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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 26 and 29 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 26, the use of the term “its” as recited in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 29, it is unclear whether “one or more deploying/retracting mechanisms” recited in lines 2 - 3 refers to one or more of the plurality of deploying/retracting mechanisms as recited in claim 1, from which claim 29 depends, or if it/they represent additional structural limitation(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ecker (US 5,051,029).
Regarding claim 30, Ecker discloses a flotation module for a modular maritime security system, the flotation module comprising: a flotation module body (inflatable boom 24, inflatable boom arms 26; door 16) configured to provide buoyancy and structural support; a deploying/retracting mechanism (winches 92, straps 94) mounted on the flotation module body; a first passage (opening in door 16 through which winch line of the left winch 92 extends; see Fig. 15) and a second passage (opening in door through which the winch line of the right winch 92 extends; see Fig. 15) extending through the flotation module body (extends through door 16), each configured to receive at least one of a winch line and a lifting tendon; a ballast framework (weighted straps 30); and at least one of the winch line and the lifting tendon extending from the deploying/retracting mechanism (92, 94) through at least one of the first passage and the second passage and operatively coupling the deploying/retracting mechanism (92, 94) to the ballast framework (30), wherein operation of the deploying/retracting mechanism moves the ballast framework between: a retracted position adjacent the flotation module body, in which the ballast framework (30) is configured to support above a waterline a corresponding segment of a deployable subsurface security barrier (curtain 28) associated with the flotation module; and a deployed position in which the ballast framework is lowered relative to the flotation module body to permit the corresponding segment of the deployable subsurface security barrier (28) to extend downward into a water column (22) (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6A, and 15 - 17; col. 5, line 36 - col. 6, line 39; col. 15, line 45 - col. 16, line 20).
Regarding claim 31, Ecker further discloses the ballast framework is configured to support the corresponding segment of the deployable subsurface security barrier (28) in an accordion-folded configuration above the waterline when the ballast framework (30) is in the retracted position (Figs. 5 and 15 - 17; col. 5, lines 41 - 46; col. 6, lines 5 - 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 5, 10, 13, 16 - 20, 27, and 28 are allowed.
Claims 26 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 19 August 2026, with respect to claims 1 - 5, 10, 13, 16 - 20, 27, and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 - 5, 10, 13, 16 - 20, 27, and 28 has been withdrawn.
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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/15/2026
