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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-5, 9-13, and 21
Withdrawn Claims: 16-20
Cancelled Claims: 6-8 and 14-15
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03 DECEMBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5, and 12, and the cancellation of claims 6-8 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification, excluding the objection to the abstract, have been withdrawn. The Examiner acknowledges the ambiguity of the objection to the abstract in the last office action and more detail has been added to the objection below.
In view of the amendment to claims 3 and 12 and the cancellation of claim 8, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 5, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made and the dependent rejections have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03 DECEMBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the prior art of the previous rejection does not contain the newly amended limitation of the “each of the at least one foam fractionation device… extending below the lower surface of the base structure such that at least a portion of the reaction chamber is submerged in the body of water” and thus claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 03 DECEMBER 2025, Pages 17-19).
Applicant argues, regarding dependent claims 2-5, 9-13, and 21, that claim 1 is allowable and so the dependent claims 2-5, 9-13, and 21 are also allowable (Arguments filed 03 DECEMBER 2025, Page 19, Paragraph 2 to Page 22).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Al-Anzi (US Patent Application No. 20140110323 A1) hereinafter Al-Anzi is used to teach the extension of a reaction chamber below a floating body portion of a buoyant foam fractionation device, and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claims 2-5, 9-13, and 21, claim 1 is not allowable and so the dependent claims 2-5, 9-13, and 21 are also not allowable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
More specifically, the abstract describes speculative applications “including, but not limited to, sewage bacteria, environmental contaminants, and/or sediment/turbidity caused by dredging activities, from open-water aquatic environments”.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9 and 10 are improperly dependent claims as they depend upon claim 7, which has been cancelled. As the previous subjection matter of claim 7 has been modified and incorporated into independent claim 1, the Examiner will interpret claim 9 as being dependent upon claim 1 for the purposes of this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. Claim 9 depends upon claim 7, which has been cancelled and claim 10 depends upon claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Anzi (US Patent Application No. 20140110323 A1) hereinafter Al-Anzi in view of Prior (US Patent Application No. 20100314329 A1) hereinafter Prior.
Regarding Claim 1, Al-Anzi teaches a mobile buoyant aerator for capturing contaminants in a body of water (i.e., a system for removing waste materials from a body of water; Abstract, Paragraph 0002) wherein the mobile buoyant aerator has air or other gas pumped down a tube to entrain and carry contaminated water up a larger tube and then capturing contaminants in a capture tray (i.e., the system comprising at least one foam fractionation device; Abstract),
wherein the mobile buoyant aerator (i.e., each of the at least one foam fractionation device including: ; Fig. 1, #10) includes a buoyant contaminant capture tray (i.e., a body; Fig. 1, #12) with a screen or filter (i.e., the body having a first portion; Fig. 1, #36) and an entrainment tube (i.e., and a second portion opposite the first portion; Fig. 1, #20) wherein the mixture of the gas and the entrained water bubbles flows upwards out of the open upper end (Fig. 1, #22) of the entrainment tube (i.e., the second portion defining a reaction chamber) and into the contaminant capture tray and the screen or filter (i.e., the first portion including a foam collection reservoir; the reaction chamber being in fluid communication with the foam collection reservoir; Paragraphs 0021-0026)
wherein the capture tray (i.e., a base structure) is sufficient thickness to provide flotation volume for the entire aerator (i.e., each of the at least one foam fractionation device being supported by the base structure, and being configured to float on a surface of the body of water when the system is in use) with the capture tray having a floor (i.e., the base structure having a lower surface; Fig. 1, #14; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0022),
and wherein entrainment tube extends downward from the center of the capture tray with the inner wall (Fig. 1, #18) of the capture tray surrounding the upper open end of the entrainment tube (i.e., each of the at least one foam fractionation device extending through the base structure and extending below the lower surface of the base structure) and the opposite lower end (Fig. 1, #24) of the entrainment tube is also open such that water freely flows into the hollow interior of the tube (i.e., such that at least a portion of the reaction chamber is submerged in the body of water; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0022).
Al-Anzi does not teach that the foam collection reservoir is not in direct contact with the body of water.
However, Prior teaches a hull (i.e., a base structure; Fig. 1A, #15A) that supports a separation column (i.e., each of the at least one foam fractionation device being configured to be coupled to the base structure; Fig. 1A, #6) where the accumulation chamber (i.e., the foam collection reservoir; Fig. 1A, #20) is located well above the waterline (i.e., the foam collection reservoir is not in direct contact with the body of water; Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0021) for the purpose of treating spills on the water and readily transporting the separation column to another area as needed (Paragraphs 0006-0007).
Prior is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the clean-up of spilled liquids on water (Paragraph 0001) with air bubbles to increase buoyancy of the contaminant in the water (Paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator as taught by Al-Anzi to be located on a vessel as taught by Prior because the vessel would enable the treatment of large bodies of water and would allow the mobile buoyant aerator to be moved readily to areas of highest contamination. Al-Anzi teaches the combination of a hull/foam fractionation reservoir for a smaller device. Prior teaches a dedicated hull structure separate from the foam fractionation reservoir for use of the device in the open ocean or on larger bodies of water where greater distances are required for positioning.
Furthermore, the limitation “when the system is in use” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 2, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 1. Al-Anzi further teaches the opposite lower end (Fig. 1, #24) of the entrainment tube is also open such that water freely flows into the hollow interior of the tube (i.e., wherein the second portion of the body includes a free end, the free end of the second portion of the body being configured to be open to the body of water when the system is in use; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0022).
Furthermore, the limitation “when the system is in use” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 11, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 1. Prior further teaches that there are two separation columns side by side in Fig. 3 for the purpose of quickly and thoroughly cleaning up a spill (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator made obvious by Al-Anzi in view of Prior to have multiple aerators on the hull as taught by Prior because the multiple aerators would increase the speed of cleaning up spills.
Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 12, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 1. Prior further teaches that pontoons may be securely fastened to both sides of the vessel (i.e., wherein each of the at least one foam fractionation device includes a flotation element) to provide buoyancy and stability and the pontoons are adjustable to change the submerged depth of the separation column (i.e., configured to maintain a corresponding one of the at least one foam fractionation device in a position such that at least a portion of the reaction chamber is submerged in the body of water; Paragraph 0031). Fig. 1A shows that the oil accumulation chamber (i.e., the foam collection reservoir; Fig. 1A, #20) is located well above the surface of the water (i.e., is not in direct contact with the body of water when the system is in use; Fig. 1A, Paragraphs 0020-0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator made obvious by Al-Anzi in view of Prior with the pontoons as taught by Prior because the pontoons would adjust the depth of the submerged portion of the separation column to better collect contaminants.
Furthermore, the limitation “when the system is in use” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 13, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 12. Prior further teaches that pontoons may be securely fastened to both sides of the vessel (i.e., wherein the flotation element is coupled to an outer surface of the reaction chamber at a location that is proximate the foam collection reservoir) to provide buoyancy and stability and the pontoons are adjustable to change the submerged depth of the separation column (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 21, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 1. Al-Anzi further teaches that the mobile buoyant aerator contains (i.e., each of the at least one foam fractionation device further including) a cylindrical inner wall (i.e., a foam collection cone; Fig. 1, #18) concentric with the outer wall (Fig. 1, #16) located downstream of the entrainment tube and upstream of the bottom of the capture tray, which is in the shape of a cone (i.e., the foam collection cone being downstream of the reaction chamber and upstream of the foam collection reservoir; Paragraph 0022).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Anzi in view of Prior as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Phillips (US Patent Application No. 20210300789 A1) hereinafter Phillips.
Regarding Claim 3, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 2. Al-Anzi further teaches that compressed air is opened to the upper end (Fig. 1, #32) of the gas delivery tube (i.e., further comprising at least one bubble generation system; Fig. 1, #26) and the compressed air flows outward from the lower end (Fig. 1, #30) of the gas delivery tube and lighter gas bubbles mix with the water and flow upward in the entrainment tube (i.e., each of the at least one bubble generation system being in fluid communication with, and being configured to deliver air bubbles within, the reaction chamber of a corresponding one of the at least one foam fractionation device; Paragraph 0024).
Al-Anzi in view of Prior does not teach the at least one bubble generation system including an air conduit assembly having at least one nozzle.
However, Phillips teaches air pipes with a venturi nozzle (i.e., the at least one bubble generation system including an air conduit assembly having at least one nozzle) angled in one direction inside the tank cause a circular swirling action and reduced the coalescence of the bubbles and contributed to a much more stable froth flow and help it move the foam out of the foam fractionation vessel (Paragraph 0234).
Phillips is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for the removal of contaminants from water by induced gas bubbles and removal of a froth layer (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator made obvious by Al-Anzi in view of Prior with the nozzles inside the reaction chamber as taught by Phillips because the nozzles would create a stable environment in the reaction chamber for froth formation and froth flow out of the vessel.
Regarding Claim 4, Al-Anzi in view of Prior in view of Phillips makes obvious the system of claim 3. Phillips further teaches air pipes with a venturi nozzle angled in one direction inside the tank (i.e., i.e., wherein the at least one nozzle is within the reaction chamber) cause a circular swirling action and reduced the coalescence of the bubbles and contributed to a much more stable froth flow and help it move the foam out of the foam fractionation vessel (Paragraph 0234).
Regarding Claim 5, Al-Anzi in view of Prior in view of Phillips makes obvious the system of claim 3. Prior further teaches the use of a hollow panel (Fig. 1C, #33) to introduce air to contaminated water for the purpose of aiding in the movement of the contaminant under the vessel and into the separation column, shown to be beneath the opening of the separation column in Fig. 1C (i.e., wherein the at least one nozzle is below the open second portion when the system is in use; Fig. 1D, #6; Paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator made obvious by Al-Anzi in view of Prior in view of Phillips with the air source being below the opening on the bottom of the reaction chamber as taught by Prior because the air would promote the entrance of contaminants into the reaction chamber from the body of water.
Furthermore, the limitation “when the system is in use” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Anzi in view of Prior as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wood (US Patent Application No. 20130118998 A1) hereinafter Wood.
Regarding Claim 9, Al-Anzi in view of Prior makes obvious the system of claim 1. Al-Anzi in view of Prior does not teach further comprising a coupling assembly configured to couple the at least one foam fractionation device to the base structure such that the at least one foam fractionation device is selectively movable relative to the base structure.
However, Wood teaches a jack up system for mounting a collection tank (i.e., a coupling assembly configured to couple the at least one foam fractionation device to the base structure such that the at least one foam fractionation device is selectively movable relative to the base structure) and adjusting the height for optimizing the collection of oil (Fig. 12; Paragraphs 0074-0075).
Wood is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for separating a substance from a liquid (Abstract). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile buoyant aerator made obvious by Al-Anzi in view of Prior with the jack up system as taught by Wood because the jack up system would allow for the optimization of oil collection.
Regarding Claim 10, Al-Anzi in view of Prior in view of Wood makes obvious the system of claim 9. Wood further teaches in Fig. 12 that the jack up system has four posts that automatically operate to adjust the height of the collection tank (i.e., wherein the coupling assembly includes at least one post extending from a surface of the base structure and an actuation mechanism operable to move the at least one foam fractionation device relative to the base structure and along the at least one post; Paragraphs 0074-0075).
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/John Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777