (WO 2014097054 A2) or Menzes (US 4922468 A) or Lindberg (US 5530683 A) and Courson (US 6468358 B1) and Benham (US 6021033 A).
Regarding claim 14, Tasker teaches A mounted anti-fouling system comprising[Fig |]:a computing module[#18 in Fig 1];
transducers connected to the computing module[#14 are transducers], wherein the transducers are positioned internally[0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside vessel] and ..... of a vessel and wherein multiple transducers in close proximity can be formed into array s[#14 in array #12 in Fig 1], wherein each transducer produces a sound wave able to impinge upon a submerged surface[ships hull];.....
at least one wave form generator cooperatively connected to the computing module and the transducers[#16 being waveform generator];
at least one power amplifier cooperatively connected to the at least one wave form generator and the transducers[#24 is amplifier];
at least one sensor cooperatively connected to the computing module and positioned relative to the transducers, wherein the at least one sensor is enclosed in a waterproof enclosure[#26 or #28 is sensor in the boat monitoring meaning it is located inside a waterproof enclosure], .....
wherein the at least one sensor receives the sound wave produced by at least on the transducers[#26 or #28 is sensor and 0016-0017 have sensors monitoring for feedback control].
Tasker does not explicitly teach external transducers..... a mechanical system to secure the externally positioned transducers and arrays in a predetermined location, wherein the mechanical system provides a substantially waterproof enclosure for the transducers and the arrays [0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside waterproof vessel ]..... wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches an impedance of the at least one waveform generator; wherein the arrays of transducers are steerable .....and is able to detect stray electricity leaks
Cioanta[Fig 1 and 2 show transducers external to the vessel and underwater meaning it is mechanically positioned in a certain position and waterproof] or Whitelaw [Page 3 Lines 15-25 has externally mounted transducers external to the vessel and underwater meaning it is mechanically positioned in a certain position and waterproof] teaches external transducers and a mechanical system to secure the externally positioned transducers and arrays in a predetermined location, wherein the mechanical system provides a substantially waterproof enclosure for the transducers and the arrays.
Courson teaches wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches an impedance of the at least one waveform generator[Claims 6, 7, 8 and Col 4, Lines 30-55 has amplifier and impedance matching];
Van Rens teaches wherein the arrays of transducers are steerable[Fig 1 and Page 6, Lines 15-25]. Similarly Menzes [Col 8, Lines 10-25 and Col 14; Lines 25-40 ] or Lindberg [Title and Abstract and Col 1 Lines 20-25] also teaches wherein the arrays of transducers are steerable.
Benham teaches detection of stray electricity leaks[Abstract, Claims 1-56 relate to sensing electricity in water, Col 12, Lines 40-50 have water electrification sensing]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the anti fouling system of Tasker with the with external transducers of Cianta or Whitelaw, and the water electrification monitoring of Benham and the steerable transducers of Van Rens, or Menzes or Lindberg with the impedance matching of Courson and the wireless communication of Van Rens to reduce amount of transducers and impedance match the amplifier and generator and have wireless communications as internal or external transducers would have been an obvious matter of design choice as neither design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with internal or external transducers.
Claims 15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasker (CA 2948991 A1) in view of Van Rens (WO 2014097054 A2) or Menzes (US 4922468 A) or Lindberg (US 5530683 A) and Courson (US 6468358 B1) and Benham (US 6021033 A).
Regarding claim 15, Tasker teaches An anti-fouling system for a partially submerged vessel comprising[Fig 1]:
a first computing module located within the partially submerged vessel[#18 in Fig 1];
a set of.....independently controlled transducers[#14 in Fig 1; Abstract, 0009 0017 has controller controlling checking and controlling output frequencies meaning independent] cooperatively connected to the computing module[#100 in Fig 1], and wherein groups of ..... transducers form arrays[#14 in array #12 in Fig 1], each of the ..... transducers of the array produces independent sound waves able to impinge upon a submerged surface[ships hull], wherein at least one of the at least one transducer is secured inside of a vessel[0005 has transducer on inboard of hull meaning inside vessel];
at least one wave form generator cooperatively connected to the computing module and the set of ..... transducers[#16 being waveform generator];
at least one power amplifier cooperatively connected to the at least one wave form generator and the set of ..... transducers[#24 is amplifier];
and at least one sensor cooperatively connected to the computing module and positioned relative to a vessel hull and the ….. transducers[#26 or #28 is sensor]; .....
wherein each of the ..... transducers of the array are able to operate independently of the other transducers in the array[0009, 0019 and Claim 2 have each output being controlled meaning the transducers can operate independent of each other]; ...
Tasker does not explicitly teach steerable transducers..... wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches the impedance of the at least one waveform generator;
wherein the set of transducers, and the at least one sensor are wirelessly connected to the computing module…..wherein the atleast one sensor is able to detect stray electricity leaks
Van Rens teaches Steerable transducers[Fig 1 and Page 6, Lines 15-25], similarly Menzes [Col 8, Lines 10-25 and Col 14; Lines 25-40] and Lindberg [Title and Abstract and Col 1 Lines 20-25] also teach the same
Courson teaches wherein the at least one power amplifier substantially matches the impedance of the at least one waveform generator[Claims 6, 7, 8 and Col 4, Lines 30-55 has amplifier and impedance matching];
Van Rens teaches wherein the set of transducers, and the at least one sensor are wirelessly connected to the computing module.[Page 11 has wireless communications]
Benham teaches detection of stray electricity leaks[Abstract, Claims 1-56 relate to sensing electricity in water, Col 12, Lines 40-50 have water electrification sensing]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the anti fouling system of Tasker with the water electrification monitoring of Benham and steerable transducers of Van Rens, or Menzes or Lindber with the impedance matching of Courson and the wireless communication of Van Rens to reduce amount of transducers and impedance match the amplifier and generator and have wireless communications.
Regarding claim 19, Tasker does not explicitly teach further comprising a mechanically steerable mount, wherein the set of steerable transducers are attached to the mechanically steerable mount.
Menzes[Col 8 Lines 20-25 has mechanical steering] or Lindberg [Col 1 Lines 60-65 has mechanical steering] teaches that further comprising a mechanically steerable mount, wherein the set of steerable transducers are attached to the mechanically steerable mount.
Regarding claim 20, Tasker does not explicitly teach wherein the arrays of steerable transducers are electronically steerable.
Van Rens teaches that wherein the arrays of steerable transducers are electronically steerable. [Fig 1 and Page 6, Lines 15-25 have electronic steering]
Regarding claim 21, Tasker, as modified, teaches wherein when the first computing module and the second computing module communicate and remotely control the set of steerable transducers and the at least one sensor. [0016 has microcontroller with other interfaces meaning more computing modules]
Van Rens teaches Steerable transducers[Fig 1 and Page 6, Lines 15-25], similarly Menzes [Col 8, Lines 10-25 and Col 14; Lines 25-40] and Lindberg [Title and Abstract and Col 1 Lines 20-25] also teach the same.
Menezez also has more than one computing module [Fig 1 shows control unit #10, Computer #16 and Analyzer #14]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second processor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasker (CA 2948991 Al) in view of Van Rens (WO 2014097054 A2) or Menzes (US 4922468 A) or Lindberg (US 5530683 A) and Courson (US 6468358 B1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cioanta (US 20170081000 A1) or Whitelaw (GB 2496397).
Regarding claim 16, Tasker does not explicitly teach wherein steerable transducers which are positioned externally of a vessel-are mounted a predetermined distance from the vessel.
Cioanta [Fig 1 and 2 show transducers external and a distance from the vessel]. Or Whitelaw [Page 3 Lines 15-25 has externally mounted transducers] teaches that further comprising a mechanically steerable mount, wherein the set of steerable transducers are attached to the mechanically steerable mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the anti fouling system of Tasker with external transducers of Cianta or Whitelaw as internal or external transducers would have been an obvious matter of design choice as neither design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with internal or external transducers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly and the argument is an assertion that the elements are not taught without addressing any particular element or showing how the invention is different from the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., location at a dock or slip or ability to detect electricity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645