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 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 1-17 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 “said axis (Z), when substantially orthogonal to a waterline, forms an angle included between 45 and 90 degrees with the waterline” but the claim recites “around an axis (Z) that is substantially orthogonal to a surface of the water”. It is unclear if the “waterline” and the “surface of the water” are the same since “waterline” is a term used to refer to the water surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “constraining means configured to”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f). Regardless, examiner is interpreting the claims as per the limitations of claims 2 and 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “its”. It is unclear to what element “its” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “thereto”. It is unclear to what element “thereto” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 2, the claim recites “or rigid element”. It is unclear if applicant means “or a rigid element” or “rigid elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 3, the claim recites “or rigid element”. It is unclear if applicant means “or a rigid element” or “rigid elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “said modules are sized in such a way that they float and support said beam” but the claims recite “said beam or rigid element” before which contradicts the alternative and therefore makes unclear if the beam needs to be present or not. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 4, the claim recites “it”. It is unclear to what element “it” refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 5, the claim recites “if desired” which is improper as it is unclear, due to the optional nature of the term, if the terms after “if desired” are part of the limitations or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “means for removing”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f) as the specification does not provide the specific structural elements that define the means and instead provides open ended examples. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 7, the claim recites “connected to one another a strap, chain or belt” and “of the one or more blades or of said module” when it should be “connected to one another by a strap, chain or belt” and “of the one or more blades of said module”. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 8, the claim recites “anchoring means”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f) as the specification does not provide the specific structural elements that define the means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the waterline”. It is unclear if the “waterline” is the “surface of the water” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 9, the claim recites “anchoring means”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f) as the specification does not provide the specific structural elements that define the means. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 10, the claim recites “by constraining means”. It is unclear if this refers to the “constraining means” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the plurality of beams”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of adjacent beams” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 12, the claim recites “said blades”. It is unclear if this refers to the “one or more blades” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 14, the claim recites “means that transform”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f) as the specification does not provide the specific structural elements that define the means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the blades”. It is unclear if this refers to the “one or more blades” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “optionally” which is improper as it is unclear if the terms after “optionally” are part of the limitations or not. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 15, the claim recites “one or more beams (10), to which one or more of said modules are constrained; wherein one or more of the modules (20) are not constrained to said beams (10) but to other anchoring means independent of the one or more beams (10)”. It is unclear if the “one or more beams” are part of the “constraining means” of claim 1 due to the use of the word “constrained”. Additionally, it is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f) with “other anchoring means” as the specification does not provide the specific structural elements that define the means. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 16, the claim recites “wherein one or more of said modules (20) are directly or indirectly constrained to an anchorage point with roll-up cables”. It is unclear if this anchorage point is part of the “constraining means” of claim 1 due to the use of the word “constrained”. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 17, the claim recites “wherein said modules (20) are constrained with one or more ropes or straps to anchorage points and wherein the anchorage points are movable to compensate for changes in water level or to lift/sink the modules”. It is unclear if the one or more ropes or straps are part of the “constraining means” of claim 1 due to the use of the word “constrained”. Appropriate correction is required.
Every dependent claim is also rejected for depending on a rejected independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Citton et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2020/049379).
As to Claim 1, Citton discloses a system for cleaning rivers and waterways comprising:
A plurality of floating or non-floating modules (10),
Wherein each module (10) comprises a floating or non-floating body (11) and one or more blades (12, 18) directly or indirectly mounted on said body, and
Wherein said module (10) is configured to rotate, due to a rotation of said one or more blades (12, 18) caused at least by a thrusting force exerted by water, around an axis (X) that is substantially orthogonal to a surface of the water when the module is positioned in the water (Page 6, Lines 8-11: “In the example in Figure 3, said module (10) comprises a rotating body (12) constrained to said floating body (11) so as to be able to rotate with respect to the latter around an axis (X), for example orthogonal to the flotation plane of the floating body (11)”), and
Wherein said axis (X), when substantially orthogonal to a waterline (Page 6, Lines 8-11: “In the example in Figure 3, said module (10) comprises a rotating body (12) constrained to said floating body (11) so as to be able to rotate with respect to the latter around an axis (X), for example orthogonal to the flotation plane of the floating body (11)”), forms an angle included between 45 and 90 with the waterline (The angle is 90 degrees); and
Constraining means (32, 331, 332) configured to constrain two or more of said modules (10) so that they are substantially aligned with one another along a main direction (Figure 6), wherein said constraining means are configured to ensure that a minimum clearance is provided between each of said modules (10) and an adjacent module (Figure 2 shows a top view of the modules side by side with a lateral clearance between them with no contact), so that said modules (10) are not in contact with each other during their normal operation, and to further ensure that each of said modules (10), through its own rotation, pushes waste towards a module adjacent thereto (Figure 2; Page 6, Lines 23-25: “When said rotating body (12) rotates due to the thrust of the water on said blades (18), said radial fins (14) move any floating debris in a direction (Y) determined by the direction of rotation and towards an accumulation and recovery area (2)”).
As to Claim 2, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said constraining means comprise a beam (331, 332) or rigid element having a shape that substantially develops according to said main direction.
As to Claim 3, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said beam (331, 332) or rigid element is positioned on said modules (indirectly via 32), and wherein said modules (10) are sized in such a way that they float and support said beam (331, 332).
As to Claim 4, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 3 (Refer to Claim 3 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said beam (331, 332) is configured so that it can be walked on (Crustaceans, for example, can walk over the beam).
As to Claim 5, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein one or more of said modules comprise means for collecting (20) and, if desired, removing oils, hydrocarbons, or floating pollutants present in the water.
As to Claim 6, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said constraining means comprise non-rigid elements (32).
As to Claim 8, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Citton also discloses further comprising anchoring means (31) configured to constrain the beam and/or non-rigid element (32, 331, 332) to a fixed or movable anchorage point, and wherein said anchoring means are configured to allow relative (via lines from 31 to 332) movements of said beam and/or non-rigid element (32, 331, 332) with respect to a respective anchorage point at least in said axis and/or to allow a rotary motion of said beam on a substantially horizontal plane corresponding to the waterline.
As to Claim 9, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 8 (Refer to Claim 8 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said anchoring means (31) are configured to allow (via lines from 31 to 332) the rotary motion of said beam (331, 332) on a substantially vertical plane, orthogonally to the waterline.
As to Claim 10, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein there is a plurality of adjacent beams (332) directly or indirectly constrained to one another (via lines from 31 to 332) by constraining means permitting relative motions between the plurality of beams.
As to Claim 11, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said constraining means (lines from 31 to 332) for said plurality of adjacent beams are releasable (They are releasable since they can be cut or unfastened).
As to Claim 13, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 8 (Refer to Claim 8 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said constraining (32, 331, 332) and anchoring means (31) are configured to lift and/or sink one or more of said modules (10).
As to Claim 16, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein one or more of said modules (10) are directly or indirectly constrained to an anchorage point (31) with roll-up cables (Line between 31 and 332).
As to Claim 17, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Citton also discloses wherein said modules (10) are constrained with one or more ropes (Lines between 31 and 332) or straps to anchorage points (31), and wherein the anchorage points are movable (Elements 31 are capable of being moved) to compensate for changes in water level or to lift/sink the modules.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citton et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2020/049379) in view of Kumpf (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2005/100779).
As to Claim 7, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Citton is silent about wherein all or part of said modules are connected to one another by a strap, chain, or belt in such a way that the rotation of the one or more blades of said module causes a sliding movement of the strap, chain, or belt, and wherein said strap, chain, or belt is connected to a device for storing electrical energy produced by a motion of the strap, chain, or belt. Kumpf discloses modules (13, 14) connected to one another by a strap, chain, or belt (12) in such a way that the rotation of the one or more blades of said module (13, 14) causes a sliding movement of the strap, chain, or belt, and wherein said strap, chain, or belt is connected to a device for storing electrical energy produced by a motion of the strap, chain, or belt (Page 7, Lines 1-6: “This circumferential movement B of the conveyor belt 12 is used for energy conversion in such a way that at least one of the rollers 13, 14 of the arrangement 10 is connected either to a mechanical work-performing device or to an electrical energy generating generator in a manner not shown”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect all or part of said modules to one another by a strap, chain, or belt in such a way that the rotation of the one or more blades of said module causes a sliding movement of the strap, chain, or belt, and wherein said strap, chain, or belt is connected to a device for storing electrical energy produced by a motion of the strap, chain, or belt. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the apparatus by also allowing it to produce energy.
As to Claim 14, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Citton is silent about further comprising means that transform mechanical energy produced from a rotation of the blades into electrical energy, and optionally one or more electrical energy accumulators. Kumpf discloses means (12) that transform mechanical energy produced from a rotation of the blades (17) into electrical energy (Page 7, Lines 1-6: “This circumferential movement B of the conveyor belt 12 is used for energy conversion in such a way that at least one of the rollers 13, 14 of the arrangement 10 is connected either to a mechanical work-performing device or to an electrical energy generating generator in a manner not shown”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide means that transform mechanical energy produced from a rotation of the blades into electrical energy. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the apparatus by also allowing it to produce energy.
Claims 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citton et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2020/049379) alone.
As to Claim 12, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Citton is silent about wherein one or more of said plurality of modules comprise one or more sensors configured to detect the rotation of said blades and/or a position of one or more of said modules with respect to other modules and/or with respect to one or more reference points. But the prior art discussion of Citton discloses a floating module for cleaning water with sensors (Page 2, Lines 13-17: “a device to capture and remove floating waste from the anchor cables of vessels. The device is constrained to the boat by means of a rigid arm and comprises a floating element which is free to rotate due to the water flow and a motor with sensors which, in the event the floating element gets stuck, forces its rotation”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the one or more one or more of said plurality of modules with one or more sensors configured to detect the rotation of said blades and/or a position of one or more of said modules with respect to other modules and/or with respect to one or more reference points. The motivation would have been to monitor the device.
As to Claim 15, Citton discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Citton also discloses one or more beams (332), to which one or more beams (331) of said modules are constrained. However, Citton is silent about wherein one or more of the modules are not constrained to said beams but to other anchoring means independent of the one or more beams. But the embodiment of Figure 5 in the Citton disclosure shows two floating modules with independent anchoring means (Left 31, Right 31) without beams present. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have one or more of the modules are not constrained to said beams but to other anchoring means independent of the one or more beams. The motivation would have been to provide additional anchoring means that are independent for redundancy to ensure anchoring if another anchor fails.
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