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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding applicant’s argument that where a single field of search thoroughly covers all of the claims in an application, different classifications should not be controlling, applicant’s attention is directed to the Office action mailed 11/18/2025, pages 2-4 where it is put forth that restriction is based upon different species with mutually exclusive steps and does not rely upon different classifications. Further, while there may be overlap in the search of some of the species Applicant has chosen to include in the present application, by no means do the species require the same search. In actuality, all of the species would require specialized individual searches that would be best executed in individual applications. The species restriction is still found to be proper.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “further comprising a barrier” should apparently be replaced with “wherein the apparatus used further comprises a barrier”, or the like, since the present invention is directed to a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: filtering system in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a filtering system is interpreted to include a filter, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17 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 6, the phrase “until a desired quality of water is achieved” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear exactly what quality this is and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the very large water body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the intended meaning may be the large body of water as recited in claim 1, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein the filtering step is conducted in a manner that removes silt and debris that accumulates on the bottom of the very large water body in a more energy efficient manner as compared to methods employed in conventional centralized filtration systems used in conventional swimming pools” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what these energy efficiencies are and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a desired distance above the bottom of the large body of water” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear exactly what this distance would be (e.g., What distance is desired? What if the bottom is not level?) and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. It can at least be inferred that the distance someone places it is the distance they desire to place it.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the energy required to generate the filtered water is a fraction of the energy it would take for the same amount of filtered water running thorough a typical pool centralized filter system” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear exactly what this energy required would be (e.g., What fraction? 1/100? 3/2? What is the typical energy?) and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The term “small fraction” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small fraction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “wherein said filtering step comprises filtering a small fraction of the filtered water that would otherwise be filtered using a conventional water treatment filtration system” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear exactly how much filtered water this would be (e.g., What fraction? 1/3? 1/100? 1/100,000? What is the amount otherwise filtered?) and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The terms “large surface areas” and “high speed” in claim 15 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “large surface areas” and “high speed” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree(s), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “preventing the thickness of settled material on the bottom of a large body of water from exceeding at least 3 millimeters” renders the claim indefinite because preventing something from exceeding a value means keeping it equal to, or less than, that value; but say “at least” that value means being equal to, or more than, that value.
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 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,805,793 to Paxton (“Paxton”).
Regarding claim 1, Paxton teaches a method of removing a layer of sediment which has settled on a bottom of a large body of water (understood from the specification para [0007], to include bodies of water designed to facilitate recreational beach-like activities, lagoons, ponds, etc.) (col. 1, lines 16-18), the method comprising, providing an apparatus that comprises, a structural frame (Fig. 1, ref. 5 down to ref. 9) configured to contain a bottom water flow, said structural frame configured to contain liquid and suspended particles dispersed during removal of bottom sediment in a suctioning area (Fig. 3, ref. 34), said structural frame having a plurality of wheels (ref. 36) configured to facilitate conveyance across the bottom of the large water body when the structural frame is submerged in the large water body; said structural frame operably connecting to at least one suction line (ref. 10) and configured to conduct a suctioned bottom water flow through said suction line; said structural frame having one or more sections (Fig. 3, area below ref. 29) that direct silt laden water to an at least one sediment removing vacuum unit (ref. 2); moving the apparatus along the bottom of the large body of water (col. 6, lines 11-16); suctioning sediment-containing water from the bottom of the large body of water using the apparatus (col. 2, lines 35-41); and filtering the suctioned bottom water outside of the large body of water through a filter (Fig. 1, ref. 11A, col. 4, lines 10-19); and returning the filtered water to the large body of water (col. 4, lines 10-19).
Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the suctioning area is at least 3 square feet, the plurality of wheels is at least 4 wheels, the suction line is at least about 8 feet in length and has a diameter of at least about 2 inches, and the filter is permeable to water to trap debris and to generate filtered water. Regarding the suctioning area being at least about 3 square feet, since a suctioning area that is too small risks wasting time, while a suctioning area that is too large risks the apparatus used becoming unwieldy, the suctioning area is a result-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to optimize through routine experimentation with predictable results. Further, it is noted that changes in size are prima facie obvious. Note MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding the plurality of wheels being at least 4 wheels, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method wherein the plurality of wheels is at least 4 wheels, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the ease of moving the apparatus. Further, it is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding the suction line being at least about 8 feet in length, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method wherein the suction is at least about 8 feet in length, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to permit placement of the filter outside of the water (not Paxton, Fig. 1). Further, it is noted that changes in size are prima facie obvious. Note MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding the suction line having a diameter of at least about 2 inches, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method wherein the suction line has a diameter of at least about 2 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit waste of time and risk of blockage. Further, it is noted that changes in size are prima facie obvious. Note MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding the filter being permeable to water to trap debris and to generate filtered water, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Paxton apparatus wherein the filter is permeable to water to trap debris, since the apparatus used is disclosed as being submersible, receiving debris during vacuum cleaning, and inhibiting blockage (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Paxton discloses a method wherein the step of moving the apparatus comprises employing a floating mechanism to move the apparatus along the bottom of the large body of water (col. 3, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 4, Paxton discloses a method wherein the step of suctioning is performed by a power source selected from the group of an electrical power source and a gas-powered engine (col. 3, lines 26-32, col. 4, lines 20-34).
Regarding claim 5, Paxton discloses a method wherein the filtering step employs a filtering system that separates water from the silt and debris prior to returning the filtered water to the large body of water (col. 4, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 6, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the filtering step includes successive filtering treatments to remove ever smaller debris until a desired quality of water is achieved. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to repeat the filtering, such that even smaller debris may be removed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the cleaning.
Regarding claim 7, Paxton discloses a method wherein the filter is positioned outside the large body of water (col. 4, lines 10-19, Fig. 1, note ref. 11avewr).
Regarding claim 8, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the filtering step is conducted in a manner that removes silt and debris that accumulates on the bottom of the very large water body in a more energy efficient manner as compared to methods employed in conventional centralized filtration systems used in conventional swimming pools, wherein said filtering step does not filter the entire volume of water in the very large water body more than once per day. However, since the Paxton method appears to be substantially identical to the claimed method, it can be reasonable expected that the Paxton method with have similar energy efficiency. Further, since too little filtering risks insufficient cleaning, while too much filtering risks wasted energy and time, the amount of filtering is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of filtering through routine experimentation with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Paxton discloses positioning the apparatus a desired distance above the bottom of the large body of water (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the apparatus comprises more than one sediment removing vacuum unit. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method wherein the apparatus comprises more than one sediment removing vacuum unit, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to save time. It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the energy required to generate the filtered water is a fraction of the energy it would take for the same amount of filtered water running thorough a typical pool centralized filter system. However, since the Paxton method (and apparatus used) appears to be substantially identical to the claimed method (and apparatus used), it can be reasonably expected that it will have substantially identical energy requirements.
Regarding claim 12, Paxton discloses a barrier (Fig. 1, any of the exterior surfaces of ref. 2, 9, 10 and 11) configured to contain the bottom water flow within the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Paxton does not explicitly teach avoiding re-suspension of the layer of sediment. However, Paxton discloses using apparatus structures that contain sediment therein (Fig. 1, any of the exterior surfaces of ref. 2, 9, 10 and 11), which avoids re-suspension. Further, Paxton discloses a desire to remove debris (col. 1, lines 16-18). Thus, in the absence of a teaching to the re-suspend the layer of sediment, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to avoid the re-suspension, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve the removal.
Regarding claim 14, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein said filtering step comprises filtering a small fraction of the filtered water that would otherwise be filtered using a conventional water treatment filtration system. However, since the Paxton method (and apparatus used) appears to be substantially identical to the claimed method (and apparatus used), it can be reasonably expected that it will have substantially filtering quantities.
Regarding claim 15, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein said suctioning step comprises covering large surface areas of the bottom of a large body of water at high speed and without employing a centralized filter system used in conventional swimming pools. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Paxton method wherein said suctioning step comprises covering large surface areas of the bottom of a large body of water at high speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to thoroughly clean while saving time. Further, in the absence of a teaching employ a centralized filter system used in conventional swimming pools, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Paxton method with such employing, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the method is disclosed as effective.
Regarding claim 16, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein said suctioning step comprises confining the liquid and suspended particles dispersed during removal of bottom sediment in a suctioning area that is at least 3 square feet. However, since a suctioning area that is too small risks wasting time, while a suctioning area that is too large risks the apparatus used becoming unwieldy, the suctioning area is a result-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to optimize through routine experimentation with predictable results. Further, it is noted that changes in size are prima facie obvious. Note MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein said step of suctioning comprises preventing the thickness of settled material on the bottom of a large body of water from exceeding at least 3 millimeters. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method wherein said step of suctioning comprises preventing the thickness of settled material on the bottom of a large body of water from exceeding at least 3 millimeters, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to thoroughly clean the body of water.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,805,793 to Paxton (“Paxton”) in view of US 7,181,871 to Sower (“Sower”).
Regarding claim 2, Paxton does not explicitly teach the method wherein the step of moving the apparatus comprises employing a motorized mechanism to move the apparatus along the bottom of the large body of water. However, employing motorized mechanisms was known in the art as effective for moving apparatuses (see, e.g., Sower at, inter alia, col. 4, lines 40-43), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Paxton method as was known wherein the step of moving the apparatus comprises employing a motorized mechanism to move the apparatus along the bottom of the large body of water, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit labor and since it was known as effective for moving apparatuses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714