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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D in the reply filed on 3/12/26 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winger et al. (US 20210169057 A1), hereafter referred to as “Winger”.
Regarding claim 1, Winger discloses a segment for use in a trawl system (figs. 1-11) having a cable (12-18) and a longitudinal axis (a towing direction; fig. 3), the segment comprising:
a segment body (10) having an inner side (side of 200 facing a centerline of 1 in fig. 3), and an outer side (side of 200 facing away from the centerline of 1 in fig. 3); and
at least one passage extending from the inner side to the outer side for receiving the cable of the trawl system (paragraph [0026] and figs. 5-6 teaching pockets receiving elements 12-18);
wherein the segment body is hydrodynamically shaped such that the segment is adapted to be urged away from the longitudinal axis when the segment is pulled through water by the cable (paragraph [0005] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Winger discloses the segment of claim 1, and further discloses that the segment body (10) is shaped such that when the segment is pulled through water, the inner side forms a high pressure region and the outer side forms a low pressure region (paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0024],[0026] teaching that the foil profile generating lift necessarily has higher pressure on one face and lower pressure on the other) and a pressure gradient between the inner side and the outer side generates a lateral lift force that urges the segment in a direction away from the longitudinal axis (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Winger discloses the segment of claim 2, and further discloses that the inner side of the segment body (10) is generally planar (side of 10, 200 facing element 1 is generally flat; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Winger discloses the segment of claim 2, and further discloses that the outer side of the segment body (10) is generally convex (side of 10, 200 facing away from element 1 is generally convex; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Winger discloses the segment of claim 1, and further discloses that the at least one passage has a passage longitudinal axis that forms an incidence angle with a flow direction when the segment is pulled through water (paragraph [0009] and [0024]), and wherein the incidence angle is based on a ratio of lateral lift force to drag force (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Winger discloses the segment of claim 1, and further discloses that the at least one passage comprises a plurality of passages for receiving a plurality of the cables (paragraph [0026] and figs. 5-6 teaching a plurality of pockets receiving elements 12-18), wherein when each one of the plurality of passages receives a corresponding one of the plurality of cables (fig. 5), the segment is restrained from rolling (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Winger discloses a trawl net system (figs. 1-11), comprising:
a trawl net (1) having a first side and a second side with an opening therebetween (fig. 3);
a first bridle (4) adapted to be coupled to the first side (fig. 3) and a second bridle (5) adapted to be coupled to the second side (fig. 3), each bridle comprising at least one cable (3, 4 are cables);
a first plurality (100) of segments (200; first plurality at a first side of fig. 3) and a second plurality (100) of segments (200; second plurality at a second side of fig. 3), wherein each segment of the first and second plurality of segments comprises:
a segment body having an inner side (sides of 200 facing a centerline of 1; fig. 3), and an outer side (sides of 200 facing away from the centerline of 1 in fig. 3);
the segment body defining at least one passage extending therethrough from the inner side to the outer side for receiving the at least one cable (paragraph [0026] and figs. 5-6 teaching pockets receiving elements 12-18);
wherein the first plurality of segments is positionable on the first bridle (fig. 3) and the second plurality of segments is positionable on the second bridle (fig. 3), wherein each segment body is hydrodynamically shaped such that the first plurality of segments and the second plurality of segments are adapted to be urged away from each other when the segments are pulled through water by the bridles (paragraph [0005] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 10, and further discloses that at least one of the first bridle (4; fig. 3) and the second bridle (5; fig. 3) comprises a plurality of cables (elements 4 and 5) and each segment (200) in the corresponding plurality of segments comprises a plurality of passages (19) for receiving the plurality of cables (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 10, further discloses
a third bridle (1; fig. 3) couplable to the first side (fig. 3) and a fourth bridle (2; fig. 3) couple to the second side (fig. 3), each of the third and fourth bridles having the at least one cable (2 and 3; fig. 3);
a third plurality of the segments (6) positionable on the third bridle (fig. 3) and a fourth plurality of the segments (3) positionable on the fourth bridle (fig. 3),
wherein the third plurality of segments and the fourth plurality of segments are adapted to be urged away from each other when the segments are pulled through water by the bridles (as the trawl is drawn through the water, elements 3 and 6 would naturally be urged away when the segments are pulled through water by the bridles; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 12, and further discloses that at least one of the first bridle (4), the second bridle (5), the third bridle (1), and the fourth bridle (2) comprises a plurality of cables (see multiple elements 7 attached to elements 4 and 5; fig. 3) and each segment in the corresponding plurality of segments defines a plurality of passages (19) for receiving the plurality of cables (fig. 7 and paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 12, and further discloses a first connecting cable (at least one element 7; fig. 3) for connecting the first bridle (4) to the third bridle (1; fig. 3) and a second connecting cable (at least one additional element 7; fig. 3) for connecting the second bridle (5) to the fourth bridle (2; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 10, and further discloses that each segment (200) has a center point and a length extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge (fig. 8) and each plurality of segments is distributed along the respective bridle with an inter-segment distance that reduces shielding between adjacent segments (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Winger discloses the trawl net system of claim 10, and further discloses that the first side is a first lateral side (fig. 3) and the second side is a second lateral side (fig. 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dixon (WO 9516344 A1), hereafter referred to as “Dixon”.
Regarding claim 5, Winger teaches the segment of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the segment body is a spherical dome.
Dixon teaches a segment (fig. 1) including a spherical dome portion (fig. 1, where element 1 locates, which is spherical in the same manner as stated in instant paragraph [00140]; a generally planar inner side with a generally convex outer side).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the segment of Winger, such that the segment body is a spherical dome, as taught by Dixon, since it is well settled, that merely changing the size or shape of a prior art device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size or shape was significant (MPEP 2144, citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winger as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Baungaard et al. (EP 3562301 B1), hereafter referred to as “Baungaard”.
Regarding claim 7, Winger teaches the segment of claim 6, and further teaches an angle of 35 degrees between a body and flow direction (paragraph [0024]), but does not explicitly teach that the incidence angle is in the range of about 0 to about 30 degrees.
Baungaard teaches a segment (figs. 1-2) including an incidence angle is in the range of about 0 to about 30 degrees (paragraph [0015] teaching the angle between a body and flow direction between 10 and 20 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the segment of Winger, such that the incidence angle is in the range of about 0 to about 30 degrees, as taught by Baungaard, in order to improve the efficiency of the segment by implementing a lower angle range (paragraph [0013]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winger as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 2817427 Y), hereafter referred to as “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 8, Winger teaches the segment of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that the ratio is above about 1.5.
Zhang teaches a segment (fig. 1) with a ratio above 1.5 (see attached machine translation, page 2, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the segment of Winger, such that the ratio is above 1.5, as taught by Zhang, in order to improve the performance of the segment (see attached machine translation, page 2, paragraph 4).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winger as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 16, Winger teaches the trawl net system of claim 15, and further teaches an inter-segment distance that is approximately 1.5 segment lengths (paragraph [0009]), but does not explicitly teach that the inter-segment distance is greater than two lengths of the segment.
It is well settled, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trawl net system of Winger such that the inter-segment distance is greater than two lengths of the segment, in order to accommodate for the size and shape of the segment.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643