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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 12/18/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. EP 3 851 213 A1 lacks a translation or explanation of relevance. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “the cavity” should be referred to as “the closed cavity” in all instances for the best antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 1-6 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. The term “ sensitive surface ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ sensitive ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined from the claim how sensitive the sensitive surface must be in order to necessarily satisfy the claim limitation, and therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. The remaining claims are rejected for similarly reciting the term “sensitive surface”. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some surface. Claim 1 recites “known as the front face and rear face” and it cannot be determined from the limitation “known as” if the faces are only nominally front and rear faces or if they are necessarily structurally front and rear faces. the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is a front and rear face . Regarding claim 1, the phrases "preferably" and “ideally” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the pressure difference is some value. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some housing. The remaining claims are rejected for depending on one of the claims above. 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casset (EP 3 851 213 A1) in view of Rice (US 2018/0015908) . Regarding claim 1, Casset ( EP 3851213 A 1 ) teaches – A system for combating biofouling by micro-organisms (Fig. 1, DA1 par. 1) , configured to be transferred to a measuring device which is configured to be immersed in a liquid at a pressure P l i qu i d and which comprises a sensitive surface sensitive to biofouling (pars. 2-3 disclose being attached to a device underwater, sensor C1) , the system being designed to cover the sensitive surface (sensitive surface 4) , the system comprising: a plate able to vibrate (element for vibrating 8, par. 50) , having two opposite main faces (see fig. 1) , known as the front face and rear face (either side of 8) , the front face being configured to be in contact with the liquid ( par. 50, the liquid in contact with the sensitive surface is in contact with the plate ) ; and at least one actuator, located on one of the main faces of the plate (vibrating means 10) , able to make the plate vibrate, so as to at least limit the attachment of micro-organisms to the plate (pars. 2, 31) ; the system further comprising: a closed cavity, which is delimited at least partly by the rear face of the plate, and which is filled with a fluid at a pressure P cavity (the inside of DA1 proximate support 6, par. 50 discloses the cavity is filled with liquid which has some arbitrary pressure inherently). Casset does teach that sufficient pressure applied to the sensitive surface is crucial (par. 93) and a pressure differential between the anti-fouling plates is undesirable (par. 96) , but Casset appears to be silent with regards to a fluid compressor in fluid communication with the closed cavity for modulating the fluid pressure in the cavity. Rice (US 2018/0015908) teaches a sensor cleaning system (title) where a compressor 110 is controlled to modulate a pressure of the system (par. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Casset to include a compressor for modulating the fluid pressure as taught by Rice to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully control the pressure of the cavity which is set forth as desirable by Casset, to arrive at a more effective anti-fouling device. Further regarding the limitation directed towards the exact pressure differential of the cavity: Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). The compressor disclosed by Rice is well capable of modulating the pressure of the fluid in the cavity as claimed, and is reasonably expected to do so. All the structure is taught, and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. However, even if the compressor disclosed by Rice were to be found to be insufficient to provide that claimed pressure differential: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Casset such that the pressure differential is less than 2 bar, less than .05 bar, or equal. One would have been motivated to do so as this pressure difference would be the product of mere routine experimentation, and no new or unexpected results would be expected. MPEP 2144.05, II. Regarding claim 2, modified Casset appears to be silent with regards to the depth of the cavity. However, the modification of the cavity to have a depth in a direction perpendicular to the rear face of the plate of 1 to 10 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This modification is the mere change in size/proportion of the cavity, and where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device , and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Regarding claim 3, modified Casset further teaches the sensitive surface is an optical window (par. 48). Regarding claim 4, modified Casset further teaches An assembly comprising a measuring device and a system for combating biofouling according to Claim 1, wherein the cavity is arranged in contact with the entire sensitive surface, the sensitive surface and the plate facing each other (Fig. 1 shows this system including measuring device C1, sensitive surface 4, and the plate 8 facing the same) . Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casset (EP 3851213 A1) in view of Rice (US 2018/0015908) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of O’Brien (US 4,836,689). Regarding claim 5, modified Casset further teaches – An assembly comprising a measuring device and a system for combating biofouling according to Claim 1, wherein the cavity is arranged in contact with the entire sensitive surface, the sensitive surface and the plate facing each other ( Fig. 1 shows this system including measuring device C1, sensitive surface 4, and the plate 8 facing the same ) . Modified Casset appears to be silent with regards to a protective housing. O’Brien (US 4,836,689) teaches a system for combating biofouling on a sensor device (abstract, Col. 1 ln 14-16; Figs. 1-2) the system including a protective housing for containing the measuring device (tube 35 extends around and encapsulates the lens 29, Fig. 2) where the system for combating biofouling closes and seals the housing (fig. 2 shows the tube 35 mating with the barrel of the pyrometer 10 to close and seal the lens and other components within the tube 35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Casset such that there is included a protective housing for containing the components of the system including the measuring device, compressor, and cavity, and such that the system for combating biofouling closes and seals the housing as taught by O’Brien to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to protect the system and all its components from damage as well as wear from the environment to arrive at an improved anti-fouling system. Regarding claim 6 , modified Casset further teaches – An assembly comprising a measuring device and a system for combating biofouling according to Claim 1, wherein the cavity is arranged at a distance from the sensitive surface, the sensitive surface and the plate facing each other (Fig. 1 shows this system including measuring device C1, sensitive surface 4, and the plate 8 facing the same where the cavity has some distance from the sensitive surface ) . Modified Casset appears to be silent with regards to a protective housing. O’Brien (US 4,836,689) teaches a system for combating biofouling on a sensor device (abstract, Col. 1 ln 14-16; Figs. 1-2) the system including a protective housing for containing the measuring device (tube 35 extends around and encapsulates the lens 29, Fig. 2) where the system for combating biofouling closes and seals the housing (fig. 2 shows the tube 35 mating with the barrel of the pyrometer 10 to close and seal the lens and other components within the tube 35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Casset such that there is included a protective housing for containing the components of the system including the measuring device, compressor, and cavity, and such that the system for combating biofouling closes and seals the housing as taught by O’Brien to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to protect the system and all its components from damage as well as wear from the environment to arrive at an improved anti-fouling system. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6615 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm; . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7698 . 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. /BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758