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 .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 08 May 2026 has been entered; claims 1-21 remain pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7, 12, 16, and 19-21 in the reply filed on 08 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-11, 13-15, 17, and 18 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 12, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea or natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claim 1 firstly recites an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical relationship: “a mitigator communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is further configured to activate the mitigator to take steps to decontaminate the water if a target organism is detected” (emphasis added), wherein “the processor is configured to detect and classify any organisms in the underwater image based on one or more of (a) the measured characteristic at a given time and (b) similarities between a region of interest in the underwater image and one or more of the expertly annotated images”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because if the processor does not detect a target organism, no decontamination of water occurs; therefore, there is no application, let alone a practical application. Even if the claim was amended to positively recite that the water decontamination occurs, the limitation “decontaminate the water” is stated with a high degree of generality, and would not be considered particular. Moreover, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no water decontamination has to occur, and merely taking generic sensor readings and/or capturing underwater images is routine and conventional within the art (see art rejections below in view of CN (‘831)), and would not meet the “significantly more” criterion.
Secondly, claim 1 recites: “wherein the processor is configured to detect and classify any organisms in the underwater image based on… (b) the similarities between a region of interest in the underwater image and one or more of the expertly annotated images” and “an auditable database…”a historical community composition data set”, which is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process/observation. The processor could be met by a scuba diver tethered to the enclosure taking underwater photos and comparing them to “expertly annotated images” of marine organisms in an encyclopedia when back on land, while the auditable database could be a lab notebook.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because if a photo taken by the aforementioned scuba diver does not contain a target organism, no decontamination of water occurs; therefore, there is no application, let alone a practical application. Even if the claim was amended to positively recite that the water decontamination occurs, the limitation “decontaminate the water” is stated with a high degree of generality, and would not be considered particular. Moreover, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no water decontamination has to occur, and merely recording generic sensor readings and capturing/comparing underwater images is routine and conventional within the art, and would not meet the “significantly more” criterion.
The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claims 2-7, 12, 16, and 19-21, they are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-7, 12, 16, and 19-21 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations “expertly annotated images” renders the claim indefinite, as the term “expertly” is a relative term. The term “expertly” 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. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider “expertly annotated images” as being met by a database of images to which the captures images are compared.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations “human microscopy” render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is meant by this term. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations “human microscopy” as consistent with Paragraph [0020] of the Specification, which describes “labor intensive microscopy to identify organisms”.
Regarding claims 2-7, 12, 16, 20, and 21, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuer-Lauridsen et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,261,063) in view of CN 109470831 A (machine translation provided and relied upon), hereinafter “Stuer-Lauridsen” and ‘CN (‘831)”.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6, Stuer-Lauridsen teaches a system for monitoring the quality of ballast water in a vessel/ship (“water monitoring and treatment system”) (Abstract) comprising:
a ballast water tank (“an enclosure”) (Abstract; Column 3, line 24; “configured to float on the water” as it is contained within the vessel/ship);
a number of ballast water quality sensors (“an environmental sensor”) mounted to the enclosure and configured to measure the ballast what quality, salinity, temperature, transmittance (“an environmental characteristic of the water”) in the ballast water tank at a given time (Abstract; Column 3, lines 21-24; Column 4, lines 24-42, 65-68);
an on-board computer (“processor”) communicatively coupled to the ballast water quality sensors (“the environmental sensor”) (Abstract; Column 3, lines 14-30; Column 9, lines 23-37), wherein the processor is configured to detect and classify any organisms in the underwater image based on the measured environmental characteristic at the given time (Column 10, lines 15-21, 35-42; Column 13, lines 1-17: photosynthetic activity/fluorescence measured in ballast water indicating presence of phytoplankton);
at least one water treatment device (“mitigator”) communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is further configured to activate the mitigator to take steps to decontaminate the water if a target organism is detected (Column 5, lines 37-63; ; and
a data logger (“an auditable database”) communicatively coupled to the processor (Column 8, lines 32-40; Column 11, lines 20-27) wherein the data logger (“auditable database”) is configured to store a history of organisms detected and classified by the processor and actions taken by the mitigator as a historical community composition data set (see data management and storage discussed in Column 3, lines 55-61; Column 8, lines 32-40, and at specific geographic locations: Column 6, lines 42-45).
Stuer-Lauridsen does not specifically teach a camera, a reference database of annotated images of organisms, wherein the processor is coupled to the camera and reference database of images as claimed.
CN (‘831) teaches a camera mounted to a ship and configured to capture underwater images of organisms (Page 2, lines 1-2), wherein image recognition of surface biological images (“reference database of images”) and underwater biological images of organisms is conducted using deep neural network algorithm (“machine learning algorithm”) to identify the target organism (see Page 8, Paragraphs labeled 1) and 2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the camera to the ballast water tank in a mounted manner within the ballast tank (“enclosure”), the reference database, and the connection of the camera and reference database to the on-board computer as taught by CN (‘831) to the system of Stuer-Lauridsen in order to gain the advantage of identifying/classifying which biological species are present in the ballast water tank, which are mentioned in Stuer-Lauridsen in Column 4, lines 24-31).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, the system of Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) is silent with respect to active agitation of the water when (passively) capturing images and measuring the environmental characteristics with the sensors, and does not teach chemical sampling or human microscopy.
With respect to claim 12, Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) teaches wherein the processor is further configured to use the historical community composition data set to establish whether or not the ballast water poses a threat to another body of water (see Stuer-Lauridsen: Column 1, lines 48-60; Column 2, lines 4-8; Column 8, lines 10-57).
With respect to claim 16, Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) teaches wherein the ballast tank and the historical community composition data set correspond to a vessel (Column 8, lines 10-26) and the on-board computer (“processor”) is further configured to identify further comprising identifying a probable source of a given target organism based on the vessel's historical community composition data set and the vessel's travel history (see Stuer-Lauridsen: Column 3, lines 55-67; Column 8, lines 24-32; Column 10, lines 50-68; wherein “one or more locations” over time of the vessel making up its travel history).
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuer-Lauridsen et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,261,063) in view of CN 109470831 A (machine translation provided and relied upon) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KR 20080092292 A (machine translation provided and relied upon), hereinafter “Stuer-Lauridsen”, “CN (‘831)”, and “KR (‘292)”.
With respect to claims 2 and 21, Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) teaches wherein the known, quantifiable volume of water is ballast water within a ballast tank (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not specifically teach a track disposed within the ballast tank, and wherein the enclosure is configured to move vertically along the track within the water so as to be able to profile the water at the bottom of the ballast tank and at a water surface within the ballast tank.
KR (‘292) teaches a camera with an enclosure that moves vertically along transfer slide 108 (see halfway down Page 8 through Page 9; Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the transfer slide which moved the camera wit enclosure vertically as taught by KR (‘292) to the system of Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) in order to image the ballast tank in different vertical locations, which allows for counting of the phytoplankton in the ballast water in the vertical profile imaged ((see halfway down Page 8 through Page 9), which is a goal shared by Stuer-Lauridsen (see Column 4, lines 24-31).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuer-Lauridsen et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,261,063) in view of CN 109470831 A as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rey et al. (Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53, 11849-11859), hereinafter “Stuer-Lauridsen” and ‘CN (‘831)”.
With respect to claim 5, Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) does not specifically teach an environmental DNA (eDNA) tester communicatively coupled to the processor, which is further configured to detect and classify organisms based on an output of the eDNA tester.
Rey teaches an environmental DNA tester that is configured to detect and classify organisms based on an output of the eDNA tester (see Abstract; Fig. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the environmental DNA tester of Rey to the system of Stuer-Lauridsen in view of CN (‘831) in order to gain the advantage of classifying/identifying organisms in ballast water (see Abstract), and because Rey teaches that the eDNA tester can differentiate vessels based on their ballast water composition and is useful in monitoring of ballast water (see Page 11854, right column, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Stuer-Lauridsen teaches taking sensor readings before and after treatment with the water treatment device (Column 5, lines 42-59); it is submitted that addition of the eDNA tester of Rey would be added to the number of sensors monitoring the water quality of the ballast water as taught by Stuer-Lauridsen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
30 July 2026
Prosecution Insights