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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because they include extraneous text labelling not considered capable of legible reproduction; see figure 1 and Legends of figures 2-4. Note the suggested format includes use of reference characters with a corresponding discussion in the description; see 37 CFR 1.84(p). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 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. Each claim should be in a sentence form; see MPEP 608.01(m). Claim 1 is configured as multiple sentences; see also claim 11/12 wherein the numbering of claim 12 is misplaced within line 5 of claim 11 . For the purposes of examination claim 12 will be considered as a two line claim beginning with “The sea chest maintenance access trunk of claim 11, …” and claim 11 to include the preceding lines. Due to the improper claim format the intended scope of each claim is uncertain and is considered indefinite. Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitation “the waterline” does not have antecedent basis however is understood to be the waterline of the vessel consistent with the instant Specification. Also note that “ in fluid communication with the sea chest” (claim 11: last lines) does not properly correspond to the plurality of “one or more sea chests” of line 2. It is suggested to add “the” between –wherein—and –watertight closure—in claims 2 and 3. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the door" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the umbilical" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites a function of facilitating activities however is unclearly defined and/or correlated to the activities which seem to be activities performed by a person/diver and/or ROV as described in the Specification relating to vessel components which are not set forth in the claim. Claims 9 and 10 are considered indefinite for reciting the effects of “using” the sea chest maintenance access trunk without clearly defining the access trunk or correlate the protective function thereto. It is suggested to positively recite structural elements of the apparatus and/or clearly associate a functional relationship with the apparatus components. Regarding claims 13-18, c laim 13 is dependent upon claim 12 however additionally defines the watertight closure as an access plate wherein claim 12 defines the closure as a door. The intended scope is uncertain as the two are considered described as separate embodiments (para. 24) and also as a single embodiment (para. 33) discussing the door as “a bolted plate”. It is suggested to a mend claim 13 to either depend from claim 11 or provide consistency between claim limitations “the watertight closure”, “access plate”, and “the door” in all of claims 13-18. Furthermore each of claims 14-18 are directed to a function of the watertight closure wherein it “permits” activity, however whereas the “selective opening and closing” of claims 14-15 are considered closely associated with the closure as a door and/or access plate, utilization of an umbilical of claims 16-17 is not as the umbilical is not a positively recited element of the access trunk apparatus and what might be intended by utilization thereof. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim s 7 and 17 are each solely directed to a u se of “the umbilical” which is not a positively recited component of the sea chest maintenance access trunk , see claim 16:2 “permits the utilization of an umbilical” therefore fails to further limit the scope of the access trunk apparatus . Claim 18 is fully redundant as it depends from claim 1 4 which contains the same limitations . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the c laim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 s 1- 2 and 4 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)1 as being anticipated by Chirakadze (US 2022/0340237) . Chirakadze discloses a sea chest maintenance access trunk comprising an access trunk 16 in fluid communication with a sea chest 10 positioned within a vessel hull 12 ; a watertight closure 18 for selective opening and closing positioned above the waterline of the vessel hull considered in order to prevent water from entering the vessel when in an open condition and fully capable of permitting access to the sea chest by a diver or ROV (as well as any person on the vessel); see abstract; figure s 2-5, para. 34-35. Regarding claim 11, Chirakadze discloses port and starboard sea chests 10, 10’ accessible from access trunks 16, 16’ selectively closed by watertight access hatches 18, 18’; see para. 37, figure 6. Regarding claims 2, 4-5 , and 12, the hatch 18 of Chirakadze is considered configured as a door. It is noted that a door “for use” by either a diver or ROV does not define a structural limitation of the door but rather an intended/recognized operator of the door. The user of a door as claimed is not limiting of the claim scope. Regarding the claimed utilization of an umbilical in claims 6-7 and 15-16, the watertight hatch 18 of Chirakadze is considered capable of permitting of an umbilical passing therethrough when in an open configuration. Regarding claim 8, the trunk access is considered to facilitate cleaning and other activities as claimed as when in the open configuration it provides access to interior chamber 32, filter 52, etc. (para. 35). Regarding claims 9-10, maintenance access trunk 16 is considered to provide protection as claimed as it defines an enclosed space within the vessel. 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. Claim s 3 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirakadze (US 2022/0340237) in view of Gao ( CN 113320640 ). Chirakadze does not directly disclose the watertight closure as an access plate, however Gao provides a similar sea bottom valve box maintenance access port 10 with closure plate 103 with lifting lug 101 for selective opening and closing (bolted at flanges by bolts 102 ) in order to service and clean sea chest components ; see figures 2 and 4 ; para. 12, 15 of the machine translation provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the door hatch opening of Chirakadze as an access plate as taught by Gao for providing an alternative closeable configuration in a known manner for enabling access in order to clean, service anodes, etc. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER R HARMON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4461 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-4:30 . 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, Shawn Decenzo (571) 270-3227 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER R HARMON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6212