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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New prior art Anderson and Covington are applied below as both appear to read on the amended claims.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 will be interpreted as the pump is deactivated.
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) 1-3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (WO2004090238).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Anderson teaches a self-propelled skimmer #1 configured to remove hydrocarbons from a water surface (page 4, lines 20-25). The skimmer has an onboard retention tank #17 (page 12, lines 1) and a separate holding tank (vessel not shown) and a pump (page 6, lines 30-34) that pumps hydrocarbons removed from the retention tank #17 into the holding tank. The vessel can include a power supply (page 9, lines 3-4) disposed on the vessel or on the skimmer.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Anderson teaches the holding vessel can be a small barge (page 7, lines 1-5) dragged along by the skimmer similar to applicant’s figure 2.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Anderson teaches that the holding tank has a sensor configured to sense a fluid level in the holding tank, wherein the marine apparatus is configured such that the pump is de-energized when the fluid level in the holding tank sensed by the holding tank sensor reaches or exceeds a predetermined level (page 7, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 18, Anderson teaches the use of a radio signal emitter to remote control the skimmer (page 9, lines 13-15).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson teaches a pump and hose means, but does not specifically teach where they are place. However, there are only two places that they could be placed, either on the skimmer or on the holding vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to place the pump means on the holding vessel platform in order to make the skimmer lighter and better able to maneuver. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches that the holding tank has a sensor configured to sense a fluid level in the holding tank, but does not specifically teach a sensor in the retention tank.
However, as shown by Anderson, it is known to place sensos in tanks to determine fluid levels so that they do not overflow. Duplication of parts and utilizing known devices for known purposes is not patentable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to place a fluid level sensor in the retention tank in Anderson in order to monitor fluid levels and begin pumping when fluid levels exceed a given threshold.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Anderson teaches a self-propelled skimmer #1 configured to remove hydrocarbons from a water surface (page 4, lines 20-25). The skimmer has a retention tank #17 (page 12, lines 1) and a holding tank (vessel not shown) and a pump (page 6, lines 30-34) that pumps hydrocarbons removed from the retention tank #17 into the holding tank. The vessel can include a power supply (page 9, lines 3-4) disposed on the vessel. Anderson does teach placing the buoyancy means #8/9 and propeller #14 which are attached to the skimmer. Anderson teaches that the holding tank has a sensor configured to sense a fluid level in the holding tank, wherein the marine apparatus is configured such that the pump is de-energized when the fluid level in the holding tank sensed by the holding tank sensor reaches or exceeds a predetermined level (page 7, lines 1-10).
Anderson does not specifically teach that the skimmer is removable.
However, the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the buoyancy means and propeller removable to allow interchanging of the skimmer if it becomes inoperable to keep the cleaning process moving along.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Carlesi (US20200086955).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Anderson teaches a self-propelled skimmer #1 configured to remove hydrocarbons from a water surface (page 4, lines 20-25). The skimmer has a retention tank #17 (page 12, lines 1) and a holding tank (vessel not shown) and a pump (page 6, lines 30-34) that pumps hydrocarbons removed from the retention tank #17 into the holding tank. The vessel can include a power supply (page 9, lines 3-4) disposed on the vessel. Anderson does teach placing the buoyancy means #8/9 and propeller #14 which are attached to the skimmer. Anderson teaches that the holding tank has a sensor configured to sense a fluid level in the holding tank, wherein the marine apparatus is configured such that the pump is de-energized when the fluid level in the holding tank sensed by the holding tank sensor reaches or exceeds a predetermined level (page 7, lines 1-10).
Anderson does not specifically teach that the skimmer is removable.
However, Carlesi teaches a skimmer #200 that is removable from the floats #112. Note that Carlesi teaches the floats can be separate from the skimmer cleaning section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to utilize a detachable cleaning portion in Anderson as taught by Carlesi in order to clean the device then it becomes nonfunction, and replace it with a new clean device to provide for continuous clearing of hydrocarbons.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Covington (US20240034442)
Regarding claims 12-14, Anderson does not specifically teach multiple transceivers, but does teach the use of radio transmissions to control the device and notes the known use of dragging wires but notes the disadvantages with this method as they can become tangled and broken (see page 9).
Covington teaches [0625] that any desired devices (e.g., valves, pumps, flow meters, sensors, IFRs, ballast tanks, hydraulic and pneumatic systems, maneuvering systems) on, or associated with, may be communicably connected, electronically controlled or operate autonomously in any suitable manner. Some or all of the electronics, software, etc. for operating, controlling and communicably interconnecting various components (e.g., variable buoyancy IFRs, doors, gates, pumps, valves, ballast tanks, internal sensors, external sensors, meters, gauges, monitors, vessel propulsion and steering equipment, and other components) may be on-board and/or located elsewhere (e.g., cloud storage, parent vessel-of-opportunity, fixed onshore control station) and may involve wired and/or wireless communications. If desired, monitoring and/or control of the vessel may be remotely managed in real-time via any suitable device (smart phone, laptop, etc.) through one or more networks, with the use of software, AI, IoT technology.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to have utilized multiple sensors/transceivers to provide commands to the device of Anderson as taught by Covington to effective and efficiently control cleaning operations.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson teaches a self-propelled skimmer #1 configured to remove hydrocarbons from a water surface (page 4, lines 20-25). The skimmer has an onboard retention tank #17 (page 12, lines 1) and a separate holding tank (vessel not shown) and a pump (page 6, lines 30-34) that pumps hydrocarbons removed from the retention tank #17 into the holding tank. The vessel can include a power supply (page 9, lines 3-4) disposed on the vessel or on the skimmer. Anderson also teaches that the skimmer is pivotable via the use of thruster on each side to maneuver in any direction and to gain access to limited spaces (see page 7).
Anderson does not specifically teach that the skimmer is rotatably supported by the vessel.
However, Covington also teaches a skimmer used to remove hydrocarbons from a body of water wherein the skimmer #440 [0510] may be pivotably coupled to one or more stationary distal suction conduits (or other components) to allow the ingestion head 440 to move from any direction up to 360 degrees in order to focus debris collection at select intake openings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective file date to utilize a rotating means for the skimmer in Anderson as taught by Covington in order to allow for debris to be concentrated at the removal ports.
Regarding claim 17, Anderson teaches the use of a pump to move debris from the skimmer tank to the holding tank. Anderson teaches that when the holding tank is full, the pump shuts off and a new holding tank is connected and the old one goes to land to be emptied (page 7, lines 1-10). Anderson does not specifically teach an additional pump on the holding tank to pump the contents of the holding tank to a tank on shore, for example. However, it would be inherent that there be some pump means to remove the debris from the holding tank once it arrives on land.
However, Covington also teaches a holding tank vessel #58 and separate skimmer #440 wherein the tank vessel has a pump #380 to offload debris to any location so that that there is no limit on the amount of debris that can be recovered [0545].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a pump on the holding tank part of Anderson as taught by Covington to remove debris into holding tanks on land for further processing and so that there is no disruption in debris collection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights