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 .
An after-final amendment was received on 2 March 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 25-36 are remaining in the action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the subsea material delivery structure is configured to be disposed to a subsea environment” does not appear in the specification. (“The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.” (See MPEP 2173))
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 25 and 36 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.
Regarding Claims 25 and 36, the functional limitation “the subsea material delivery structure is configured to be disposed to a subsea environment” fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim because the claim merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. (See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) discussed in MPEP 2173.05g. It’s descriptive of a configuration of an apparatus. It is not a standard configuration like a hard top vs. convertible configuration of a Mustang. We know the features of Mustang configurations and we can articulate the defining features. Whether a tank or a rock or a golf ball is configured to be disposed in the subsea environment is less clear and not readily identifiable what features it needs to be disposed there. Applicant’s arguments indicate special features are required to fulfill this configuration, but it is not clear what those features are.)
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25, 26, 29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Pastelak (US 20100163681 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Pastelak discloses a subsea material delivery structure, comprising: at least one flexible container (Element 103); and a helically wound wire structure (spiral wrap tube, Element 102
Regarding Claim 26, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, wherein the helically wound wire structure is secured within the at least one flexible container by one or more of hangers (the wire hangs from Element 306) or one or more loops.
Regarding Claim 29, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, wherein the helically wound wire structure being made of one or more of a metal, a composite, and a semi-rigid material (plastic, pargraph 91), wherein the helically wound wire structure is configured to resist collapsing or folding.
Regarding Claim 30, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, wherein the at least one inflow/outflow valve comprises one or more of an outflow port, an inflow port, and an outflow/inflow port which allows material to travel into and out of the at least one flexible container. (manifold 105)
Regarding Claim 31, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 30, wherein the helically wound wire structure is connected to one or more of the outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port. (See Fig. 16)
Regarding Claim 34, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 31, wherein the one or more of the outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port are nearer a center of the at least one flexible container than the top or bottom. (See Fig. 13.)
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 27, 28, 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastelak (US 20100163681 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, the piccolo tube structure being from 0.125 inch to 3 inch in diameter, 1 foot to 10 feet in length, and holes 2 to 3 inches apart. (paragraph 50) Pastelak does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the helically wound wire nor having a wire diameter from 1/32 inch to ½ inch, and a pitch of 1/32 inch to 1 inch.
Pastelak discloses that the spiral wrap’s design goals is to withstand repeated vacuum cycles without collapsing or kinking. (paragraph 93) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to increase the wire diameter to ½ to between ½ inch which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelack to achieve modify the diameter which is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a result-effect variable for resisting vacuum pressure without collapsing or kinking.
Pastelack discloses flow path area is a result-effective variable for emptying the bladder (at least paragraph 93), and pitch correlates with flow path area. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a helical pitch of and a pitch of 1/32 inch to 1 inch which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelack is to provide for a desired emptying flowrate.
Regarding Claim 28, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, the piccolo tube structure being 2 inch to 6 inch in diameter, 35 inches in length (paragraph 50), and holes 2 to 3 inches apart, and the tubing extends the length of the bladder (paragraph 91). Pastelak does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the helically wound having a length 40 feet to 120 feet in length, and a pitch of 1 inch to 3 inch.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to increase the helically wound wire length to 40 to 120 feet. which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelack to achieve modify the diameter which is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a result-effect variable for reaching the end of the bladder in larger bladders (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. See MPEP 2144.04-IVa.).
Pastelack discloses that the spiral wrap’s design goals is to withstand repeated vacuum cycles without collapsing or kinking. (at least paragraph 93). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to increase the wire diameter to between 2 to 6 inch which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelack to achieve modify the diameter which is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a result-effect variable for resisting vacuum pressure without collapsing or kinking in larger tanks.
Pastelack discloses flow path area is a result-effective variable for emptying the bladder (at least paragraph 93), and pitch correlates with flow path area. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a helical pitch of and a pitch of 1 inch to 3 inch which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelack is to provide for a desired emptying flowrate.
Claim 36 is a combination of Claims 27 and 29 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 37 is a combination of Claims 26 and 36 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 35, 30, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 20190292882 A1) in view of Pastelak (US 20100163681 A1) i
Regarding Claim 35, Andersson discloses a subsea material delivery structure, comprising: at least one flexible container (Element 3); and a perforated tube (Element 14) disposed within the at least one flexible container to assist with emptying (paragraph 67); wherein the perforated tube is fixed to at least one inflow/outflow valve disposed in the at least one flexible container. Andersson does not explicitly disclose wherein a helically wound wire structure nor
Pastelak discloses that a helically wound wire structure is a substitute for a perforated tube. (paragraph 93) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the perforated tube Anderson with a helically wound wire structure as taught by Pastelak which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Andersson is to provide a known alternative that can be used with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, Andersson in view of Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 25, wherein the at least one inflow/outflow valve comprises one or more of an outflow port, an inflow port, and an outflow/inflow port which allows material to travel into and out of the at least one flexible container. (Andersson Element 11)
14. Regarding Claim 31, Andersson in view of Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 30, wherein the helically wound wire structure is connected to one or more of the outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port. (See rejection of Claim 1 above)
Regarding Claim 32, Andersson in view Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 31, wherein the one or more of the outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port are located nearer to the a top than the bottom of the at least one flexible container. (See Andersson Fig. 1.)
Claims 33, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastelak (US 20100163681 A1) in view of Spahni (US 5156300 A)
Regarding Claim 33, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 31, wherein the one or more of a outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port are located nearer to the center than a top or the bottom of the at least one flexible container (Pastelak, Fig. 11), but does not explicitly disclose a the outflow/inflow port near the bottom.
Spahni discloses wherein a container maybe inverted such that the discharge port is at the bottom. (C4, L55-63) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to re-orient Pastelak so the discharge port is at the bottom which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelak is to reduce the residual fluid.
Regarding Claim 38-40, Pastelak in view of Spahni discloses the structure of claim 36, wherein the at least one flexible container contains a fluid (fuel, paragraph 3) and the fluid is dischargeable to less than 0.1 volume percent residual. (if operated to squeeze out all the fuel or inverted. See MPEP 2114 regarding operation of the apparatus.
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastelak (US 20100163681 A1) in view of Chitwood (US 20160325927 A1).
Regarding Claim 35, Pastelak discloses the structure of claim 31, wherein ingesting fluid from the outside of the fuel tank is to be avoided (paragraph 47) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more of the outflow port, the inflow port, and the outflow/inflow port are equipped with a closure valve that shuts and seals off the at least one flexible container when the at least one flexible container is depleted.
Chitwood disclosing using a check valve (Element 202) to prevent leakage of fluid from outside a tank. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a check valve in the manifold of Pastelak which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pastelak is to prevent unwanted release or failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner is treating the previous office action as Non-Final due to Applicant’s request and the typo in the Office Action previous to that one. The current action is on the same art and is therefore final.
Applicant argues “Claims 25 and 36 now explicitly require the structure to be disposed into a subsea environment” on page 7. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s position is the actual claim language is “configured to be disposed” is descriptive of a structural configuration. While Applicant did not explicitly define the features of this configuration in the spec or arguments, Examiner’s position is an item is configured to accomplish a task when it is capable of doing that task. A car is configured to make a left turn is anticipated by a car making a right turn, is anticipated by a car sitting in a driveway, is anticipated by a car which is car configured to make two right turns, a left turn, go into the Burger King drive thru and order 2 Whoppers, a large fries, 4 apple pies and shake. It doesn’t need to be explicit in the car’s owner’s manual. A person of ordinary skill in the art needs to recognize that the car’s configuration can fulfill the description. See MPEP 2144.01 regarding Implicit disclosure. Applicant cut and paste in Applicant’s argument’s “Examiner’s position is that a PHOSITA recognizes “a subsea material structure” as structure that is capable of delivering material subsea. Pastelak’s invention faces the same problem of supporting a structureless bag. Examiner’s position is the UAV material delivery structure is capable of being used underwater.”. Applicant argues Applicant’s the helically wound wire structure ”help prevent the container from collapsing during discharge in high pressure environments, such as subsea” and Pastelak’s tube in the Abstrtact is described as “spiral tubing disposed within the fuel bladder and disposed to prevent collapsing of any two or more sides of the fuel bladder upon each other and permit a substantial portion of the fuel to be supplied from the fuel bladder to the manifold assembly in an uninterrupted fashion until the substantial portion of fuel is removed from the fuel bladder”. Examiner’s position is that the structural configuration of Pastelak would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a configuration that can be placed in at least a shallow part of the subsea environment. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant argues “the helical structure as claimed allows for the structure to compress and expand as well as bend” and “prevent the structure and outlet from being clogged by suspended solids in the drilling fluids” and “while subsea environments in operation today are in cases in excess of 600 atmospheres” and “wire structure as claimed is designed to handle these extreme pressures.” These are unclaimed features. If Applicant believes “subsea” is defined by specific depths, Applicant can include those in the claims without altering what Applicant believes is the claim as long there is an adequate 112a support for the features. Examiner was not persuaded the claims include the features of “allows for the structure to compress and expand as well as bend” “prevent the structure and outlet from being clogged by suspended solids in the drilling fluids” nor “operation today are in cases in excess of 600 atmospheres.”
“Applicant asserts that subsea environments are completely different than in a plane. Compressive pressures will be encountered in the subsea environment that are far in excess of design characteristics of aerial fuel containers. The helically wound nature of the wire structure as claimed is designed to handle these extreme pressures while still enabling depletion of stored contents. There is no disclosure or suggestion within Pastelak that the tube can adequately support operation under such extreme pressure conditions.” Examiner agrees the difference between a flexible fuel bladder suspended in a gaseous fluid (air) and a flexible fuel bladder suspended in a liquid fluid (sea) is the degree of pressure. Examiner disagrees that means the bladder would not be recognized to operate in any degree of the subsea environment. The subsea environment has a range of pressures, starting at atmospheric and increasing at a rate well understood and argued by Applicant. Examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the in at least a part of the subsea environment where the pressure is approaching atmospheric. Applicant would have a good case that a pinata, configured to operate at atmospheric pressure, is not configured to operate in the subsea environment because the difference in materials is not just a degree of pressure. Examiner’s position is that when the only difference is the degree of pressure, a helically wound wire structure in a bladder configured to operate on the ground is also configured to operate in at least a portion of the subsea environment. This is not official notice. (Ctrl-F didn’t find “official notice” in the previous two actions.) This is explaining the logical framework a person of ordinary skill in the art uses with the well-understood result-effective variable of pressure. The Examiner is not persuaded that a higher degree of pressure in one part subsea environment means that another part of the subsea environment does not have an adjacent pressure range to the explicit operating range of the flexible tank of Pastelak.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 13 March 2026