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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are currently pending
Claims 11-16 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 17-20 are new
Withdrawn claim 14 is currently amended
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/01/2023 and 05/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 (now also applicable to new claims 17-20) in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “wherein” and instead should include a colon after to further recite “wherein:”. FURTHERMORE, line 7 states “of the casting” and instead should state “of the casing” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 10 states “the other end” and instead should state “another end” for further clarity and to avoid any antecedent issues. IN ADDITION, line 12 states “to pump out water” and instead should state “to pump out the water” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “and the other end” and instead should state “and another end” for further clarity and to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “and the other end” and instead should state “and another end” for further clarity and to avoid any antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 states “the other end” and instead should state “another end” for further clarity and to avoid any antecedent issues. FURTHERMORE, line 8 states “and the other end” and instead should state “and the another end” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 9 states “to suck water” and instead should state “to suck the water” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “and the backup water outlet pipe” and instead should state “and the one backup water outlet pipe” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “and the backup water outlet pipe is 120º .” and instead should further recite “and the one backup water outlet pipe is 120º.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the variable pressure airbag is arranged outside the casing, which is configured to adjust” on lines 8-9 of claim 1, “and the water suction pump is configured to pump” on lines 11-12 of claim 1, “and the oil discharge pump is configured to discharge” on lines 5-6 of claim 3, “the at least two fixed columns are configured to support” on lines 2-3 of claim 5, “and the airbag support frame is configured to support” on line 3 of claim 9, “the water pump is configured to suck” on line 9 of claim 10, and “the control center is further configured to control rotation” on lines 2-3 of claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-10 and 17-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the variable pressure airbag is arranged outside the casing, which is configured to” on line 8. It is unclear and confusing what is configured to, the variable pressure airbag or the casing? Claims 2-10 and 17-20 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "in a water environment” on lines 9-10. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a water environment’ as recited on lines 12-13 of claim 1, or a different water environment? Claims 18-20 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 10.
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 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU TAO et al. (CN 206941549 U) (hereinafter “Liu”) (see attached English description) in view of Sato et al. (U.S. 2017/0210643 A1) (hereinafter “Sato”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Liu teaches a recovery device for oil spilling on water (see FIGS. 1-2) (see paragraphs 2, 6, 11-17, 20, 24 and 27-35), wherein the recovery device comprises a casing (see FIG. 1, an oil-water separation device system 1 further including a separation device housing 11) (see paragraphs 11, 17 and 24), a control center (see FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37), a water suction pump (see FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see paragraphs 17 and 24), and a drain pipe (see FIG. 1, a drainage chamber 19 connected to a water-backwash pipeline 21) (see paragraphs 17, 24 and 30); wherein:
the casing is of a hollow structure (see FIG. 1, an oil-water separation device system 1 further including a separation device housing 11) (see paragraphs 11, 17 and 24), which is used to accommodate an oil-water mixture and used as a temporary oil collection tank (see FIG. 1, an oil collection chamber 22, and an oil storage tank 9 is connected to the oil output port of the separation device system 1 via an oil recover conveying pipe 6) (see paragraph 14), an upper part of the casing is provided with an oil-water mixture inlet (see FIG. 1, a water inlet pipe 14), a bottom of the casing is provided with a drain port (see FIG. 1, a drainage chamber 19 connected to a water-backwash pipeline 21) (see paragraphs 17, 24 and 30), and a side wall of the casting is provided with an oil suction port (see FIG. 1, an oil storage tank 9 is connected to the oil output port of the separation device system 1 via an oil recover conveying pipe 6) (see paragraph 14);
one end of the water suction pump is connected to the drain port (see FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see paragraphs 17 and 24), the other end of the water suction pump is connected to the drain pipe (see FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see paragraphs 17 and 24), and the water suction pump is configured to pump out water in the casing and discharge the water to a water environment outside the casing through the drain pipe (see FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see paragraphs 17, 20 and 24); and
the control center is arranged on the casing (see FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37), and the control center is communicatively connected with the water suction pump for controlling volume and startup and shutdown of the water suction pump (see FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37).
Although Liu describes teaching float assemblies having buoyancy, which allows the separation device to float on the water surface, one may broadly interpret that Liu does not explicitly teach a variable pressure airbag, the variable pressure airbag is arranged outside the casing, which is configured to adjust buoyancy of the recovery device, as recited in independent claim 1.
Sato further teaches a similar recovery device system and method including an oil-water separation filter medium formed as a bag having a bag shape for adjusting buoyancy and capable of floating on a water surface (see Sato paragraphs 28, 74, 224 and 232-233).
Liu and Sato are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an oil spill recovery device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recovery device of Liu to include a variable pressure airbag configured to adjust buoyancy of the recovery device, as taught by Sato, for optimization purposes and to keep the recovery device afloat during the treatment and recovery operation (see Sato paragraphs 28, 74, 224 and 232-233).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the recovery device further comprises an isolation layer (see Liu paragraphs 6 and 24 further describing hydrophobic and oleophilic membranes and film materials), the isolation layer is arranged inside the casing for water penetration and oil separation (see Liu paragraphs 6 and 24 further describing hydrophobic and oleophilic membranes and film materials).
Sato further teaches an oil detector (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector), the oil detector is arranged on an inner wall of the casing to detect a position of an oil level (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector), when the oil level touches the oil detector, the oil detector sends a detection result to the control center (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector); and
the control center is communicatively connected with the oil detector for controlling the volume of the variable pressure airbag and the startup and shutdown of the water suction pump according to the detection result of the oil detector (see Liu FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see Liu paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37).
Liu and Sato are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an oil spill recovery device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recovery device of Liu to include an oil detector of Sato, arranged on an inner wall of the casing of Liu to detect a position of an oil level, for optimization purposes (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 2, wherein Liu further teaches the recovery device further comprises an oil discharge pump and an oil suction pipeline (see Liu FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see Liu paragraphs 17 and 24) (see Liu FIG. 1, an oil collection chamber 22, and an oil storage tank 9 is connected to the oil output port of the separation device system 1 via an oil recover conveying pipe 6) (see Liu paragraph 14), the oil discharge pump is arranged on the isolation layer, one end of the oil suction pipeline is connected to the oil discharge pump and the other end of the oil suction pipeline is connected to a recovery vessel recovering spilled oil, and the oil discharge pump is configured to discharge oil collected in the casing to the recovery vessel through the oil suction pipeline (see Liu FIG. 1, pumps 15 and 20) (see Liu paragraphs 17 and 24) (see Liu FIG. 1, an oil collection chamber 22, and an oil storage tank 9 is connected to the oil output port of the separation device system 1 via an oil recover conveying pipe 6) (see Liu paragraph 14); and
the control center is also communicatively connected with the oil discharge pump for controlling the startup and shutdown of the oil discharge pump (see Liu FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see Liu paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the oil-water mixture inlet is provided with a filter (see Liu FIG. 1, a filter cartridge 17, and/or a membrane filter 18) (see Liu paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the recovery device further comprises at least two fixed columns (see Liu FIG. 1, support frames 2) (see Liu paragraphs 17 and 24), the at least two fixed columns are configured to support and connect the control center, one end of each of the at least two fixed columns is arranged on the casing, and the other end of each of the at least two fixed columns is connected to the control center (see Liu FIG. 1, support frames 2) (see Liu paragraphs 17 and 24).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 5, wherein Liu further teaches the at least two fixed columns are arranged on the casing around the oil-water mixture inlet, and the control center is arranged overhead on an upper part of the oil-water mixture inlet through the at least two fixed columns (see Liu FIG. 1, support frames 2) (see Liu paragraphs 17 and 24).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 2, wherein Liu further teaches the isolation layer comprises a hydrophilic-oleophobic membrane and rigid filters disposed on an upper portion and a lower portion of the hydrophilic-oleophobic membrane (see Liu paragraphs 6 and 24 further describing hydrophobic and oleophilic membranes and film materials).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 2, wherein Sato further teaches the oil detector includes a first oil detector and a second oil detector (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector), and a height of the first oil detector on the inner wall of the casing is higher than that of the second oil detector on the inner wall of the casing, and the second oil detector is arranged at a connection between the isolation layer and the inner wall of the casing (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector).
Liu and Sato are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an oil spill recovery device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recovery device of Liu to include multiple oil detectors of Sato, arranged on the inner walls of the casing of Liu to detect a position of an oil level, for optimization purposes (see Sato paragraph 39 further describing an oil leakage detector).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the recovery device further comprises an airbag support frame (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12, further describing an equipment support frame 2) (see Liu paragraph 24), the airbag support frame is arranged outside the casing, and the airbag support frame is configured to support the variable pressure airbag and fix the variable pressure airbag outside the casing (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12, further describing an equipment support frame 2) (see Liu paragraph 24).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the recovery device comprises a driving component for controlling movement of the recovery device (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12 and 15 further describing a box-type pontoon assembly 3 for driving the separation device system 1 to float on the water surface, along with a tugboat 10 (or an environmental protection vessel)) (see Liu paragraph 24);
the driving component is composed of a water suction pipe, a water outlet pipe, a
backup water outlet pipe, a water pump, and a connecting shaft, electric control valves
are arranged in the water outlet pipe and the backup water outlet pipe (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12 and 15 further describing a box-type pontoon assembly 3 for driving the separation device system 1 to float on the water surface, along with a tugboat 10 (or an environmental protection vessel)) (see Liu paragraphs 17, 24 and 29);
one end of the water suction pipe is connected to the water pump, the other end of the water suction pipe is connected to the water outlet pipe and the backup water outlet pipe, and the other end of the water suction pipe is connected to the bottom of the
casing through the connecting shaft; the water pump is configured to suck water in a
water environment outside the casing into the water suction pipe, and discharge the
water through the water outlet pipe or the backup water outlet pipe (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12 and 15 further describing a box-type pontoon assembly 3 for driving the separation device system 1 to float on the water surface, along with a tugboat 10 (or an environmental protection vessel)) (see Liu paragraphs 17, 24 and 29); and
the control center is communicatively connected with the electric control valves for controlling the startup and shutdown of the water outlet pipe and the backup water outlet pipe (see Liu FIG. 1, a power distribution control cabinet 8) (see Liu paragraphs 13, 24, 28 and 37).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 7, wherein Liu further teaches the rigid filters are stainless steel meshes (see Liu paragraphs 6 and 24 further describing hydrophobic and oleophilic membranes and film materials).
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 10, wherein Liu further teaches two water outlet pipes and one backup water outlet pipe are provided, and the two water outlet pipes and the backup water outlet pipe are arranged at equal intervals at a drain end of the water suction pipe (see Liu FIG. 1, a drainage chamber 19 connected to a water-backwash pipeline 21) (see Liu paragraphs 17, 24 and 30) (see Liu FIG. 1, a water inlet pipe 14) (see Liu FIG. 1, an oil storage tank 9 is connected to the oil output port of the separation device system 1 via an oil recover conveying pipe 6) (see Liu paragraph 14).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 18, wherein Sato further teaches an angle between two adjacent pipes of the two water outlet pipes and the backup water outlet pipe is 120º (see Sato paragraph 81 further describing contact angles).
Liu and Sato are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an oil spill recovery device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recovery device of Liu to include a contact angle of 120º, as taught by Sato, for optimization purposes (see Sato paragraph 81 further describing contact angles).
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Liu in view of Sato teaches the recovery device according to claim 10, wherein Liu further teaches the connecting shaft is rotatably connected to the bottom of the casing, and the control center is further configured to control rotation of the connecting shaft to adjust a moving direction of the recovery device (see Liu FIG. 1) (see Liu paragraphs 12 and 15 further describing a box-type pontoon assembly 3 for driving the separation device system 1 to float on the water surface, along with a tugboat 10 (or an environmental protection vessel)) (see Liu paragraph 24).
Other References Considered
Becker (U.S. 2015/0076080 A1) (hereinafter “Becker”) teaches a system and method for removing oil from a body of water.
LONGWEI et al. (CN 113800596 A) (hereinafter “Longwei”) (see attached English description) teaches a marine oil spill collection device.
CHEN YANG et al. (CN 108860488 A) (hereinafter “Chen”) (see attached English description) teaches an inland waterway cleaning vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights