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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 May 2025 and 22 July 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “expeditionary net pen” as recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate both “winch line endpoint” and “winch line” (see Fig. 7A).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “340”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Text matter should only be included in the drawings where necessary for understanding. Since all of the text matter in the figures refers to structural elements that have associated reference characters and lead lines, the text matter is not required for understanding of the figures.
The markings in the figures are difficult to read and do not allow the Examiner to identify and distinguish between the structural elements illustrated in the figures. For instance, in Fig. 1 the markings are dark and blurry and the solid black markings in Fig. 2 prevent Examiner from understanding the structural features of the various structural elements. All of the figures should be reviewed and changes should be made where appropriate.
Figure 19 contains two views: an isometric view of the modular maritime deployment system and an exploded view of the product/crop. Each figure should only contain a single view and a unique figure ID. Examiner suggests renumbering the two views as shown in Fig. 19 as Figs. 19A and 19B, or something similar. The specification should be modified accordingly.
The sectional views (Figs. 7A, 7B, 8, 12, 13A, and 13B) should include cross hatching to illustrate the material(s) of which the various structural elements are composed.
Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section. 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract describes purported merits and speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6 of paragraph 0002, “Uncrewed Underwater Vehicle” should be changed to “uncrewed underwater vehicle”.
In line 1 of paragraph 0003, “Unmanned Underwater Vehicles” should be changed to “unmanned underwater vehicles”.
In line 3 of paragraph 0008, “Uncrewed Underwater Vehicles” should be changed to “uncrewed underwater vehicles”.
In line 3 of paragraph 0028, “Energetic Reactive Armor” should be changed to “energetic reactive armor”.
In lines 3 - 4 of paragraph 0028, “Non-Energetic Reactive Armor” should be changed to “non-energetic reactive armor”.
Each abbreviation used in the specification should be defined at least once (see abbreviations in paragraphs 0060 and 0061).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 21, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities::
In line 3 of claim 9, “a plurality of flotation modules” should be changed to “the plurality of flotation modules”.
Regarding claim 21, each of the abbreviations recited in the claim (i.e. “RFID”, “GPS”, “AI”) should be defined at least once in the claims.
Claim 25, line 2: “deployment length” should be changed to “deployed length” to be consistent with terminology used elsewhere in the claims.
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.
Claims 1 - 25 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 1, it is unclear whether “a flotation module” as recited in line 8 refers to one of the “plurality of flotation modules” recited in line 2 or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how many flotation modules Applicant intends to claim. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a plurality of flotation modules” (two or more) but claim 2 recites “some of the plurality of flotation modules”, which requires 3 or more flotation modules. Claims 17 and 22 contain similar issues.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether or not “retrospective deploying/retracting mechanisms” as recited in line 3 includes the “deploying/retracting mechanism” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 17 depends.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear whether “a deploying/retracting mechanism” refers to the “deploying/retracting mechanism” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear whether “a plurality of the deploying/retracting mechanisms” as recited in lines 2 - 3 refers to the “plurality of deploying/retracting mechanisms” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 22 depends, or if they represent additional structural limitations.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, lines 13 - 14: “the water column depth”
Claim 9, line 2: “the deploying/retracting mechanisms”
Claim 16, line 3: “the width”
Claim 16, lines 3 - 4: “the lengthwise center”
Claim 21, line 3: “the floatation module”
Claim 21, line 14: “the system”. It is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to the “modular maritime deployment system” or to the “local control system”.
Claim 22, line 15: “the system”
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 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 17 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doyle (US 8,398,334).
Regarding claim 1, Doyle discloses a modular maritime deployment system comprising: a plurality of flotation modules (a module comprising a pair of ballast tubes 5 located parallel to each other, with one ballast tube located on one side of curtain 8 and the other ballast tube located on the opposite side of curtain 8), each configured to provide buoyancy and structural support, connected together to form a floating support structure; a deployable member (curtain 8), attached to at least one of the flotation modules (5), configured to be stowable in a retracted position and to be extendable downward into a deployed position; and a deploying/retracting mechanism (electric motor and housing 11) mounted on a flotation module (5), configured to control deployment and retraction of the deployable member (8) between the retracted position and the deployed position; wherein the deployed position in respect to the deploying/retracting mechanism is determined by a deployed length by which the deployable member is extended by that deploying/retracting mechanism or by the water column depth (Figs. 2B and 5A; col. 11, line 23 - col. 14, line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Doyle further discloses the deploying/retracting mechanism (11) comprises a reel (stabilizer 9) configured to wind or unwind simultaneously dual tendons (straps 10 are wound/unwound using motor and housing 11) that are attached to the deployable member (8) (Fig. 2B; col. 12, lines 35 – 53; col. 13, lines 10 - 17).
Regarding claim 5, Doyle further discloses a local control system (containment system control 50) configured to adjust automatically a deployed length of the deployable member (8) in response to a bathymetry and/or tidal condition (Fig. 5B; col. 11, lines 15 - 22; col. 14, lines 3 - 46).
Regarding claim 8, Doyle further discloses the deployable member (8) is a deployable barrier member (col. 13, lines 4 - 21).
Regarding claim 9, Doyle further discloses the deployable barrier member (8) is configured so as to be supported by the deploying/retracting mechanisms (11) of the plurality of flotation members (5) (Fig. 2B; col. 13, lines 4 - 21).
Regarding claim 11, Doyle further discloses the deployable barrier member (8) is configured as an environmental response barrier (oil spill barrier) (col. 13, lines 4 - 21).
Regarding claim 14, Doyle further discloses the deployable member comprises a ballast framework (weights, not shown, associated with stabilizer 9 to maintain the curtain 8 in a vertical position) (col. 12, lines 21 - 25).
Regarding claim 15, Doyle further discloses the deployable member (8) comprises a device configured to restrict movement of an underwater threat (col. 13, lines 4 - 21).
Regarding claim 17, Doyle further discloses a plurality of energy sources (electric cable tubes 6), provided on at least some of the plurality of floatation modules (5), configured to provide energy to respective deploying/retracting mechanisms (Fig. 2B; col. 11, line 49 - col. 12, line 13).
Regarding claim 18, Doyle further discloses the tendons are straps (10) configured to distribute forces evenly and enhance controlled deployment (Fig. 2B; col. 13, lines 4 - 17).
Regarding claim 19, Doyle further discloses a sensor (59) (Fig. 5B; col. 14, lines 3 - 20).
Regarding claim 20, Doyle further discloses an automated deployment mechanism (system controller 53) to deploy the deployable member (8) in response to a signal from the sensor (59) (Fig. 5B; col. 14, lines 30 - 46).
Regarding claim 21, Doyle further discloses a local control system (curtain system 58) configured to provide local control a deploying/retracting mechanism (11), mounted on the floatation module (5), based on an input through manual control that is a direct physical actuation or a user-initiated electronic command; an automated pre-programmed sequence that is a condition-based automatic routine; or a sensor-triggered operation, based on input from one or more environmental sensors (59) (col. 14, lines 30 - 67).
Regarding claim 22, Doyle further discloses a centralized control system (master controller, not shown) configured to provide centralized control of some or all of a plurality of the deploying/retracting mechanisms (11), mounted on respective floatation modules (5), based on: an input through manual control that is a direct physical actuation or a user-initiated electronic command; an automated pre- programmed sequence that is a time-based schedule, a pre-set deployment pattern, or a condition-based automatic routine; or a sensor-triggered operation, based on input from one or more environmental sensors (59) (col. 14, lines 30 - 67).
Regarding claim 23, Doyle further discloses an access controller (project logic circuit 60) configured to retract the deployable member (8) (Fig. 5B; col. 14, lines 3 - 59).
Claims 1, 2, 7 - 12, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fredriksen et al. (WO 86/04780).
Regarding claim 1, Fredriksen discloses a modular maritime deployment system comprising: a plurality of flotation modules (pontoons 1), each configured to provide buoyancy and structural support, connected together to form a floating support structure; a deployable member (net 4), attached to at least one of the flotation modules (1), configured to be stowable in a retracted position and to be extendable downward into a deployed position (net 4 being retracted and extended using net reels 5); and a deploying/retracting mechanism (net reels 5) mounted on a flotation module, configured to control deployment and retraction of the deployable member between the retracted position and the deployed position; wherein the deployed position in respect to the deploying/retracting mechanism is determined by a deployed length by which the deployable member is extended by that deploying/retracting mechanism or by the water column depth (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5 of the attached description).
Regarding claim 2, Fredriksen further discloses the retracted position is such that at least a portion of the deployable member (4) is above a waterline (2a) (Figs. 2 - 3).
Regarding claim 7, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable member (4) comprises one or more selectively actuatable sections (net cages 4a, 4b), wherein each section can be independently raised, lowered, or retracted (using slide rods 7) (Figs. 1 - 3; page 5).
Regarding claim 8, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable member (4) is a deployable barrier member (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5 of the attached description).
Regarding claim 9, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable barrier member (4) is configured so as to be supported by the deploying/retracting mechanisms (5) of a plurality of the flotation modules (1) (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5 of the attached description).
Regarding claim 10, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable barrier member (4) is configured so as to enable a length of extension of one portion of the deployable barrier to differ from a length of extension of another portion of the deployable barrier member (using slide rods 7 to adjust depth of net cages 4a, 4b) (Figs. 1 - 3; page 5).
Regarding claim 11, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable barrier member (4) is configured as an environmental response barrier (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5).
Regarding claim 12, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable barrier member (4) is configured as an expeditionary net pen (net cages 4a, 4b) (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5).
Regarding claim 15, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable member (4) comprises a device configured to disable or restrict movement of an underwater threat (net cages are configured to restrict movement of underwater threats such as sharks) (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5).
Regarding claim 24, Fredriksen further discloses the deployable member (4) is configured as an aquaculture support structure; the retracted position is selected to facilitate harvesting and/or maintenance (cleaning of net 4); and the deployed position is selected depending on an environmental condition (water temperature) to enhance growth rate of a marine species (fish) that is under cultivation (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 6).
Regarding claim 25, Fredriksen further discloses the system is configured to control the deployment length of the deployable member (4) based on an environmental condition (water temperature) (Figs. 1 - 3; pages 4 - 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Johnson et al. (US 2021/0396498).
Regarding claim 4, Doyle teaches a floating module Doyle fails to disclose a dual tether, connecting at least some of the plurality of the flotation modules, secured to each of the connected floating modules using locking clamps. Johnson teaches a dual tether (tension members comprising ropes 12, 13), connecting at least some of the plurality of the flotation modules (floats 22), secured to each of the connected floating modules using locking clamps (28) (Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5E; paragraphs 0031 and 0045 - 0047). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the plurality of flotation modules as disclosed by Doyle with the tethers and clamps as taught by Johnson so that the deployable member and the tension ropes work in tandem as an elastic system, allowing the system to better absorb and arrest an impacting object.
Regarding claim 13, Doyle fails to disclose a flexible net post, positioned on or atop an aforementioned flotation module, the net post extending upward and supporting an above-water net, wherein the net post comprises a resilient material and is configured to bend under wave action or impact. Johnson teaches a flexible net post (support post 21), positioned on or atop an aforementioned flotation module (22), the net post extending upward and supporting an above-water net (15), wherein the net post comprises a resilient material (compliant material) and is configured to bend under wave action or impact (Fig. 3A; paragraphs 0034 - 0036 and 0038). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the flexible net post and above-water net as taught by Johnson to allow the system to be simultaneously used as an above-water barrier and an underwater barrier.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Woojosik et al. (KR 102198418). Doyle discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the deployable member is a bubble generator. Woojosik teaches a deployable member is a bubble generator (aeration tubes 300, bubble nozzles 310) (Figs. 2 – 4; paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0023, 0026 – 0034, and 0041) to prevent the diffusion of pollutants. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the deployable member comprising a bubble generator as taught by Woojosik for the deployable member comprising a curtain as disclosed by Doyle to prevent the diffusion of pollutants while not creating a physical obstruction to the movement of marine life such as fish.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Milligan (GB 2275893). Doyle further discloses at least one of the floatation modules has a dual hull (a flotation module comprising two hulls (ballast tubes 5), one of ballast tubes located on either side of the deployable member 8) (Fig. 2B). Doyle fails to disclose at least one of the flotation modules having a shape which, when viewed from above, is narrower on the lengthwise ends thereof than the width near the lengthwise center thereof. Milligan teaches a buoyancy tube (2) having a shape which, when viewed from above, is narrower on the lengthwise ends thereof than the width near the lengthwise center thereof (Fig. 2; abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the shape of the floatation tube having a shape which, when viewed from above, is narrower on the lengthwise ends thereof than the width near the lengthwise center thereof as taught by Milligan for the shape of the floatation tube as disclosed by Doyle as a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
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
6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights