DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a second office action final rejection on the merits.
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
The amendment filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended, Claims 9-26 have been canceled, Claims 27-30 have been added, and Claim 2 remains as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, the Specification, and the Claims have overcome almost every objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6 Line 1, the phrase “further characterized by the fact that visible light” should read “wherein visible light” to conform with U.S. practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Entremont et al. (WO 2022099419 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 112243961 A).
Regarding Claim 1, D’Entremont teaches a trawl system (300; shown in Fig. 1) having at least
A trawl net (10) and bridles and/or sweep lines (12, 22, 18, 28, 25; all shown in Fig. 1), the trawl net (10) having at least:
A trawl mouth opening (shown in Fig. 1; Trawl net 10 comprises a trawl mouth opening framed by headline rope 1000 and footrope 2000.);
Wings (shown in Fig. 1; Trawl net 10 comprises sidelines besides ropes 1000 and 2000 that form wings that extends towards the back portion of trawl net 10.);
A pliable footrope (2000; ¶125 states that footrope 2000 may be made of polymer, which may be pliable. Further ¶124 states that footrope 2000 comprises segments that disengage and separate and may be formed in the same manner as headrope 1000. Because Figs. 5-6 show the pliability of headrope 1000 to maintain its arcuate shape, footrope 2000 would be formed with similar pliability.);
A pliable headrope (1000; ¶121 states that headrope 1000 may be made of polymer, which may be pliable. Further ¶101 states that headrope 1000 comprises segments that disengage and separate, and Figs. 5-6 show the pliability of headrope 1000 to maintain its arcuate shape.); and
Sidelines (shown in Fig. 1; Trawl net 10 comprises sidelines besides ropes 1000 and 2000.),
The bridles and/or sweep lines having a forward bridle point as well as having upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines (shown in Fig. 1; Upper bridle 12 and lower bridle 22 converge at a first [left] forward bridle point and upper bridle 18 and lower bridle 28 converge at a second [right] forward bridle point.),
Wherein the trawl system (300) includes light sources illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines with visible light (¶123 and ¶126 state that Headrope 1000 and footrope 2000 may include a light emitting device (LED). Looking at Fig. 1, the LEDs of headrope 1000 and footrope 2000 would be capable of illuminating the space between upper bridles 12,18 and lower bridles 22,28 with visible light.).
The system of D’Entremont teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating that the trawl net has pliable sidelines. Note Fig. 1 of D’Entremont shows that the sidelines comprise ropes that appear to have a thin and curved shape in connecting elements 1000 and 2000 and thus appears to be “pliable”. However that notwithstanding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the sidelines of the system of D’Entremont be made of a pliable material in order to provide a net that can be deployed in different marine environments and to allow for varying the width or size of the mouth opening dependent upon the type of marine life to be captured in the respective net, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
However, the system of D’Entremont fails to explicitly state that visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines emanates from light sources directly mounted on the upper bridles and/or sweep lines.
Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a trawl net.), the system of Wang teaches that visible light illuminating space between the sweep lines emanates from light sources (7) directly mounted on the sweep lines (See Fig. 1; Light sources 7 are directly mounted on sweep lines such that visible light illuminates space between sweep lines.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines of the system of D’Entremont emanate from light sources mounted on the sweep lines as taught by Wang to better irradiate the sea for attracting fish and to afford more areas of illumination to aid in the trawling of marine life, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Entremont et al. (WO 2022099419 A1) as modified by Wang et al. (CN 112243961 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersen (WO 9803061 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang fails to explicitly state that the trawl system further comprises trawl doors.
Andersen teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a trawl for fish catching.), the system of Andersen teaches a trawl system (shown in Fig. 1) comprising trawl doors (9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang to include trawl doors as taught by Andersen with reasonable expectation of success to allow for adjustments to depth and distance to the seabed.
Regarding Claim 6, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines emanates from light sources situated more proximal to the forward bridle point than proximal to the trawl mouth opening. Andersen teaches light sources (10) situated more proximal to the forward bridle point than proximal to the trawl mouth opening (shown in Fig. 1b and stated in Pg. 4 Lines 25-30; Light sources 10 are located on the extremes of the trawl entrance and therefore are situated more proximal the forward bridle point than proximal to the trawl mouth opening.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines emanate from light sources situated more proximal the forward bridle point than proximal to the trawl mouth opening as taught by Andersen with reasonable expectation of success to prevent the fish’s escape from the trawl net (Anderson, Pg. 7 Lines 5-15), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 7, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen further teaches (references to Andersen) that light beams emanating from the light sources situated more proximal to the forward bridle point than proximal to the trawl mouth opening are directed aft and/or backward and toward the trawl mouth opening (See Pg. 4 Lines 25-30; Light sources 10 are located on the extremes of the trawl entrance and serve to disorient the fish located at the trawl entrance and prevent the fish’s escape. This means that the light beams from light sources 10 are directed aft and/or backward and toward the mouth opening of the trawl net.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen further teaches (references to Andersen) the light beams that are directed aft and/or backward and toward the mouth opening of the trawl net are directed at the peripheral port and/or starboard edges of the trawl mouth opening (Looking at Fig. 1, the light beams from light sources 10 directed aft and/or backward and towards the trawl net mouth would be directed to the respective edges of the trawl mouth opening with the upper light source directing light at the port edge of the mouth opening and the lower light source directing light at the starboard edge of the mouth opening.).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Entremont et al. (WO 2022099419 A1) as modified by Wang et al. (CN 112243961 A) and Andersen (WO 9803061 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 111953946 A), hereinafter referred to as Wang (1).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
However, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen fails to explicitly state that the visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines emanates from light sources mounted on the trawl doors.
Wang (1) teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a trawl net.), the system of Wang (1) teaches that visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines emanates from a light source mounted on the trawl doors (2.2; Claim 3 states that underwater camera 1 is provided with a light source. Fig. 1 shows that camera 1 is mounted on trawl doors 2-2 [see also Claim 2]. Therefore, a visible light that illuminate the space between the sweep lines shown in Fig. 1 emanates from a light source mounted on the trawl doors.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the visible light illuminating space between the upper and lower bridles and/or sweep lines of the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen emanate from light sources mounted on the trawl doors as taught by Wang (1) to avoid disturbing the waters as the net moves (Wang (1), Pgs. 2-3) and to provide further illumination locations to aid in the trawling of marine life, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 4, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Wang (1), as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Wang (1) further teaches that light beams emanating from the light sources mounted on the trawl doors are directed aft and/or backward and toward the trawl mouth opening (See Pg. 4 Lines 25-30 of Andersen; Light sources 10 are located on the extremes of the trawl entrance and serve to disorient the fish located at the trawl entrance and prevent the fish’s escape. This means that the light beams from light sources 10 are directed aft and/or backward and toward the mouth opening of the trawl net. Further, due to the modification of Wang (1), the light sources would be mounted on the trawl doors. Therefore, the light beams emanating from the light sources of the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Wang (1) mounted on the trawl doors are directed aft and/or backward and toward the mouth opening of the trawl net.).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Wang (1), as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Wang (1) further teaches (references to Andersen) the light beams that are directed aft and/or backward and toward the mouth opening of the trawl net are directed at the peripheral port and/or starboard edges of the mouth opening of the trawl net (Looking at Fig. 1, the light beams from light sources 10 directed aft and/or backward and towards the trawl net mouth would be directed to the respective edges of the trawl mouth opening with the upper light source directing light at the port edge of the mouth opening and the lower light source directing light at the starboard edge of the mouth opening.).
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Entremont et al. (WO 2022099419 A1) as modified by Wang et al. (CN 112243961 A) and Andersen (WO 9803061 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kirkpatrick (US 6453597 B1).
Regarding Claim 27, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
However, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen fails to explicitly state that the trawl doors each include upper and lower trawl door portions, and the upper bridles and/or sweep lines are attached directly to the upper trawl door portions.
Kirkpatrick teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to trawl nets.), the system of Kirkpatrick teaches a trawl system (20) comprising trawl doors (42a, 42b), wherein the trawl doors (42a, 42b) each include upper and lower trawl door portions (50a-50b and 52a-52b; Shown in Fig. 1 and Stated in Column 2 Lines 35-50), and the upper bridles and/or sweep lines (30a, 30b) are attached directly to the upper trawl door portions (50a-50b; Fig. 1 shows that upper bridles 30a-30b are attached directly to the upper trawl door portions 50a-50b.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen to have the trawl doors each include upper and lower trawl door portions and the upper bridles and/or sweep lines be attached directly to the upper trawl door portions as taught by Kirkpatrick with reasonable expectation of success to ensure proper deployment of the net (Kirkpatrick, Column 2 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 28, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Kirkpatrick, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 27.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Kirkpatrick further teaches (references to Kirkpatrick) that the upper bridles and/or sweep lines (30a-30b) are attached in a straight-line connection to an upper region (50a-50b) of the trawl door (shown in Fig. 1; The upper bridles and/or sweep lines 30a-30b are attached in a straight-line connection to an upper region 50a-50b of the trawl doors 42a-42b.).
Regarding Claim 29, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
However, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen fails to explicitly state that the trawl doors each include upper and lower trawl door portions, and the lower bridles and/or sweep lines are attached directly to the lower trawl door portions.
Kirkpatrick teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to trawl nets.), the system of Kirkpatrick teaches a trawl system (20) comprising trawl doors (42a, 42b), wherein the trawl doors (42a, 42b) each include upper and lower trawl door portions (50a-50b and 52a-52b; Shown in Fig. 1 and Stated in Column 2 Lines 35-50), and the lower bridles and/or sweep lines (32a-32b) are attached directly to the lower trawl door portions (52a-52b; Fig. 1 shows that lower bridles 32a-32b are attached directly to the lower trawl door portions 52a-52b.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang and Andersen to have the trawl doors each include upper and lower trawl door portions and the lower bridles and/or sweep lines be attached directly to the lower trawl door portions as taught by Kirkpatrick with reasonable expectation of success to ensure proper deployment of the net (Kirkpatrick, Column 2 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 30, the system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Kirkpatrick, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 27.
The system of D’Entremont as modified by Wang, Andersen, and Kirkpatrick further teaches (references to Kirkpatrick) that the lower bridles and/or sweep lines (32a-32b) are attached in a straight-line connection to a lower region (52a-52b) of the trawl door (shown in Fig. 1; The lower bridles and/or sweep lines 32a-32b are attached in a straight-line connection to an lower region 52a-52b of the trawl doors 42a-42b.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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.
Conclusion
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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights