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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a fluid ejection element” in claims 1-4 and15-16, “an attaching element” in claim 6, and “an underwater device” recited in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 114753335 A, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Zhang”).
In regard to claim 1, Zhang discloses a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water (page 1, Abstract), comprising (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of the original Chinese document, descriptions about detailed description of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in page 3):
(i) a floating device (14, Fig. 1); and
(ii) a waste collection device coupled to the floating device (waste collection apparatus located inside a shell barrel body (1, Fig. 1), wherein the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element (a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe (i.e., a tube element used to convey a substance) to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1).
The operating mechanism is when the water level of the drainage is lower than that of the inner floating ring, the inner barrel loses the buoyancy and sinks on the water surface by self-weight and can absorb the water surface garbage by utilizing the energy of water flow backflow and filter and store the garbage (page 2). This directs the mixture of waste and water flow out of the fluid ejection element flows toward a space where waste (7, Fig. 1) is collected.
Zhang discloses every limitation recited in claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 114753335 A).
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Zhang discloses the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element which is a combined subcomponents of: a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1. Since the water is transported from the surface of a water body to the drainpipe (upward direction followed by downward direction), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that there is a location that connects the pipe (a first section) and the drainpipe (the second section), the drainpipe location where angle between the pipe and the drainpipe is about 90 degrees, which renders the recitation of “an angle between the first section and the second section is in a range from 70 degrees to 110 degrees” prima facie obvious.
The examiner designates the cross section of the pipe to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen as “a first section” and the cross section of the drainpipe to drain water to the water body as “a second section”. Choosing the cross section of the pipe to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen as “a first section”, and the cross section of the drainpipe to drain water to the water body as “a second section” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of pipe elements in a floating waste collection apparatus.
In regard to claim 4, Zhang discloses the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element which is a combined subcomponents of: a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe (i.e., a tube element used to convey a substance) to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1. Since the fluid ejection element comprises a pipe (i.e., a tube element used to convey a substance), the recitation “the fluid ejection element is a pipe” is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claims 5-9, Zhang discloses the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element which is a combined subcomponents of: a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1. Zhang discloses the collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) installed/fixed by a net bag flange (7-1, Fig. 1) and a net bag lifting ring (7-2, Fig. 1) all are installed inside an inner barrel (4, Fig. 1) that comprises a filter screen frame (4-1, Fig. 1), an inner barrel lower flange (4-2. Fig. 1), an inner floating ring (4-3, Fig. 1) and an inner barrel upper flange (4-4, Fig. 1) (page 3; Fig. 1). The collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) shows an opening which meets the recitation of claim 5.
But Zhang does not explicitly disclose specific embodiments of the waste collection device recited in claims 6-9.
However, it is reasonably interpreted that the specific embodiments recited in claims 6-9 are considered as the waste collection device that any person skilled in the art is enabled to make and use by modifying the teachings of Zhang as set forth above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water as taught by Zhang: (1) the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element which is a combined subcomponents of: a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1; and (2) the collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) installed/fixed by a net bag flange (7-1, Fig. 1) and a net bag lifting ring (7-2, Fig. 1) all are installed inside an inner barrel (4, Fig. 1) that comprises a filter screen frame (4-1, Fig. 1), an inner barrel lower flange (4-2. Fig. 1), an inner floating ring (4-3, Fig. 1) and an inner barrel upper flange (4-4, Fig. 1) (page 3; Fig. 1), wherein the collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) shows an opening.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the claimed methods are unexpectedly good or criticality of using the claimed embodiments can be shown.
In regard to claim 18, Zhang discloses the waste collection device as set forth above in discussion of claim 1. Zhang discloses an anchor (23, Fig. 1) that meets the recited “an underwater device coupled to and under the waste collection apparatus”.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (CN 112722172, please refer to the attached English document, hereinafter “Xiong”).
In regard to claims 10-12, Zhang discloses the collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) installed/fixed by a net bag flange (7-1, Fig. 1) and a net bag lifting ring (7-2, Fig. 1) all are installed inside an inner barrel (4, Fig. 1) that comprises a filter screen frame (4-1, Fig. 1), an inner barrel lower flange (4-2. Fig. 1), an inner floating ring (4-3, Fig. 1) and an inner barrel upper flange (4-4, Fig. 1) (page 3; Fig. 1), wherein the collection net bag (7, Fig. 1) shows an opening.
But Zhang does not explicitly disclose the waste collection device further comprises a handling unit and a waste container or a waste bag coupled to the handling unit, and the waste container or the waste bag is moved by the handling unit, wherein the handling unit comprises a lifting fence, and wherein the handling unit comprises a motor and a handling assembly connected to a rotary shaft of the motor (claims 10-12).
However, Xiong discloses a hybrid water surface garbage cleaning device and a control method thereof. The device comprises: a cleaning unit for collecting and processing a mixture of solid garbage and wet garbage on the water surface; a driving unit, used to drive the cleaning unit; the power unit is used to provide power for the drive unit; the control unit is used to receive the control terminal signal to control the drive unit; the power unit includes: a wind power generation device and a solar power generation device; both the wind power generation device and the solar power generating device are installed on the cleaning unit and are electrically connected with the driving unit and the control unit respectively (page 1, Abstract; Figs. 2-8 of the original Chinese document). Xiong discloses the waste collection device comprises (Figs. 2-8 of the original Chinese document; pages 5-6) a handling unit (a combined features of: a conveyor belt 2, a rotary drag head 3, a transmission (conveying) chain 2.1, connecting rollers 2.2, screen 2.3, baffles 2.4, and a transmission rolling row 4) and a waste container or a waste bag (a solid garbage recycling box 5 and a wet garbage recycling box 6 arranged inside the ship body 1; a harrow suction head 7, a transition conduit 8, a connecting conduit, a centrifuge 10, Fig. 8) coupled to the handling unit, wherein the handling unit comprises a motor and a handling assembly connected to a rotary shaft of the motor. The waste container or a waste bag is emptied by sensing device that monitor the weight of the solid garbage recycling box 5 and the wet garbage recycling box (page 6).
It is noted that both the Zhang and Xiong references direct a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zhang, in view of Xiong, to provide the features of “the waste collection device further comprises a handling unit and a waste container or a waste bag coupled to the handling unit, and the waste container or the waste bag is moved by the handling unit, wherein the handling unit comprises a lifting fence, and wherein the handling unit comprises a motor and a handling assembly connected to a rotary shaft of the motor as recited in claims 10-12”, because the recited features of handling unit comprises a motor and a handling assembly connected to a rotary shaft, and a waste container or a waste bag coupled to the handling unit, and the waste container or the waste bag is moved by the handling unit, in the context of a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water is a known, effective features as suggested by Xiong (Figs. 2-8 of the original Chinese document; pages 5-6), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water to yield predictable results.
In regard to claims 13 and 14, Xiong discloses the waste collection device further comprises an entrance unit with a plurality of blades (3.1), and flow paths are formed between the blades (which is considered natural consequence resulted from rotating the blades 3.1 on both sides), the blades (3.1) are rotatable around a rotary axis (3.2), and a flow direction of water is different from the rotary axis (the flow direction of water is horizontal while the rotary axis is a vertical direction).
In regard to claims 15 and 16, Xiong discloses the waste collection device further comprises a bin (a centrifuge 10, Fig. 8), and the flow out of the fluid ejection element flows toward an interior of the bin (Fig. 8; page 5). Xiong discloses the waste collection device further comprises a rail (a conveyor belt 2, Fig. 2 meets the recited rail), and the fluid ejection element that comprises the rail moves smoothly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 102257043, please refer to the attached English document, hereinafter “Lee”).
In regard to claim 17, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the floating device includes a base structure and two hulls connected to the base structure, and continuous walls of the two hulls are tapered.
However, Lee discloses a waste collection apparatus for collecting waste (Fig. 4, 999) in water, comprising: a floating device (130) including a plurality of floating units (125, 120); and a waste collection device (110) coupled to the floating device, wherein each of the floating units includes a base (120) and a pillar (125) connected to the base. Since the waste collection apparatus comprises floating vessels, the presence of tapered continuous walls of the two hulls is considered obvious.
It is noted that both the Zhang and Lee references direct a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zhang, in view of Lee, to provide the features of “the floating device includes a base structure and two hulls connected to the base structure, and continuous walls of the two hulls are tapered”, because (1) the recited features of floating device includes a base structure and two hulls connected to the base structure, and the presence of tapered continuous walls of the two hulls is a known, effective features as suggested by Lee (Fig. 4, 999), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water to yield predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Xiong et al. (CN 112722172 A) and Lee (KR 102257043).
In regard to claim 19, Zhang discloses a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water (page 1, Abstract), comprising (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of the original Chinese document, descriptions about detailed description of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in page 3):
(i) a floating device including a plurality of floating units (there are three floating blocks 14, Fig. 1); and
(ii) a waste collection device coupled to the floating device (waste collection apparatus located inside a shell barrel body (1, Fig. 1), wherein the waste collection device comprises a fluid ejection element (a water pump 2, Fig. 1; a pipe (i.e., a tube element used to convey a substance) to deliver waste and water mixture to filter screen 4-1, Fig. 1; a collecting net bag 7, Fig. 1; a drainpipe 20, Fig. 1). The operating mechanism is when the water level of the drainage is lower than that of the inner floating ring, the inner barrel loses the buoyancy and sinks on the water surface by self-weight and can absorb the water surface garbage by utilizing the energy of water flow backflow and filter and store the garbage (page 2). This directs the mixture of waste and water flow out of the fluid ejection element flows toward a space where waste (7, Fig. 1) is collected.
But Zhang does not explicitly disclose the features of (I) a wind turbine coupled to the floating device and (II) each of the floating units includes a base and a pillar connected to the base, and a density of the base is greater than a density of the pillar.
Regarding (I), Xiong discloses the wind turbine (12, Fig. 1) coupled to the floating structure.
Regarding (II), Lee discloses a waste collection apparatus for collecting waste (Fig. 4, 999) in water, comprising: a floating device (130) including a plurality of floating units (125, 120); and a waste collection device (110) coupled to the floating device, wherein each of the floating units includes a base (120) and a pillar (125) connected to the base.
Regarding the feature of “a density of the base is greater than a density of the pillar”, the applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that the density of the base being greater than a density of the pillar provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is used for a particular purpose beyond the fact that the degree to which an object floats and has stability is in accordance with density. Furthermore, it appears that the base would perform equally well with a density greater than a density of the pillar because the base and pillar cooperate to maintain the floating device from sinking or capsizing. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the base with a greater density than the pillar to obtain the claimed invention and thereby achieve the predictable result of a buoyant and stable floating device. Please note, in the specification, no criticality is provided for the limitation beyond the known advantage for a floating object to avoid capsizing.
It is noted that all the Zhang, Xiong and Lee references direct a floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zhang, in view of Xiong and Lee, to provide the features of (I) a wind turbine coupled to the floating device and (II) each of the floating units includes a base and a pillar connected to the base, and a density of the base is greater than a density of the pillar, because (1) the recited features are considered a known, effective features in manufacturing floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water as suggested by Xiong (12, Fig. 1) and Lee (Fig. 4, 999), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known floating waste collection apparatus for collecting waste in water to yield predictable results.
In regard to claim 20, Zhang discloses a frame disposed on the floating units and for connecting the floating units to each other (three floating blocks 14, Fig. 1 are connected by a frame). Xiong discloses the wind turbine (12, Fig. 1) coupled to the floating structure. In light of teachings from Zhang and Xiong, the recitation “the wind turbine is installed on the frame” is considered obvious to one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772