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
Claims 1-24 are pending:
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-24 are rejected.
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to.
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/09/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington (US20190338481A1) in view of Brown (USPN 4,230,422).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Covington teaches a system (system for collecting and separating floating debris from a body of water on a vessel, see ABS) for collecting and separating floating oil and water from a body of water on a waterborne vessel, the floating oil having a density lower than the density of water and the vessel being deployable in the body of water, the system comprising:
the vessel (vessel 10) being unmanned (capable of meeting claimed function, see ¶121) and including a collection chamber (collecting tanks/cargo compartment 60) having upper and lower ends (see Figs. 41-49),
wherein floating oil and water from the body of water are collectable in the collection chamber separable and separately dischargeable off the vessel (capable of meeting claimed function, see ¶84);
an electronic controller (electronic controller, see ¶113);
an internal sensor (sensor 178 is internally disposed in one embodiment) disposed at least partially within the collection chamber (“first debris sensor may be disposed inside the main collection compartment”, see ¶23; “ debris sensor(s) 178 may be provided at any desired location(s)”, see ¶219; see Fig. 43) and communicably coupled to the electronic controller (sensor 178 may communicate with an electronic controller, see ¶113), the internal sensor being configured to help determine the depth of floating oil (“the debris sensor 178 is an oily water sensor 180”, see ¶113; “one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219; the floating debris is oil, see ¶86) in the collection chamber and, as a result of such determination, communicate with the electronic controller (“each sensor 178 may communicate with an electronic controller or computer-based control system”, see ¶113);
an external sensor (sensor 178 is externally disposed in one embodiment) associated with the body of water, external to the vessel (“ debris sensor(s) 178 may be provided at any desired location(s)”, see ¶219; “one or more debris sensors 178 may be provided …and/or inside the vacuum trunk 372 or extension 384 (e.g. FIG. 47)”, see ¶219; the vacuum truck 372 shown in Fig. 41 is external the vessel) and communicably coupled to the electronic controller, the external sensor being configured to determine the presence of floating oil in the body of water (“the debris sensor 178 is an oily water sensor 180”, see ¶113; “ the oily water sensors 180 (e.g. FIG. 20), indicate the presence of some or a particular amount of oil in the exiting sea water”, see ¶132“one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219) and, as a result of such determination, communicate with the electronic controller (“each sensor 178 may communicate with an electronic controller or computer-based control system”, see ¶113);
a circulation pump (discharge pump 184) fluidly coupled to the collection chamber and configured to be automatically turned on by the electronic controller to remove water …(“discharge pump(s) 184 is configured to simultaneously remove sea water from the cargo compartment 60 and draw liquid/debris into the IFR chamber 310 and cargo compartment 60 (e.g. provide “active” removal of sea water from the cargo compartment 60)”, see ¶206“discharge pump actuated as desired to concurrently draw in sea water (discharge pump(s) 184 are actuated as desired to concurrently draw in (at least primarily) sea water 38 from the cargo compartment 60 (e.g. arrow 392) and discharge it to the body of water 30”, see ¶225); and
a debris pump (debris pump 380) fluidly coupled to the collection chamber and configured to be automatically turned on by the electronic controller to remove floating oil from the collection chamber based at least partially upon communication from the internal sensor (“the debris separation system 350 may include one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219 and Figs. 41-47);
a method of collecting and separating floating oil and water from a body of water on an unmanned (systems, apparatus and methods useful for collecting and separating floating debris and water from a body of water on a vessel, see ABS; there are automatic functions tied to the system, see ¶121), waterborne vessel using the system of claim 1,
the floating oil having a density lower than the density of water (see ¶84) and the vessel being deployable in the body of water (see Fig. 41),
the method comprising: the internal sensor (sensor 178 is internally disposed in one embodiment) determining the depth of floating oil in the collection chamber (“the debris sensor 178 is an oily water sensor 180”, see ¶113; “one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219; the floating debris is oil, see ¶86);
based upon its determination of the depth of floating oil in the collection chamber, the internal sensor communicating with the electronic controller (“each sensor 178 may communicate with an electronic controller or computer-based control system”, see ¶113);
the external sensor (sensor 178 is externally disposed in one embodiment) associated with the body of water, external to the vessel (“ debris sensor(s) 178 may be provided at any desired location(s)”, see ¶219; “one or more debris sensors 178 may be provided …and/or inside the vacuum trunk 372 or extension 384 (e.g. FIG. 47)”, see ¶219; the vacuum truck 372 shown in Fig. 41 is external the vessel) determining the presence of floating oil in the body of water (“the debris sensor 178 is an oily water sensor 180”, see ¶113; “ the oily water sensors 180 (e.g. FIG. 20), indicate the presence of some or a particular amount of oil in the exiting sea water”, see ¶132“one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219);
based upon its determination of the presence of floating oil in the body of water, the external sensor communicating with the electronic controller (“each sensor 178 may communicate with an electronic controller or computer-based control system”, see ¶113);
the electronic controller turning on the circulation pump …without human involvement (“discharge pump(s) 184 is configured to simultaneously remove sea water from the cargo compartment 60 and draw liquid/debris into the IFR chamber 310 and cargo compartment 60 (e.g. provide “active” removal of sea water from the cargo compartment 60)”, see ¶206“discharge pump actuated as desired to concurrently draw in sea water (discharge pump(s) 184 are actuated as desired to concurrently draw in (at least primarily) sea water 38 from the cargo compartment 60 (e.g. arrow 392) and discharge it to the body of water 30”, see ¶225); and
the electronic controller turning on the debris pump based at least partially upon communication from the internal sensor without human involvement (“the debris separation system 350 may include one or more debris sensors 178, such as to indicate that debris in the cargo compartment 60 is at a desired height, depth and/or volume to turn on or off the debris pump(s) 380”, see ¶219 and Figs. 41-47).
Regarding the limitation “the vessel being unmanned”, which is construed to mean that the vessel is operated automatically. The device is capable of meeting the claimed function, see ¶121. To provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity, which accomplishes the same result, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Essentially, Covington teaches everything except the sensor-based pump control logic in other words, Covington does not teach “the circulation pump configured based at least partially upon communication from the external sensor” as required by claim 1 and “the electronic controller turning on the circulation pump based at least partially upon communication from the external sensor without human involvement” as required by claim 16.
In a related field endeavor, Brown teaches a submerged offshore storage facility (see ABS) comprising a configured based at least partially upon communication from a sensor (“at such time as the oil layer thickens, or is detected, the probe will sense such charge and activate pump 31 to commence an oil and water removal operation…pump 31 will be stopped whereby to discontinue further water removal”, see C4/L1-15).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circulation pump and the external sensor (oil sensor) in the system and method of Covington by configuring the pump to use information from an oil sensor as disclosed by Brown because it aids in managing fluid movement in the system (Brown, see C4/L1-15); additionally, applying known sensor-based pump control to Covington’s system circulation pump to increase intake/adjust circulation when oil is detected would have had predictably improved responsiveness and recovery efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 2, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the debris pump and circulation pump (Covington, i.e. discharge pump 184) is disposed in the collection chamber proximate to the lower end thereof (Covington, see Fig. 41).
Covington does not teach that the debris pump is disposed in the collection chamber proximate to the lower end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the discharge pump of Covington by arranging said pump in the collection chamber proximate to the lower end because the debris pump can have any suitable precise location and for collecting different types of debris (Covington, see ¶12 and ¶215); additionally, arranging the debris pump proximate to the lower end would have predictably achieved collecting debris having different densities at a lower level within the collection tank.
Regarding claim 5, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein floating oil debris and water recovered from the body of water travel in a flow path on the vessel (Covington, see Fig. 9), further including an inflow regulator (IFR) (Covington, IFR 140) releasably coupled to the vessel and extending at least partially across the flow path (Covington, the IFR 140 may be releasably securable to the IFR catcher 300 to secure the IFR 140 in the extended position, see ¶160), the IFR having a carrier (Covington, carrier 146) and at least two buoyant floats (Covington, the wave dampener 140 may include multiple elongated floats 144, see ¶106) releasably engageable with the carrier (Covington, float 144 coupled e.g. by mechanical connectors, see ¶106; a mechanical connector is what allows for the function of releasable engagement), wherein the buoyancy of the IFR can be varied by changing the number of buoyant floats coupled to the carrier (Covington, floats 144 provide the desired buoyancy, see ¶167).
Regarding claim 6, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, further including an intake opening (Covington, intake opening 102) and an inflow tunnel (Covington, see Fig. 41), the intake opening fluidly coupling the collection chamber with the body of water (Covington, see Fig. 41) and the inflow tunnel fluidly coupled between the intake opening and collection chamber (Covington, see Fig. 41), the inflow tunnel being at least partially formed between opposing first and second walls and having a width extending between the first and second walls (Covington, see Fig. 41), wherein all floating oil entering the collection chamber from the intake opening must pass through the inflow tunnel and the width of the inflow tunnel can be selectively varied (Covington, see Fig. 41).
Regarding claim 21, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the body of water has a surface and the external sensor (Covington, i.e. sensor 178 inside of vacuum truck 372) is positioned above the surface of the body of water without floating or being submerged in the body of water (Covington, see Fig. 41).
Regarding claim 22, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic controller, internal and external sensors and circulation and debris pumps and configured to operate autonomously to remove water and floating oil from the collection chamber without any human involvement (Covington, any of the components described above or shown in the appended figures may be electronically controlled, such as with a computer-based controller, as is and becomes further know, to the extent that electronic control is desired and compatible for use with such component(s), see ¶113, ¶219, ¶231 and ¶225).
Regarding claim 24, Covington and Brown teach the method of claim 16, wherein the vessel includes at least first and second opposing outer walls (Covington, walls 90) and the collection chamber is disposed at least partially therebetween (Covington, see Fig. 41), further including the circulation pump discharging water from the collection chamber into the body of water through at least a first orifice formed in the first outer wall and at least a second orifice formed in the second outer wall without creating undesirable thrust on the vessel (Covington, see Fig. 41).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington (US20190338481A1) in view of Brown (USPN 4,230,422) and further in view of Whipple (USPN 3,755,142).
Regarding claim 3, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1.
Covington further teaches that the cargo compartments (i.e. collection chambers) can have any suitable size, shape and dimensions (see ¶90); however Covington does not teach that the upper end of the collection chamber is vaulted.
The term “vaulted” is construed to be an arched form which is a sloping or curved geometry.
In a related field of endeavor, Whipple teaches process and apparatus for the purification of a natural body of water (see ABS) comprising a comprising an upper end that is vaulted (corresponds to sloping/curved top of tank 85 shown in Fig. 11c).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper end of Covington to be vaulted as disclosed by Whipple because it is a well-known configuration in the art pertaining to purification systems treating a body of water (Whipple, see Fig. 1 and C1/L4-25) and it is also well known that curved shape is not just aesthetic because it provides the functional benefit of deflecting energy upward and back toward the ocean therefore a sloping/curved geometry would facilitate controlled flooding of the vessel which is desirable in Covington (Covington, see ¶210-211).
Regarding claim 4, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the vessel has at least one top deck (Covington, top deck 54) and the collection chamber (Covington, i.e. cargo compartment 60) has a flooding port (Covington, flooding port 354) fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the body of water and being selectively opened to allow the collection chamber to be free-flooded with water from the body of water without the need for any pumps to fill the collection chamber with water or purge the collection chamber of air (Covington, see Fig. 41 and ¶221), the collection chamber further including a ceiling at the upper end thereof (Covington, see Fig. 41), the ceiling …from at least one top deck of the vessel so that after the collection chamber is free-flooded with water without the need for any pumps to fill the collection chamber with water or purge the collection chamber of air (Covington, see Fig. 41 and ¶221), the vessel will sink in the body of water until the collection chamber is completely full of water (Covington, see Fig. 41 and ¶221).
Covington does not teach the ceiling being sufficiently spaced downwardly from at least one top deck of the vessel.
In a related field of endeavor, Whipple teaches process and apparatus for the purification of a natural body of water (see ABS) comprising a ceiling being sufficiently spaced downwardly from at least one top deck of the vessel (corresponds to curved top of tank 85 shown in Fig. 11c).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ceiling of Covington to be sufficiently spaced downward from a top deck of the vessel as disclosed by Whipple because it is a well-known configuration in the art pertaining to purification systems treating a body of water (Whipple, see Fig. 1 and C1/L4-25) and it is also well known that curved shape is not just aesthetic because it provides the functional benefit of deflecting energy upward and back toward the ocean therefore a curved geometry would facilitate controlled flooding of the vessel which is desirable in Covington (Covington, see ¶210-211).
Claims 8-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington (US20190338481A1) in view of Brown (USPN 4,230,422) and further in view of Saxe (USPN 1,945,824).
Regarding claim 8, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1, comprising a system configured such that water from the collection chamber is removed through an inlet of the circulation pump (Covington, see ¶115).
The combination of references does not teach a system configured such that the velocity of water entering the circulation pump inlet is slowed by at least one barrier disposed at least partially in the collection chamber.
In related field of endeavor, Saxe teaches a sand strainer for pumps (see ABS) comprising a system configured such that water from the collection chamber is removed through an inlet of the circulation pump (pump 3), whereby the velocity of water entering the circulation pump inlet is slowed by at least one barrier disposed at least partially in the collection chamber (“this trap is of such construction and of such diameter that it will greatly decrease the velocity of the water, as compared with the velocity which would exist with the. normal type of strainer and with the usual type of suction pipe”, see C1/L45-55 and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circulation pump of Covington by incorporating the strainer at the inlet as disclosed by Saxe because it successfully prevents solids from being pulled through with water while pumping (Saxe, see C3/L65-75).
Regarding claim 9, Covington, Brown and Saxe teach the system of claim 8 wherein the at least one barrier includes a suction diffuser box (Saxe, screen 18) surrounding the circulation pump inlet (Saxe, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach that the circulation pump has an inlet fluidly coupled to the collection chamber and through which the circulation pump removes water from the collection chamber, further including an intake opening through which floating oil and water enter the vessel from the body of water, wherein the velocity of water entering the circulation pump inlet is reduced by at least one barrier disposed at least partially between the intake opening and the water discharge pump inlet.
In related field of endeavor, Saxe teaches a sand strainer for pumps (see ABS) comprising a pump having an inlet fluidly coupled to a collection chamber and through which the pump removes water from the collection chamber (see Fig. 1), further including an intake opening through which water enter the vessel from the body of water (see Fig. 1), wherein the velocity of water entering the pump inlet is reduced by at least one barrier (“this trap is of such construction and of such diameter that it will greatly decrease the velocity of the water, as compared with the velocity which would exist with the normal type of strainer and with the usual type of suction pipe”, see C1/L45-55 and Figs. 1-2) disposed at least partially between the intake opening and the water discharge pump inlet (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Covington, Brown and Saxe teach the system of claim 10 wherein the at least one barrier includes a perforated suction diffuser box (Saxe, screen 18), whereby all water entering the circulation pump inlet must pass through the suction diffuser box (Saxe, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Covington, Brown and Saxe teach the system of claim 11 wherein the circulation pump generates suction pressure to remove water from the collection chamber and the circulation pump inlet has a cross-sectional area, whereby the suction pressure of the circulation pump is distributed by the suction diffuser box (Saxe, screen 18) across an area greater than the cross-sectional area of the circulation pump inlet (Saxe, see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 23, Covington and Brown teach the method of claim 16 further including the circulation pump removing water from the collection chamber through an inlet fluidly coupled to the collection chamber (Covington, see ¶115).
The combination of references does not teach a suction diffuser box that the circulation pump inlet reducing the velocity of water entering the circulation pump inlet.
In related field of endeavor, Saxe teaches a sand strainer for pumps (see ABS) comprising a suction diffuser box (Saxe, screen 18) that the circulation pump inlet reducing the velocity of water entering the circulation pump inlet (Saxe, see Figs. 1-2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington (US20190338481A1) in view of Brown (USPN 4,230,422) and further in view of Coggins (USPN 4,287,060).
Regarding claim 14, Covington and Brown teach the system of claim 1 wherein the vessel has at least first and second opposite sides (Covington, see Fig. 42) and the collection chamber has a roof (Covington, see Fig. 41).
The combination of references does not teach a first and second adjustable-position flotation tanks positioned at least partially above the roof, the first adjustable-position flotation tank being closer to the first side than the second side of the vessel and the second adjustable-position flotation tank being closer to the second side than the first side of the vessel, each flotation tank being moveable up and down at least partially over and relative to the roof and collection chamber.
In a related field of endeavor, Coggins teaches an aeration system for solid biological waste (see ABS) comprising a first and second adjustable-position flotation tanks (flotation assembly 22 includes a pair of drums 40 and 42) positioned at least partially above the roof (“at least two pairs of such drums disposed along the longitudinal extent of the upper portion of the duct”, see C2/L15-25 and Fig. 1), the first adjustable-position flotation tank being closer to the first side than the second side of the vessel and the second adjustable-position flotation tank being closer to the second side than the first side of the vessel (see Fig. 2).
With respect to the limitation, “each flotation tank being moveable up and down at least partially over and relative to the roof and collection chamber”, as shown in Fig. 1 of Coggins, the drums 40,42 float at the surface while the hollow tubes 30 remain below thereby permitting vertical repositioning of the flotation assembly 22 relative to the fixed hollow tubes 30, which includes the upper roof/surface region and the lower collection/intake region, as the liquid level changes the flotation drums 40,42 are movable relative the roof and collection chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the roof of Covington by incorporating the flotation assembly of Coggins because the float assembly provides efficiency of operation and reduction of maintenance (Coggins, see C1/L50-60).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington (US20190338481A1) in view of Brown (USPN 4,230,422) in view of Coggins (USPN 4,287,060) and further in view of Bringedal (USPN 8,832,891).
Regarding claim 15, Covington, Brown and Coggins teach the system of claim 14 wherein…, respectively, further wherein each adjustable-position flotation tank is independently moveable in an angled path up and down at least partially over and relative to one or the other of the respective roof sections (Covington as modified by Coggins teaches the claimed limitation).
The combination of references does not teach the roof is sloping and includes first and second slanted sections sloping upwardly and inwardly from the first and second sides of the vessel.
In a related field of endeavor, Bringedal teaches a construction of a floating bridge (see ABS) comprising a roof (roadway 11C) that is sloping and includes first and second slanted sections sloping upwardly and inwardly from the first and second sides of the vessel (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the roof of Covington to be slopping as disclosed by Bringedal because it is a well-known configuration in the art pertaining to systems employed on a body of water (Bringedal, see Figs. 1-10 and ABS) and it is also well known that a slopped shape is not just aesthetic because it provides the functional benefit of deflecting energy upward and back toward the ocean therefore a sloped geometry would facilitate controlled flooding of the vessel which is desirable in Covington (Covington, see ¶210-211).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closet prior art references of record are Covington (US20190338481A1) and Brown (USPN 4,230,422).
The combination of references does not teach nor fairly suggest “wherein the circulation pump is disposed in the collection chamber and configured to discharge water from the collection chamber into the body of water through at least a first orifice formed in the first outer wall and at least a second orifice formed in the second outer wall without creating undesirable thrust on the vessel” as required by claim 7; “the vessel further including first and second water discharge outlets fluidly coupled to the circulation pump and through which water from the collection chamber is discharged by the circulation pump off the vessel in a discharge path at least substantially parallel to the surface of water in the body of water, the first and second water discharge outlets being disposed proximate to the bottom of the vessel on opposing sides thereof, respectively, whereby water can be discharged from the vessel without more than minimally altering the position of the vessel and without more than minimally disturbing floating oil in the body of water” as required claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights