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 .
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.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoenberger (US 3909972 A).
Regarding claim 38, Schoenberger discloses an apparatus for retrofitting a watercraft (10) for collection of floating biomass (shrimp) in a body of water, the apparatus comprising:
an attachment structure (50, 45, 45’, 55, 55’);
a plurality of net holders (22, 32) configured to be coupled to the attachment structure during the collection; and
wherein the attachment structure includes attachment elements (bolts, col. 3 lines 56-58, 55, 55’) for transfer of forces from the net holders to structural elements of the watercraft during the collection;
wherein the plurality of net holders includes a first net holder (22) and a second net holder (32), which during collection are disposed at least partially submerged on opposite sides of the watercraft to maintain openings in respective collection nets for collection of the floating biomass during forward motion of the watercraft;
wherein the attachment structure comprises a spanning member (50) for attachment transverse across the watercraft, and two elongated mounting members (45, 45’) for attachment along gunwales of the watercraft to couple the spanning member to the gunwales;
wherein the attachment elements include at least one of a first fastening element (bolts, col. 3 lines 56-58) and a second fastening element (55, 55’);
wherein the first fastening element is for attaching the elongated mounting members (45, 45’) to the gunwales, said first fastening element during collection is configured to oppose torsional forces transmitted via the net holders and the spanning member to the elongated mounting members (45, 45’); and
wherein the second fastening element is for coupling the attachment structure to a central structural element (port and starboard bow sections of the boat, see fig. 1, col. 5 lines 63-65) of the watercraft, said second fastening element during collection is configured to oppose longitudinal forces transmitted through the net holders, spanning member, and elongated mounting members, induced by drag forces acting on the nets (col 5 lines 41-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 8, 10-25, 29-37, 39-41 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue that Schoenberger (US 3909972 A) does not disclose a required force flow: longitudinal forces are transmitted through the net holders, spanning member, and elongated mounting members before being opposed at a structural element while torsional forces are opposed at the gunwhales by the first fastening element. However, the claims lack language that require a specific order of how forces generated at the nets are transferred to the various components of the invention, Additionally, longitudinal and torsional forces generated at the nets are at least partially opposed by the various elements of the rest of the apparatus of Schoenberger as the elements are interconnected, and equal and opposite reaction force to the force applied to the net will be generated through interconnected components.
The remarks argue that Schoenberger does not disclose two elongated mounting members extending along the gunwhales, and there is no disclosure of elongated members running along the gunwhales that distribute load over a substantial length of the boat structure. However, elements 45 and 45’, identified as elongated mounting members in the rejection above, are clearly shown to be mounted to the gunwhales of the boat in figures 1-2 and extend along at least part of the length of the boat/gunwhales. The claim language provides no structural limitations drawn to the elongated mounting members and their attachment to the gunwhales that precludes this interpretation of elements 45, 45’ of Schoenberger as elongated mounting members.
The remarks argue that Schoenberger does not disclose coupling a net support structure to any central structural element of the boat for purposes of opposing longitudinal drag forces. However, elements 55, 55’ are identified in the rejection above as the second fastening element and are shown clearly in figure 1 to be coupled to the central bow portion of the boat via clamps 60. The claim lacks language that specifies the central structural element of the boat cannot be the central portion of the bow or that must be the keel of the boat, and therefore lacks structure that precludes this interpretation of Schoenberger.
The remarks argue that Schoenberger does not disclose an attachment structure designed to transfer drag-induced forces into the bulk strength of the boat structure as a whole nor any disclosure addressing the problem of missing, wakened, or unsafe local attachment regions. However, Schoenberger specifically addresses the transfer of forces, cited in the rejection above.
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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/M.I.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights