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 .
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 –
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Soil Machine Dynamics (EP 3889360), {hereinafter SMD}.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 14, SMD discloses an apparatus for removing nodular material from a floor of a body of water, the apparatus comprising: a moving means [14] comprising a vehicle [1, 2 & 4-7] for moving the apparatus relative to a floor of a body of water; a material removing means [16] for removing nodular material [2] from the floor of the body of water; wherein the material removing means comprises at least one inlet [18] and, floor engaging means for engaging the floor of the body of water, wherein the floor engaging means comprises a plurality of protrusions [26] arranged forwardly of at least one said inlet in a direction of travel of the apparatus and to extend substantially in a direction of travel of the apparatus [Figures 1 & 2].
Regarding claims 2-4, SMD further discloses tynes [26; Figure 3]; a separator [within control unit 16]; and the inclined surface [22; Figure 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.
Claim(s) 6-10, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soil Machine Dynamics (EP 3889360), {hereinafter SMD} in view of Vandycke (US 6449883).
Regarding claims 6-10, 12, 13 and 15, SMD fails to disclose the protrusions comprise at least one notch and a water jet.
Vandycke teaches an underwater dredging device comprising a protrusion [2 & 6; Figures 4A-7] having at least one notch [created via the various shoulders in the assembly, best seen in Figures 6 & 7] and a conduit [7] to supply a water jet nozzle [8].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of SMD by substituting the protrusions for the notched water jet ones as described by Vandycke to increase the ability to break-up and move the material and control it moving through the collection device, thereby improving the efficiency of the device in operation.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soil Machine Dynamics (EP 3889360), {hereinafter SMD} in view of (CN 110966006 A) or (CN 105952457 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, SMD fails to disclose the use of a water jet.
(CN 110966006 A) and (CN 105952457 A) disclose subsurface ore collecting machines comprising water jets facing backwards away from the direction of travel towards an inlet of the apparatus [Figures 1 & 2 of both documents], and upwards relative to the floor of the body of water [depending on the variation of the sea floor].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of SMD by adding the water jets as described by the CN documents to increase the ability of the ore to move through and into the collection portion of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clark et al. (US 6017400) discloses an apparatus for removing material from the seafloor comprising tynes and waterjets similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights