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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 12/8/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. The claim amendments have been considered as follows. Note that the indication of allowable subject matter regarding claim 3 from section 10 of the previous Office Action was meant to convey that claim 3 would be allowable if the net unit is constituted by a pipe (not when).
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 1-8 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 claims 1 and 5, the net units are claimed to be constituted by a rope or a wire made of fabric, a metal or a synthetic resin. Although it appears that the claim intends to convey that the net units are constituted by a rope made of a fabric or a wire made from metal, the language includes the wire being fabricated from a fabric even if unintended.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the support" and “each corner” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the quartz plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated
by Salters et al. (U.S. Patent 11,344,928).
In regards to claim 1, Salters et al (henceforth referred to as Salters) disclose a
marine organism antifouling apparatus for ships using a UV-C module. Salters teaches
a UV light emitting device for anti-bio fouling (see abstract), the marine organism
antifouling apparatus comprising:
circular or polygonal net units. Salters teaches polygon shaped units (see figure 2f);
and at least one UV-C module configured to be turned on to emit ultraviolet light by power supplied thereto. Salters teaches UV light emitting modules (items 210), the UV-C module being provided at each of the net units. The UV emitters are positioned at each of the grid locations, wherein the net units are connected to each other in horizontal and vertical directions to constitute a net member. The system illustrated by Salters shows a grid pattern of units both horizontally and vertically (see figures),
Salters discloses that each of the net units is constituted by a rope or a wire made of a fabric, a metal, or a synthetic resin or a pipe having a predetermined thickness. Salters teaches various materials making the grid net and also a wire material;
wherein, when each of the net units is constituted by a pipe, the net units are connected to each other via a joint configured to be rotatable within predetermined angle range. Note that use of the term “when” is not explicitly limiting since the claim allows the net units to be alternately constituted by a rope or wire which is taught by Salters;
and
ultraviolet light is emitted from the UV-C module to prevent attachment of marine
organisms in a state in which an underwater exposure zone of a ship that is moored is
surrounded by the net member. Salters teaches using the net grid in/on the outer
surface of marine vessels.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Salters et al. (U.S. Patent 11,344,928) in view of Hietbrink et al. (European Patent
Document EP 3718653).
In regards to claim 3, Salters does not explicitly disclose opposites of the net
member are fixed to opposite sides of the ship or opposite sides of an anchorage so as to surround the underwater exposure zone of the ship that is moored. However,
Hietbrink et al (henceforth referred to as Hietbrink) teaches utilizing a UV anti-fouling
arrangement in/on the outer surface of both sides of a marine vessel (see figure 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the Salters device on both sides of a marine vessel as taught by Hietbrink, to fully protect the vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 5, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 5, the configuration of the UV-C module.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641