DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 24 June 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-14 are pending;
Claim 1 is currently amended;
Claims 2 and 5 are cancelled;
Claims 9-14 are new;
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention;
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 24 June 2026 have been fully considered and the new limitations overcome the cited art. A 112 rejection is placed herein which needs to be address before proceeding with an allowance of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted Claims 9-14 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The new claims are directed to open ended buoyancy chambers which requires a new separate search strategy.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 9-14 would be acceptable if rewritten as dependent claims of Claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: A colon “:” needs to be placed after “comprising” in line 2 of the claim and thereby result in “comprising:”. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites that “servicing a structure and/or transport along the structure” but there are no structural elements nor structural relationships claimed that make clear how the apparatus services the structure and how the apparatus transport along the structure. Adding structural limitations defining (1) how the module interacts with the structure in order to service the structure, (2) how the module services the structure, and (3) how the module interacts with the structure in order to move along the structure would overcome the issue. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims are also rejected for depending on a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 would be allowable if Claim 1 is rewritten or amended, without deleting limitations, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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, AMBER ANDERSON can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights