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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “one of the parallel connector bars 7” [0047] should be --one of the parallel connector bars 6--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “each individual filter made of natural or synthetic materials configure to filter microplastics from the water” is missing a linking verb (e.g., “is” or “being”).
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.
Claim 3, 6-7 and all claims that depend therefrom 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “each attachment is an individual filter, a sensor , or an electric system” renders that scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether every attachment must be the same type of component, whether different attachments may correspond to different recited components, or whether a single attachment may constitute more than one of the recited components. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 6, the term “subcomponent” lacks antecedent basis because claim 6 depends from claim 1, which does not recite any subcomponents. Therefore , it is unclear what structure is being referenced by the term “subcomponent”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yetter et al. (US-7004092-B2, hereafter Yetter).
Regarding claim 1, Yetter discloses a device (10) comprising(Fig. 2, 10):
a first floatation element (11) and a second floatation element (14), each having a top surface configured to be disposed above a surface of water, and a bottom surface configured to be disposed below a surface of water (Fig. 2, 11, 14);
and a plurality of parallel connector bars (22) removably coupled to a top surface of the first floatation element and a top surface of the second floatation element (Fig. 2, 22),
each parallel connector bar comprising a plurality of attachment points (Fig. 1, 22),
each attachment point configured to be removably coupled to one or more attachments configured to be held over or at least partially in the water(Fig. 2, 18, 19, 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yetter discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of attachments, each removably coupled to one of the plurality of attachment points (Fig. 2, 21).
Regarding claim 5, Yetter discloses the device of claim 1, wherein each floatation element is comprised of a plurality of subcomponents (11), each subcomponent being a standalone floatation element coupled to at least one other subcomponent (Fig. 4, 11, 21; Col. 3, lines 19-54).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Yetter discloses the device of claim 1, wherein each subcomponent can be coupled to another subcomponent via a locking mechanism (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
658
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Yetter discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the locking mechanism is a puzzle joint or a bolt attachment (Fig. 6, 13,20).
Regarding claim 8, Yetter discloses a kit, comprising:
a first floatation element (11) and a second floatation element (14), each having a top surface configured to be disposed above a surface of water, and a bottom surface configured to be disposed below a surface of water; (Fig. 2, 11, 14),
and a plurality of parallel connector bars (22), each connector bar configured to be removably coupled to a top surface of the first floatation element and a top surface of the second floatation element(Fig. 2, 22).
In a claim that was directed to a kit of component parts capable of being assembled, the court held that limitations such as "members adapted to be positioned" and "portions . . . being resiliently dilatable whereby said housing may be slidably positioned" serve to precisely define present structural attributes of interrelated component parts of the claimed assembly. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976).
Therefore, the recited kit is met by Yetter’s disclosure of the corresponding structural components configure for assembly into the disclosed float structure.
Regarding claim 9, Yetter discloses the kit of claim 8, further comprising a first support bar (21) configured to be removably coupled to the top surface of the first floatation element, and a second support bar (21) configured to be removably coupled to the top surface of the second floatation element(Fig. 2, 21).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetter in view of Whittington (US-10689821-B1).
Regarding claim 3, Yetter does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein each attachment is an individual filter, a sensor, or an electric system.
Whittington teaches a water filter (14) disposed on a water filter boat for filtering water and removing algae and debris from the water (Fig. 4, 14). The water filter (14) constitutes an attachment configured to be held over or at least partially in the water and removably incorporated into the disclosed water treatment system.
PNG
media_image5.png
454
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify the device of Yetter to include the water filter as taught by Whittington as one of the attachments removably coupled to an attachment point of Yetter, in order to provide filtration capability.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetter in view of Whittington and Martini (DE-102021006140-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yetter and Whittington do not teach the device of claim 3, wherein each individual filter made of natural or synthetic materials configured to filter microplastics from the water.
Martini teaches a filter(12) disposed in a water permeable lower portion of a floating transport container, wherein the filter is used to filter microplastics from water (Fig. 6, 10, 12; paragraphs 48-49). Martini further teaches that the filter may be formed from thermoplastic materials, including TUP, PET, PVC, or rubber, which are synthetic materials (paragraphs 50-52).
PNG
media_image6.png
621
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify one of the attachments removably coupled to an attachment point of Yetter to include the water filter as taught by Whittington, wherein the filter is formed from the synthetic materials as taught by Martini and configured to filter microplastics from water, in order to provide filtration of microplastics from the water.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yetter in view of Martini.
Regarding claim 10, Yetter does not teach the kit of claim 8, further comprising one or more attachments.
Martini teaches a floating transport container one or more attachments, including a filter (12), a module with pump, GPS and AIS (23), and a position light (21), configured for use with a floating structure(Fig. 8, 12, 21, 23; paragraphs 97-99, 125,132).
PNG
media_image7.png
622
561
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to include one or more attachments as taught by Martini in the kit of Yetter in order to provide additional functional capability to the floating system and permit selective installation of desired components after assembly of the floating structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0117. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights