Final 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 29 under 35 USC 112, has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, in light of the amended language, the rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections of claims 15-34 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gao et al. as part of CN 108019564 A, hereinafter referred to as Gao, in view of Gorla et al. as part of Turbomachinery: Design and Theory, hereinafter referred to as Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson as part of US 6179519 B1, hereinafter referred to as Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart as part of US 20210047800 A1, hereinafter referred to as Stewart.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 17-29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart.
Regarding Claim 15: Gao teaches of subsea blower device, comprising:
One or more blowers, each having at least one nozzle (Fig. 8, spray arm 14 comprises an injection nozzle 15);
a chassis with belts for moving the device along a bottom surface underwater (Fig. 1-2, frame 5 comprises track walking system 1, which is depicted to comprise track 12),
and at least one arm pivotally attached to the chassis and having a first of the one or more blowers on one end, thereby allowing adjustment of a position of the respective arm relative to a horizontal plane while the first blower is attached to the end (Gao: Page 2, line 5-10; Fig. 1, injection system 2, which comprises spray arm 14, is connected to frame 5; spray arm 14 is pivotally connected to the injection system 2 via a rolling bearing and a retracting hydraulic cylinder 17, which adjusts the horizontal position between an extended and retracted work position, wherein nozzle 15 is welded to the end of spray arm 14),
While Gao does not explicitly teach of a propeller being configured to supply the nozzle with water, Gao does teach wherein a “rotating system” is integrates as part of an axial flow pump to supply the at least one nozzle with water (Page 2, line 22-33, water is directed to nozzle 15 through axial-flow pump 16 and a "rotating system", implicitly a pump impeller or propeller structure as is known to drive axial flow pumps, which is driven by a rotary motor via a gearing system).
Gorla teaches wherein it is known in the art for axial flow pumps to include an impeller or propeller to drive fluid flow (Gorla: Page 60, Section 2.11 “Axial Flow Pump”, axial flow pumps are known to consist of a propeller-type of impeller running in a casing, developing pressure via fluid flow over an airfoil section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified “rotating system” integral to the axial flow pump taught by Gao to consist of a propeller-type impeller, as is taught by Gorla as well known in the art as part of an axial flow pump system (Gorla: Page 60, Section 2.11 “Axial Flow Pump”, axial flow pumps are known to consist of a propeller-type of impeller running in a casing). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing a propeller to drive fluid flow to an output nozzle.
Gao in view of Gorla does not teach of the specific attachment arrangement or pivoting structure described in the claim language.
Hilmersson teaches of a blower device comprising:
one or more blowers, each having at least one nozzle (Hilmersson: Fig. 1, at least one carriage 6 carries at least one jet pipe 8);
a source to supply the at least one nozzle with water (Hilmersson: Fig. 6, each jet pipe 8 is fueled by a source (not shown) via conduit 10);
and a chassis with belts for moving the device along a bottom surface underwater (Hilmersson: Fig. 1, vehicle 1 comprises tracks 2, which support guiding 5 on the ground surface);
and at least one arm pivotally attached to the chassis and having a first of the one or more blowers on one end, thereby allowing adjustment of a position of the respective arm relative to a horizontal plane while the first blower is attached to the end (Hilmersson: Fig. 2-3, carriage 6 is pivotally attached to guiding 5 via wheels 37, which move the carriage 6 relative to a horizontal plane),
wherein the first blower is configured to generate a flow of water (Hilmersson: Col. 3, line 14-16, jet tube 8 directs high pressure liquid against the bedding),
and the first blower is mounted to the end of the respective arm by a pivotal foot or joint, thereby allowing adjustment of the direction of the flow of water from the first blower both vertically and horizontally (Hilmersson: Fig. 2-3, jet pipe 8 is attached to carriage 6 in such a way as to be adjustable about axes 11 and 13 via pivoting movement, where the jet pipe is moved both vertically and horizontally as it is pivoted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the fixed attachment of the blower to the arm taught by Gao with the pivotal joint taught by Hilmersson to allow for adjustment of the direction of the flow of water both horizontally and vertically while maintaining an optimal distance during operation (Hilmersson: Col. 2, line 3-9, the pivoting structure of the jet member allows for constant distance to be maintained during removal while the jet member is pivoting). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing for vertical and horizontal control of the flow direction of the water (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
While Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson does note that sufficient flow rate is required for efficient function of the apparatus (Gao: as long as pressure from the water pump is sufficient, a trencher spraying system can perform work in any sea soil) does not explicitly teach of any flow requirements through the nozzles.
Stewart teaches of a mass flow excavator comprising a plurality of nozzles, wherein the device is configured to generate a set flow rate of water (Stewart: Paragraph 8, the volumetric flow rate of fluid flow excavators is typically in the range of 1 m3/s to 8 m3/s).
As is taught by Stewart, the range of flow rate of water is advantageous to a flow directed excavation device, such as the apparatus taught by Gao in view of Gorla, is known to be utilized in the art to achieve a desirable pressure to achieve excavation of material (Stewart: Paragraph 8, the flow pressure produced makes the excavator suitable to be used to collect and transport material away from the excavation site), and as such the flow rate of the water exiting the plurality of nozzles would be a results effective variable. In light of such a determination, the volumetric flow rate would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal flow rate is determined by the sediment that is being excavated by the apparatus may fall between 0.5 and 10 m3/s (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
While Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart does not teach of a specific linear speed of the water exiting the nozzle, in light of the volumetric flow rate being a results-effective variable, the linear exit speed of the water from the nozzle would similarly be a results-effective variable dependent upon the specific volumetric flow rate through the nozzle and the size of the opening of the nozzle. In light of such a determination, the ideal linear speed of the water exiting the nozzle would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal linear speed of the water would fall between 4 and 10 m/s (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 17: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein an orientation of the at least one nozzle is adjustable by at least one hydraulic link (Page 2, line 5-10, adjustment of the spray arm 14 via hydraulic cylinder 17 changes the orientation of the nozzle 15).
Further, Hilmersson also teaches wherein an orientation of the nozzle is adjustable by at least one hydraulic link (Hilmersson: motor 39 may be a hydraulic motor to pivot the jet pipe 8).
Regarding Claim 18: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Gao further teaches wherein one of the at least one nozzle and one of the at least one propeller are mounted together in a cabinet forming a unit defining the first blower (Fig. 8, nozzle 15 and axial-flow pump 16 are in fluid connection via spray arm 14, and are contained within the interior of frame 15 to define the injection system).
Regarding Claim 19: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein a nozzle and a propeller are mounted together in a cabinet forming a unit defining the first blower (Fig. 8, nozzle 15 and axial-flow pump 16 are in fluid connection via spray arm 14, and are contained within the interior of frame 15 to define the injection system).
Regarding Claim 20: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one propeller includes a plurality of propellers, each propeller being arranged separately or as part of one of the at least one blower (Fig. 8, a plurality of axial-flow pumps 16 are demonstrated as part of the injection system 2).
Regarding Claim 21: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one propeller includes a plurality of propellers, each propeller being arranged separately or as part of one of the at least one blower (Fig. 8, a plurality of axial-flow pumps 16 are demonstrated as part of the injection system 2).
Regarding Claim 22: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one propeller is hydraulically or electrically powered (Page 4, Paragraph 4, the motor that provides power to axial-flow pump 16 is an electric motor).
Regarding Claim 23: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one propeller is hydraulically or electrically powered (Page 4, Paragraph 4, the motor that provides power to axial-flow pump 16 is an electric motor).
Regarding Claim 24: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 20.
Gao further teaches wherein the propellers are hydraulically or electrically powered (Page 4, Paragraph 4, the motor that provides power to axial-flow pump 16 is an electric motor).
Regarding Claim 25: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle is only one nozzle (Page 4, Paragraph 4, the injection system comprises an injection arm and a welding nozzle on the spray arm, implying a single nozzle on a spray arm is possible as an embodiment).
Regarding Claim 26: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle is only one nozzle (Page 4, Paragraph 4, the injection system comprises an injection arm and a welding nozzle on the spray arm, implying a single nozzle on a spray arm is possible as an embodiment).
Regarding Claim 27: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle is more than one nozzle, further comprising a plurality of arms each with a blower, each of the more than one nozzle being arranged separately or as part of a blower (Fig. 8-9, the injection system 2 comprises a plurality of spray arms 14, each with at least one nozzle 15).
Regarding Claim 28: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 15.
Stewart further teaches of a mass flow excavator comprising a plurality of nozzles, wherein said nozzles comprising one or more flushing nozzles arranged to be supplied with water under a pressure that is higher than a pressure of water supplied to another of the nozzles (Stewart: Paragraph 3; Paragraph 5, it is known in the art of fluid flow excavators to utilize both high pressure and low pressure jets of fluid for the purposes of excavation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the teaching of Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson to utilize both higher pressure and lower pressure nozzles, such as is taught by the disclosure of Stewart, to create a device that more effectively agitates a seafloor (Stewart: Paragraph 5, in addition to low pressure flow to create cavities in pre-loosened material such as sand or soft clay, high pressure jets may assist in agitating the seabed). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of using higher and lower pressure nozzles in conjunction with one another.
Regarding Claim 29: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart, teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 28.
Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart, does not disclose any specific arrangement between the high pressure and low pressure nozzles described. However, changing the orientation of the specified high pressure and low pressure nozzles to perform their intended functions as part of the apparatus described, without altering the intended purpose or execution of the intended task of the nozzles, would be characterized as an obvious design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed. Such a rearrangement of the high and low pressure nozzles does not alter the fundamental purpose of the individual elements of the invention, and is therefore held as obvious (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C).
Regarding Claim 31: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 15.
Stewart further teaches of a mass flow excavator comprising a plurality of nozzles, wherein the device is configured to generate a flow rate of water within an approximate range of 0.5 to 10 m3/s (Stewart: Paragraph 8, the volumetric flow rate of fluid flow excavators is typically in the range of 1 m3/s to 8 m3/s).
As is taught by Stewart, the range of flow rate of water is advantageous to a flow directed excavation device is known to be utilized in the art to achieve a desirable pressure to achieve excavation of material (Stewart: Paragraph 8, the flow pressure produced makes the excavator suitable to be used to collect and transport material away from the excavation site), and as such the flow rate of the water exiting the plurality of nozzles would be a results effective variable. In light of such a determination, the volumetric flow rate would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal flow rate is determined by the sediment that is being excavated by the apparatus may fall between 0.5 and 10 m3/s (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
While Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart does not teach of a specific linear speed of the water exiting the nozzle, in light of the volumetric flow rate being a results-effective variable, the linear exit speed of the water from the nozzle would similarly be a results-effective variable dependent upon the specific volumetric flow rate through the nozzle and the size of the opening of the nozzle. In light of such a determination, the ideal linear speed of the water exiting the nozzle would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal linear speed of the water would fall between 4 and 10 m/s (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 32: Gao in view of Gorla teaches of the device taught above in claim 15.
While Gao in view of Gorla does not specifically teach of a nozzle diameter, it is known in the art that desirable flow rate and outlet speed are determined by the radius of the nozzle opening according to Bernoulli’s Principle: decreasing the size of the opening of the nozzle while maintaining a constant volumetric flow rate would increase the speed by which fluid leaves the nozzle, and vice versa. As such, the diameter of the opening of the nozzle would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the specific diameter of the nozzle opening to achieve a desirable flow would be characterized by routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the diameter of the opening of the nozzle would fall between 10 and 80 cm (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 33: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the device taught above in claim 32.
Claim 33 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 32.
Regarding Claim 34: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the device taught above in claim 15.
Gao further teaches wherein at least one of the at least one nozzle is oriented at an angle in relation to a horizontal axis so that the sediments are blown in the desired direction (Fig. 9, the nozzles 15 positioned on the underside of spray arm 14 are shown to be positioned at an angle relative to arm and the horizontal axis).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart, further in view of Jones et al. as part of US 20130312296 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jones.
Regarding Claim 30: Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 15.
Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart does not explicitly teach of one or more of fixed or movable spikes, bucket with teeth and rotators configured for disintegrating sediments.
Jones teaches of a system for seafloor mining, wherein the vehicle comprises a chassis with belts for moving along a bottom surface underwater (Jones: Fig. 1, Bulk mining machine 112 is shown to comprise a tread track; Paragraph 2, it is known to utilize at jet lift excavation as part of the device, requiring at least one nozzle as part of the jet), further comprising one or more of fixed or movable spikes, bucket with teeth and rotators configured for disintegrating sediments (Jones: Paragraph 2, it is known to utilize a cutter head at or near the suction inlet of a seabed excavator, to release compacted soils, gravels, or hard rock, said cutter head may include jet lift suction and a bucket dredge among other methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the excavator taught by Gao in view of Gorla, further in view of Hilmersson, further in view of Stewart with the cutting head as taught by Jones to create a device capable of dislodging or breaking up compacted material (Jones: Paragraph 2, it is known to utilize a cutter head at or near the suction inlet of a seabed excavator, to release compacted soils, gravels, or hard rock). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of disintegrating or breaking up sediment material for excavation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, 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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights