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
Applicant’s response filed March 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 22 is amended. Claims 22, 24-25, and 27-35 are further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s response, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection set forth in the office action filed January 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22, 24-25, and 27-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munro et al., WO 2016/134424 (Munro, IDS) in view of Tierney, US 2018/0008919 (Tierney).
Regarding claim 22, Munro discloses a system for enhanced dewatering of a settling pond containing a slurry with a mechanical dewatering vehicle having a chassis mounted atop at least two scrolls each including at least one outwardly extending helical spiral flange (fig. 1) extending radially away from a hollow cylindrical scroll body (¶ 0020), said vehicle configured to be propelled by rotation of the scrolls (¶ 0018) and configured to provide mechanical consolidation of the slurry as the vehicle traverses the settling pond (abstract, figs. 1-3, Claims 1-27), said system comprising:
An external processing device comprising at least one processor, memory, and one or more input means for a user to input slurry properties (see “designing and modelling software”, ¶ 0039, 0054-0055);
At least one measuring device for measuring one or more properties of the slurry to be deposited in the settling pond, said properties including at least slurry density (¶ 0024-0025);
Wherein the external processing device is programmed to:
Determine a required buoyancy profile for the vehicle such that said vehicle is neutrally buoyant in the slurry (abstract, REF 212, see “desired operating depth”, ¶ 0008), said determination based on the one or more properties of the slurry measured by the at least one measuring device and one or more modifiable components of the vehicle (REF 214, ¶ 0009, 0054-0055);
Determine an optimal slurry depth for the slurry to be deposited in the settling pond at which the vehicle is able to traverse along a base layer of the settling pond and maintain substantially shear-free traction (see “pour depth of the slurry may be controlled”, ¶ 0038 and “target depth”, ¶ 0054-0055, 0065); and
Determine, identify, and test a vehicle configuration which provides the required buoyancy profile such that the hollow cylindrical scroll body does not engage the base layer (¶ 0054-0056).
While Munro discloses a system that utilizes modelling software to modify vehicle configurations (¶ 0044-0045), weight parameters (¶ 0046), buoyancy profiles (¶ 0045-0046), and height and size parameters of said vehicle (¶ 0048-0049) to meet an associated buoyancy profile (see “one or more features of the vehicle”, ¶ 0044-0055), Munro does not disclose a system wherein the external processing device comprises a display, or that the modeling software comprises data tables for the plurality of vehicle configurations and modifiable components thereof. However, Tierney discloses a dewatering system (abstract) comprising a computer implemented control system (¶ 0109) having a display, input/output devices (¶ 0109-0110), and a memory system (¶ 0098) including data look-up tables to be accessed by the control system (¶ 0108).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Munro to include the display and memory configuration as described in Tierney since it has been shown that broadly providing software-driven means is effective in automating manual activities such as those found in Munro.
Regarding claim 24, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the mechanical dewatering vehicle is an Archimedes screw tractor as described in claim 24 (¶ 0005, 0018).
Regarding claim 25, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more properties of the slurry measured by the at least one measuring device comprise slurry density (¶ 0024).
Regarding claim 27, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the vehicle is neutrally buoyant when a buoyant force acting on the vehicle substantially equals forces that would otherwise cause the vehicle to sink or rise in the settling pond (¶ 0009, 0030).
Regarding claim 28, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the substantially shear-free traction comprises traction along a base layer of the settling pond without re-pulping, re-mixing, or re-saturation of the base layer (¶ 0011, 0043).
Regarding claim 29, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more properties of the vehicle considered when determining said buoyancy profile comprise a mass of the vehicle (¶ 0045-0048, 0057).
Regarding claim 30, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more properties of the vehicle correspond to one or more modifiable features of the vehicle capable of being modified so as to enable the vehicle to conform with, or meet, the buoyancy profile (¶ 0045-0048, 0057).
Regarding claim 31, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more modifiable features capable of being modified further provide the vehicle with a desired operating speed and traction (abstract, ¶ 0008, 0011).
Regarding claim 32, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more modifiable features comprise the addition or removal of mass from the vehicle (¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 33, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more modifiable features comprise a ballast system configured to adjustably hold a volume of material to alter the mass of the vehicle (¶ 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 34, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more modifiable features comprise substituting scrolls of the vehicle with replacement scrolls having a different hollow internal volume (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 35, Munro (in view of Tierney) discloses a system wherein the one or more modifiable features comprise modifications to increase or decrease the number of flange portions extending along the scrolls of the vehicle (¶ 0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Munro and Tierney do not disclose features drawn to a memory comprising the recited look-up tables. In response the examiner directs applicant’s attention to the rejections set forth above. Munro is relied upon to disclose the use of modeling software to modify vehicle configurations, weight parameters, buoyancy profiles, and height and size parameters of the vehicle (¶ 0040-0055). The modeling software is disclosed as configured to modify those vehicle configurations recited in the claim, but does not explicitly disclose a memory structure within the external processing device for storing said vehicle configurations. The examiner concedes in the previous office action that those features disclosed in Munro are not recited as look-up tables stored in the external processing device memory. However, Tierney is relied upon to disclose that it is well known to provide look-up tables within a control system memory for the purposes of storing and quickly accessing various information. The examiner does not rely on Tierney to disclose the specified data tables, since those sets of data are already provided and relied upon by the modeling software disclosed in Munro.
In response to applicant's argument that Tierney is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Tierney is pertinent to the problem of data table structures stored in system memory, to be accessed by a control system. Additionally, Tierney is broadly concerned with the handling of solid waste in water treatment systems. The examiner maintains Tierney is analogous art for at least those reasons recited above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights