DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 5 May 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 18-33 are pending;
Claims 1-17 are cancelled;
Claims 18-33 are new;
Claims 18-33 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5 May 2026 have been fully considered and they are moot since a new modifying reference is being used to reject the claims.
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 18-20, 22-27, 29 and 31-33 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 Truebe et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,457,436).
As to Claim 18, 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 waterline 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), wherein each module (10) rotates so as to push waste towards the adjacent module (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)”).
However, Citton is silent about wherein two or more of the modules are directly coupled to a beam so as to be substantially aligned with one another along a main direction, wherein the two or more of the modules are further coupled to the beam so as to ensure that a minimum clearance is always provided between each of the modules and an adjacent module, so that the modules are not in contact with each other during a normal operation of the modules. Truebe discloses two or more modules (Left 12, 14 is a first module; and Right 12, 14 is a second module) directly coupled to a beam (10, 20) so as to be substantially aligned with one another along a main direction, wherein the two or more of the modules are further coupled to the beam (10, 20) so as to ensure that a minimum clearance is always provided between each of the modules (Joint 20 of the beam always ensures a minimum clearance between the two modules) and an adjacent module, so that the modules are not in contact with each other during a normal operation of the modules (Joint 20 of the beam always ensures a minimum clearance between the two modules so that there is no contact with each other). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have two or more of the modules directly coupled to a beam so as to be substantially aligned with one another along a main direction, wherein the two or more of the modules are further coupled to the beam so as to ensure that a minimum clearance is always provided between each of the modules and an adjacent module, so that the modules are not in contact with each other during a normal operation of the modules. The motivation would have been to make the structure more static for a more uniform operation and easier deployment.
As to Claim 19, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the beam is positioned on the modules (10), and wherein the modules are sized to float and support the beam (Truebe: 10, 20).
As to Claim 20, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 19 (Refer to Claim 19 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the beam (Truebe: 10, 20) is configured so that the beam can be walked on (Small marine animals, for example, can walk over the beam).
As to Claim 22, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 19 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the beam (Truebe: 10, 20) comprises a non-rigid element (Truebe: 20).
As to Claim 23, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 22 (Refer to Claim 22 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches further comprising anchoring devices (31) positioned at, or in proximity of, a bank of the watercourse, wherein the anchoring devices constrain the beam (Truebe: 10, 20) and/or the non-rigid element to a fixed or movable anchorage point, and wherein the anchoring devices allow relative movements (via lines from 31 to 332) of the beam and/or the non-rigid element with respect to a respective anchorage point at least in the axis and/or allow a rotary motion of the beam and/or the non-rigid element on a substantially horizontal plane corresponding to the waterline.
As to Claim 24, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 23 (Refer to Claim 23 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the anchoring devices (31) are configured to allow (via lines from 31 to 332) the rotary motion of the beam (Truebe: 10, 20) and/or the non-rigid element on a substantially vertical plane, orthogonally to the waterline.
As to Claim 25, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 23 (Refer to Claim 23 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein there is a plurality of adjacent beams (Truebe: 10, 20) directly or indirectly coupled to one another by constraining devices (Truebe: 20) allowing relative motions between the plurality of adjacent beams.
As to Claim 26, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 25 (Refer to Claim 25 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the constraining devices (Truebe: 20) for the plurality of adjacent beams are releasable.
As to Claim 27, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 25 (Refer to Claim 25 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein the constraining devices (Truebe: 20) and the anchoring devices (31) are configured to lift and/or sink one or more of the modules
As to Claim 29, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). However, Citton as modified 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 31, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein one or more of the modules (10) are not constrained to the beam but are anchored 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.
As to Claim 32, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 33 (Refer to Claim 33 discussion). However, Citton as modified is silent about wherein one or more of the modules are not constrained to the beam but are anchored to a bottom of the waterway. But the embodiment of Figure 5 in the Citton disclosure shows two floating modules with independent anchoring means (Left 31, Right 31) which are not constrained to a beam but are anchored to a bottom of the waterway. 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 not constrained to the beam but anchored to a bottom of the waterway. The motivation would have been to provide additional anchoring means that are independent for redundancy to ensure anchoring if another anchor fails.
As to Claim 33, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 32 (Refer to Claim 32 discussion). Citton as modified also teaches wherein one or more of said modules (10) are directly or indirectly constrained to the bottom (via 31) of the waterway with roll-up cables (Line between 31 and 332).
Claim 21 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 Truebe et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,457,436); and further in view of Riedel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0122718).
As to Claim 21, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). However, Citton as modified is silent about wherein one or more of the modules comprise absorbent elements for collecting oils, hydrocarbons, or floating pollutants present in the water. Riedel discloses one or more modules (1) comprising absorbent elements for collecting oils, hydrocarbons, or floating pollutants present in the water (Paragraph 0030: “In this manner, a chain of modules 1 can be disposed transverse to the expected drift of spilt oil, the oil everywhere encountering an oil absorbing module 1”). 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 said modules comprise absorbent elements for collecting oils, hydrocarbons, or floating pollutants present in the water. The motivation would have been to assist in cleaning the water body.
Claims 28 and 30 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 Truebe et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,457,436); and further in view of Kumpf (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2005/100779).
As to Claim 28, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). However, Citton as modified is silent about wherein all or some of the 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 causes a sliding movement of the strap, chain, or belt, and wherein the 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 some of the 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 causes a sliding movement of the strap, chain, or belt, and wherein the 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 30, Citton as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). However, Citton as modified is silent about wherein at least some of the modules are coupled to one another by belts, chains, or straps, wherein a rotation of the at least some of the modules produces kinetic energy, and wherein the belts, chains, or straps are connected to an electrical device so that the kinetic energy is transformed into electrical energy to be stored in the electrical device. 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 at least some of the modules produces kinetic energy, and wherein the belts, chains, or straps are connected to an electrical device so that the kinetic energy is transformed into electrical energy to be stored in the electrical device (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 have at least some of the modules coupled to one another by belts, chains, or straps, wherein a rotation of the at least some of the modules produces kinetic energy, and wherein the belts, chains, or straps are connected to an electrical device so that the kinetic energy is transformed into electrical energy to be stored in the electrical device. The motivation would have been to increase the utility of the apparatus by also allowing it to produce energy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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