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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 14 July 2025. Claims 13-21 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-12 have been cancelled. Claims 13-21 have been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim of priority for US application 17069661, filed on 10/13/2020 && foreign priority for Canadian application CA3058860, filed on 10/11/2019.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 30 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 30 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 30 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 30 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Shany fails to teach or contemplate the scow autonomously deploying at least one containment device, nor does it teach or contemplate the scow autonomously containing the spill. Rather, at Paragraph [0248] it is stated, "The boom materials and the apparatus which deploys the boom (the spill containment system) are designed to be installed on a vessel. The vessel can be manned or unmanned." This only states that the vessel can retain the boom material and can be unmanned. Unmanned is not synonymous with autonomous.
The Examiner’s Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out that Shany does teach the vessel being fully unmanned (robotic) which would lead to it working without operators and thus deployment of the containment devices would occur autonomously (it is common in the art for unmanned to be synonymous to autonomous). (see at least [¶265] “According to some embodiments, a method of blocking marine oil or chemical spills or any other liquid containing hazard is disclosed. The method may utilize a dedicated apparatus which may be installed on board of a conventional (manned) or a specially designated unmanned vessel. The vessel itself may be positioned in ports, beaches, on-board of any type of ship, aircraft or oil rig. The apparatus has the ability to produce and deploy a boom while the vessel is tracking the spill border lines and may create a barrier located substantially at the relevant position for containment of the spill. This tracking can be done manually (steering the vessel) or automatically.” ...[¶266] “In case of using unmanned (robotic) vessel it may be equipped with a system that includes sensors, software and steering or operated by remote control. The tracking may be done, for example, by identifying contrast lines between the spill and the sea background. Contrast lines may be defined by: color, reflection, density or other material's attributes using variety of passive or active types of sensors or a combination of attributes and more.”) As such, controlling the scow/vessel autonomously to contain spills, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be taken as what is being disclosed in Shany.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Due to the removal of drawings 11-14, the specification has instances where the drawings are mentioned but would no longer make sense as they have been deleted. Some paragraphs were amended with the amended specification but not all instances were addressed. The paragraphs with the deleted drawings still mentioned are 82 and 84-86.
In addition, the removal of paragraphs 42 to 45 would lead to the renumbering of the remaining paragraphs in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-21 are 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.
In regards to claim 13, has the limitations of “and the scow autonomously deploying the at least one containment device or the surfactant or the dispersant, thereby monitoring and cleaning the pollutant spill” which is subject matter issues that is not explicitly or inherently supported in the specification and drawings. The specification only mentions the scow working autonomously to contain a possible spill but does not go into detail on autonomously deploying a containment device, as seen in [011] “The scow can operate autonomously or it can be remotely controlled. It autonomously collects data from a plurality of sensors associated with the scow, whether onboard, towed, float mounted, tethered and the like.”…. [0030] “In the method, the scow may contain the spill autonomously.”.
The remaining dependent claims are also rejected under 112(a) due to their dependency upon the corresponding rejected independent claims.
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 13-21 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.
In regards to claims 13, it is unclear what is being claimed by “and the scow autonomously deploying the at least one containment device or the surfactant or the dispersant, thereby monitoring and cleaning the pollutant spill”. The specification is not clear as to how the autonomous controlling of the scow would lead to autonomous deployment of a containment device, as seen in [011] “The scow can operate autonomously or it can be remotely controlled. It autonomously collects data from a plurality of sensors associated with the scow, whether onboard, towed, float mounted, tethered and the like.”…. [0030] “In the method, the scow may contain the spill autonomously.”. For example, it is unclear if the autonomous controlling of a scow would include the autonomously deployment of a containment device. Examiner will interpret this limitation as any vessel that works autonomously would also deploy containment measures autonomously.
The remaining dependent claims are also rejected under 112(b) due to their dependency upon the corresponding rejected independent claims.
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.
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 13-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 20160018339 A1) in view of Levien (US 20160018559 A1) in further view of Shany (US 20150086270 A1).
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claim, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Regarding Claim 13, Perkins teaches A method of monitoring and cleaning a pollutant spill, the method comprising (see at least [¶Abstract, 01-04 & 017]):
the environmental sensors communicating at least one data set to the microcontroller unit (The environmental sensors/detectors in the analyzer communicate with the computer on the vessel/boat/scow. see at least [¶079-080]);
the microcontroller unit receiving the data set, storing the data set, processing the data set into a processed data set (The computer on the vessel/boat/scow can receive the data from the sensors/detectors, store the data, process the data and sending the data to a remote receiver. This information is used for monitoring of a marine environment. see at least [¶01-04, 017 &079-080]);
Perkins does not explicitly teach an operator deploying a scow into the marine environment.
However, Levien does teach an operator deploying a scow into the marine environment (An operator can deploy an unmanned marine vehicle from a vessel into a marine environment for monitoring/surveying. see at least [¶096-097]).
Levien would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of surveying body of waters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Perkins to use the technique of having an operator deploying a scow into the marine environment as taught by Levien. Doing so would lead to improved surveing of target locations in bodies of water (see at least [¶0104-0106]).
Perkins and Levien do not explicitly teach wherein the scow includes a microcontroller unit, a plurality of marine environmental sensors and at least one containment device or a surfactant or a dispersant; and the scow autonomously deploying the at least one containment device or the surfactant or the dispersant, thereby monitoring and cleaning the pollutant spill.
However, Shany does teach wherein the scow includes a microcontroller unit, a plurality of marine environmental sensors and at least one containment device or a surfactant or a dispersant (The scow/vessel includes a controller with a processor, a plurality if marine environmental sensors and a containment device such as a boom, dispersant or other spill treating agents. see at least [¶0169, 0176, 0249, 0265 & 0273-0274]);
and the scow autonomously deploying the at least one containment device or the surfactant or the dispersant, thereby monitoring and cleaning the pollutant spill (The scow/vessel can be an unmanned vehicle that would autonomously deploy containment devices (such as booms or chemicals) to monitor and contain pollutant spills. see at least [¶0119, 0175, 0180, 0249 & 0265-0266]).
Shany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of containments of oil spills with marine vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Perkins and Levien to use the technique of having the scow includes a microcontroller unit, a plurality of marine environmental sensors and at least one containment device or a surfactant or a dispersant; and the scow autonomously deploying the at least one containment device or the surfactant or the dispersant, thereby monitoring and cleaning the pollutant spill as taught by Shany. Doing so would lead to faster response to containing oil spills before they spread to cause damage to an environment (see at least [¶0146]).
Regarding Claim 14, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore, Perkins teaches further comprising the scow sending the processed data set to a remote receiver (The computer on the vessel/boat/scow can receive the data from the sensors/detectors, store the data, process the data and sending the data to a remote receiver. This information is used for monitoring of a marine environment. see at least [¶01-04, 017 &079-080]).
Regarding Claim 15, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, furthermore, Perkins teaches further comprising the microcontroller unit receiving navigation data and autonomously positioning the scow (The computer on the boat/scow/vessel receives navigation data and can autonomously control/position the boat/scow/vessel. see at least [¶031-034]).
Regarding Claim 16, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as shown above, furthermore, Perkins teaches wherein the monitoring is autonomous (The monitoring of the marine/water environment is autonomous. see at least [¶026, 031-034 & 038]).
Regarding Claim 18, Regarding Claim 6, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, furthermore, Shany teaches wherein the pollutant spill is contained autonomously with the containment device (The scow/vessel deploys a spill containment device and is able to perform all of this autonomously as the vessel can be controlled in an unmanned fashion. see at least [¶0119, 0175, 0180, 0249 & 0265-0266]).
Shany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of containments of oil spills with marine vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Perkins and Levien to use the technique of having the scow contains the spill autonomously as taught by Shany. Doing so would lead to improved containment of oil spills to protect wildlife and shores (see at least [¶0261]).
Regarding Claim 19, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 18 as shown above, furthermore, Perkins teaches wherein the pollutant spill is an oil spill (Monitoring for oil spills in the water. see at least [¶01-04, 015-017 & 082-084]).
Regarding Claim 20, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 18 as shown above, furthermore, Shany teaches wherein the pollutant spill is dispersed autonomously with the surfactant or the dispersant (The scow/vessel can be an unmanned vehicle that would autonomously deploy containment devices (such dispersant or other spill treating agents) to monitor and contain pollutant spills. see at least [¶0119, 0175, 0180, 0249 & 0265-0266]).
Shany would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of containments of oil spills with marine vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Perkins and Levien to use the technique of having the pollutant spill is dispersed autonomously with the surfactant or the dispersant as taught by Shany. Doing so would lead to faster response to containing oil spills before they spread to cause damage to an environment (see at least [¶0146]).
Regarding Claim 19, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as shown above, furthermore, Perkins teaches wherein the pollutant spill is a chemical spill (Monitoring for oil spills in the water (an oil spill is a type of chemical spill). see at least [¶01-04, 015-018 & 082-084]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 20160018339 A1) in view of Levien (US 20160018559 A1) in further view of Shany (US 20150086270 A1) in further view of Twining (US 20190014760 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Perkins, Levien and Shany teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, Perkins, Levien and Shany do not explicitly teach further comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle wirelessly communicating visual data to the microcontroller unit.
However, Twining does teach an unmanned aerial vehicle wirelessly communicating visual data to the microcontroller unit (A UAV can communicate wirelessly visual data to the computer on the boat/vessel/scow. see at least [¶014, 020, 053, 058 & 069]).
Twining would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of marine monitoring using vessels and UAVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Perkins, Levien and Shany to use the technique of having an unmanned aerial vehicle wirelessly communicating visual data to the microcontroller unit as taught by Twining. Doing so would lead to improved detection by users of targets in monitored marine environments (see at least [¶052]).
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 extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667