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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on July 06, 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 18-19 have been added. Claims 9 and 12-17 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 18-19 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 3, “vertical guides along a center column and a tank wall”.
In claim 8, “soft flexible polymeric lamellae against the tank wall and the center column”.
In claim 11, “a pump”.
In claim 18, “a monitoring system”.
In claim 19, “at least one of a camera, a hydrophone, or a radar”.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 is currently dependent upon cancelled claim 12. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 19 as being dependent upon claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8, lines 2-3, recites “soft flexible polymeric lamellae”. This limitation does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure, filed February 12, 2025, specifically wherein the lamellae are “polymeric”. The specification, filed February 12, 2025, discloses “soft, flexible, plastic-like lamellae” (see specification, page 4 of 7, line 16) but does not specify the lamellae as being “polymeric”. It is further noted that the terms “plastic-like” and “polymeric” have distinct meanings in the art such that use of the term “plastic-like” in the original disclosure does not provide sufficient support for use of the term “polymeric” in amended versions of the claims. Additionally, the drawings, filed February 12, 2025, do not appear to indicate any elements as being made of a polymer material. For at least these reasons, claim 8 does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure and is considered as having new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10 is 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.
Claim 10, lines 3-5, recites “while allowing the liquid to freely flow through the guiding grid, while the liquid freely flows through the guiding grid”. The subject matter of the first limitation of the above-cited portion of claim 10 appears to be substantially repeated in the second limitation such that it is unclear how the second limitation further limits the first limitation, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite. Based on the Examiner’s understanding of the invention as disclosed, Applicant is suggested to remove either of the limitations to clarify the scope of the claim.
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(s) 1-2, 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick.
Regarding claim 1, Vatsvag discloses a device (arrangement 1) for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms from a tank1 (framework 5 having netting 12; fig. 1; page 9/24, lines 5-7), wherein the device comprises
at least one arrangement (“fish inlet” shown in fig. 4) for the removal of liquid and marine organisms (page 10/24, lines 5-8 and 14-16); and
a horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid (“fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1),
wherein the at least one arrangement is centrally positioned directly above the horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid (fig. 1 and 4, “fish inlet” is positioned at the center of “fish handling frame”/netting 12 and is positioned directly above “fish handling frame”/netting 12),
wherein the center of the guiding grid and the at least one arrangement are positioned vertically lower than an outer edge of the guiding grid (fig. 4, inner edge of “fish handling frame” and “fish inlet” are positioned vertically lower than outer edge of “fish handling frame”), and
wherein the guiding grid is designed to be raised from an inactive position at the bottom of the tank (fig. 2) and vertically upward for the guiding of liquid and marine organisms out of the tank via the at least one arrangement (fig. 3-4; page 9/24, line 34 – page 10/24, line 16).
Vatsvag does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the at least one arrangement is a suction arrangement.
However, Goodrick is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the at least one arrangement is a suction arrangement (comprises entrance 130 coupled to vacuum/pressure inlet 170; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with arrangement for the removal of liquid and marine organisms of Vatsvag to have made the arrangement a suction arrangement as taught by Goodrick with a reasonable expectation of success to further facilitate transfer of fish from one location to another (para [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (from Vatsvag, “fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) is configured to be raised in the tank (from Vatsvag, see fig. 2-4) simultaneously with a constant water flow being introduced into and up through the at least one suction arrangement (from Goodrick, para [0056], [0059], and [0062], entrance 130 coupled to vacuum/pressure inlet 170 is capable of accommodating a constant water flow; combined device of Vatsvag and Goodrick is capable of supporting operations simultaneously).
Regarding claim 4, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (from Vatsvag, “fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) has a central channel (from Vatsvag, central opening in netting 12 and cylinder element 3; fig. 1) shaped to direct the marine organisms towards this channel when the guiding grid moves upward (from Vatsvag, fig. 1-4, central opening in netting 12 and cylinder element 3 are shaped such that they are capable of directing marine organisms thereto when “fish handling frame” is raised).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112 issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (from Vatsvag, “fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) has a grid structure of mesh, grating, or lattice material (from Vatsvag, fig. 1) with openings sized to retain the marine organisms in the tank (from Vatsvag, fig. 1), while allowing the liquid to freely flow through the guiding grid, while the liquid freely flows through the guiding grid (from Vatsvag, page 9/24, line 34 – page 10/24, line 16).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madsen et al. (US 2012/0167829 A1), hereinafter Madsen, and Osterhus et al. (US 2021/0400927 A1), hereinafter Osterhus.
Regarding claim 3, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the guiding grid is configured to be moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides along a center column and a tank wall.
However, Madsen is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (tension members 154) is configured to be moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides (longitudinal adjustment bars 118) along a center column (center spar buoy 110; fig. 3C; para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with guiding grid and center column of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the vertical guides along the center column as taught by Madsen with a reasonable expectation of success to better control movement of the guiding grid along the center column (para [0040]).
Additionally, Osterhus is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (elongated vertical support column 200 having longitudinal track 340) is configured to be moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides (guiding recess 341) along a tank wall (vertical rods 313; fig. 5; para [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with guiding grid and tank wall of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the vertical guides along the tank wall as taught by Osterhus with a reasonable expectation of success to better control movement of the guiding grid along the tank wall and to prevent unwanted rotation of the guiding grid relative to the tank wall (para [0103]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Espedalen (US 4,743,742 A), hereinafter Espedalen.
Regarding claim 5, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 4, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the central channel of the guiding grid comprises at least one recess.
However, Espedalen is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the central channel of the guiding grid (wall of vessel 1 having opening for fish-inlet end 15) comprises at least one recess (fish-inlet end 15; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with guiding grid and central channel of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the at least one recess as taught by Espedalen with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate smoother entry of fish into the suction arrangement on the central channel of the guiding grid.
Regarding claim 6, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the at least one suction arrangement (from Espedalen, pipe 2) is arranged in said at least one recess (from Espedalen, fish-inlet end 15; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the at least one suction arrangement (from Espedalen, pipe 2) is located in said central channel (from Espedalen, wall of vessel 1 having opening for fish-inlet end 15; fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick, Madsen et al. (US 2012/0167829 A1), hereinafter Madsen, and Osterhus et al. (US 2021/0400927 A1), hereinafter Osterhus, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hoff (NO 20201239 A1), hereinafter Hoff.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112 issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the guiding grid is constructed as a framework with an inner and outer ring with soft flexible polymeric lamellae against the tank wall and the center column.
However, Hoff is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (collapsible material 3) is constructed as a framework (fig. 3 and 6) with an inner and outer ring (secondary hose 8a and hose 2; fig. 6) with soft flexible polymeric lamellae (collar 6; page 27/32, third paragraph) against the tank wall (wall 10; fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with guiding grid of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the framework with inner and outer rings and lamellae as taught by Hoff with a reasonable expectation of success to better contain marine organisms within the device and to allow vertical movement of the guiding grid without damage to surrounding structures (page 27/32, first and second paragraphs).
Vatsvag as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose soft flexible polymeric lamellae against the center column. However, since Vatsvag as modified does explicitly disclose soft flexible polymeric lamellae against the tank wall, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have also provided said lamellae against the center column, with the motivation of providing a similar seal between a hose structure and a surrounding structure. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to include similar soft flexible polymeric lamellae against the center column with the motivation of preventing damage to the center column during movement of the guiding grid.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vangen et al. (WO 2017/030445 A1), hereinafter Vangen.
Regarding claim 11, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one suction arrangement (from Goodrick, comprises entrance 130 coupled to vacuum/pressure inlet 170) is connected to a pump (from Goodrick, “associated pump” para [0056]) configured to lift the marine organisms out of the tank (from Goodrick, corral 10; para [0056] and [0059]) through a piping (from Goodrick, tubing of entrance 130; para [0056] and [0059]).
Vatsvag as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the piping is a flexible piping.
However, Vangen is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the piping is a flexible piping (hose 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with suction arrangement with pump and piping of Vatsvag as modified to have made the piping a flexible piping as taught by Vangen with a reasonable expectation of success to limit injury to the marine organisms as they pass through the piping.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), hereinafter Goodrick, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halachmi et al. (WO 2016/139663 A1), hereinafter Halachmi.
Regarding claim 18, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a monitoring system configured to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms, wherein monitoring data from the monitoring system is used to control elevation of the horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid.
However, Halachmi is in the field of devices for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms (title; abstract) and teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms (page 8/30, lines 16 – page 9/30, line 2), wherein monitoring data from the monitoring system is used to control elevation of the horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid (page 6/30, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device with guiding grid of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the teaching of monitoring stress level and position of marine organisms within the device as taught by Halachmi with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the overall welfare of the marine organisms by addressing stressful environmental conditions (page 6/30, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 19, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one of a camera, a hydrophone, or a radar (from Halachmi, page 11/30, lines 10-19, optical sensor 650 may include a camera).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 1 of 6), filed July 06, 2026, regarding the drawing objection pertaining to subject matter of claims 3, 8, 11, and 13 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the “features at issue – e.g., vertical guides…flexible lamellae…pump…and monitoring components… are conventional mechanical components whose detailed illustration is not essential”. However, per 37 CFR 1.83(a), “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” Each of the elements listed above under “Drawing Objections” is considered essential to the understanding of the arrangement and structure of the claimed invention and is thus required to be illustrated in the drawings in some manner, even if in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 2-3 of 6), filed July 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2-3, 8, and 10-11 under §112(b) have been fully considered. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s positive recitation of the claimed “tank” and will interpret the claims accordingly hereinafter.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 4 of 6), filed July 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the “architectures [of Ben-Tovim and the claimed invention] are fundamentally different: Ben-Tovim is a vertical piston-in-tube system, whereas the claimed invention uses a horizontal perforated grid in an open aquaculture tank”. Applicant further argues that the “claimed spatial relationship…is absent from Ben-Tovim”. However, in the instant rejection, Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1) has been substituted for Ben-Tovim for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Ben-Tovim moot.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 4 of 6), filed July 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “Vatsvag already has a functioning mechanism for removing fish from the tank” and that a “person skilled in the art…would have no reason to replace this working outlet with a suction arrangement positioned directly above the guiding grid”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments and in light of the new rejection presented above utilizing the prior art of at least Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1) in view of Goodrick (US 2015/0114305 A1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the “fish inlet” of Vatsvag to be a suction arrangement as taught by Goodrick. In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon “impermissible hindsight reconstruction”, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, even though no “problem with the speed or effectiveness of fish removal” is explicitly disclosed by either Vatsvag or Goodrick, it still would have been obvious to modify the arrangement for the removal of liquid and marine organisms with a general, well-understood suction mechanism, such as the pump-powered vacuum system of Goodrick (described in para [0056] and [0059]), in order to make further improvements to the system of Vatsvag. For example, one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification or improvement in order to increase the speed at which fish are transferred.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 4-5 of 6), filed July 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the previously presented prior art references do not teach wherein “the center of the guiding grid and the at least one suction arrangement are positioned vertically lower than an outer edge of the guiding grid” and further asserts that “Vatsvag’s grid…is shown as essentially flat or uniform in height”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vatsvag explicitly discloses a guiding grid that is slanted inwardly and is not uniform in vertical height, as is evidenced by each of Figures 1-5 of Vatsvag (see “fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) and is described throughout the “Detailed description” of Vatsvag (see at least page 9/24, lines 14-18). In particular, Figure 4 of Vatsvag shows wherein the center of the guiding grid (“fish handling frame”) and the arrangement (“fish inlet”, modified to be a suction arrangement by Goodrick) are explicitly positioned vertically lower than an outer edge of the guiding grid.
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner interprets the element “tank” to be positively recited per the explanation provided in Applicant’s remarks, filed on July 06, 2026.
