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 Status
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding Claim 2, the limitation “airplane” should likely be recited as “or airplane”; regarding Claims 3, 4, and 11, they either end with a semicolon instead of a period, or lack the period at the end of the limitation; and regarding Claim 10, it contains two separate sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea or natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claim 1 recites 1) “locating a dispersing source over a coral reef or target ocean section” which is merely an observation of an area of the ocean or coral reef (abstract idea), 2) “pairing minerals and mineral-specific collectors…that attach to the mineral surfaces and to bubbles for transport to the air-water interface”, which is merely an evaluation which could be accomplished by a literature search of the mineral collection art to determine the recited mineral and collector pairs that are known in the art (abstract idea), and 3) “creating bubbles in the water through a mixing action”, which is a natural phenomenon (sea foam induced by wind and waves). These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because once the abstract ideas of locating and pairing are done and waves in the ocean naturally create sea foam with a mixing action, the only application is dispersing froth with attached alkaline minerals over an ocean section or reef, with nothing specific related to the paired mineral(s)/collector(s), and the ocean itself already contains alkaline mineral/materials (see below paragraph).
The dispersing appears to be generally linking these abstract ideas to the field of endeavor, and is not considered a particular application according to MPEP 2106.05(h). Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ocean water naturally contains alkaline substances (see Kheshgi; Page 915: Section 2: “The oceans contain 3.2 x 10-18 mole of dissolved inorganic carbon, predominantly in the form of bicarbonate ion”), and waves routinely create foam within ocean waves (and disperse it); therefore, creating bubbles and dispersing them in a marine environment with alkaline materials is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not resolve the issues set forth above, and are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, the step of “pairing minerals and mineral-specific collectors, typically surface active agents that attach to mineral surfaces, and to bubbles for transport to the air-water interface” renders the claim indefinite, as the scope of “minerals” and “mineral-specific collectors, typically surface active agents” is unclear to the Examiner, as Applicant has not defined this or recited any connection to “dispersing the froth mixture of bubbles with alkaline minerals attached, so the scope of the minerals that are to be paired is not necessarily the same as the scope of the alkaline minerals in the dispersing step; “typically surface active organics” contain the limitation “typically”, which when used in combination with the undefined minerals, is extraordinarily unclear. The pairing step is so broad that the limitations could be met by a brief literature search of the mineral flotation art to determine an appropriate collector or surfactant to float any known mineral, which again does not currently have a connection to the “alkaline mineral” in the dispersing step, which also does not recite surfactant(s) or collectors.
With continued reference to claim 1, the preamble recites “enhancing (ocean) alkalinity”; however, there is no active step of adding alkaline minerals.
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitations “the air-water interface” and “the froth mixture of bubbles with alkaline minerals attached” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language.
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitations “the froth mixture of bubbles with alkaline minerals attached” does not indicate that any specific collector or surface active agent is contained in the froth, supporting the attachment of minerals to the bubbles, which the Examiner believes Applicant intends from the pairing step.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “boat variation” is undefined and the scope is not understood by the Examiner.
With respect to claim 4, reciting “using any number of mixing techniques” does not constitute an actual mixing step as it is merely recited as a use.
With continued reference to claim 4, the limitations “the bubble surface” and “the air bubble mixture” lack antecedent basis in the claim language.
With continued reference to claim 4, the scope of the limitation “or other surfactant” is not clear to the Examiner, and the claims merely provide one specific example of a surfactant as “sodium oleate”.
With respect to claim 5, it is unclear to the Examiner how the locating, pairing, and dispersing steps are carried out in a “combined” manner, unless they are occurring simultaneously; however, this would appear to require that that the dispersing was occurring at the same location (in which case, the locating step is only performed once) or in separate locations simultaneously (at the next located area). Clarification is respectfully requested.
With continued reference to claim 5, the scope of the limitation “or other surfactant” is not clear to the Examiner, and the claims merely provide one specific example of a surfactant as “sodium oleate”.
With respect to claim 6, it is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “two of the three steps are combines”, as claim 1 appears to recite 4 steps (albeit only one free of 101 issues), and it is unclear to the Examiner how two of the locating, creating bubbles, the pairing, and dispersing steps are carried out in a “combined” manner, unless they are occurring simultaneously; however, this would appear to require, for example, that that the dispersing was occurring at the same location (in which case, the locating step is only performed once) or in separate locations simultaneously (at the next located area). Clarification is respectfully requested.
With continued reference to claim 6, the scope of the limitation “or other surfactant” is not clear to the Examiner, and the claims merely provide one specific example of a surfactant as “sodium oleate”.
With respect to claim 7, “the sodium or other surfactant” and “this solution” lack antecedent basis in the claim language.
With continued reference to claim 7, the scope of the limitation “or other surfactant” is not clear to the Examiner, and the claims merely provide one specific example of a surfactant as “sodium oleate”.
With continued reference to claim 7, the scope of the limitation “particles” is not clear to the Examiner.
The terms “warm” and “vigorous” in claim 7 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “warm” and “vigorous” are 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.
With respect to claim 8, the scope of the limitation “ingredients” is not clear to the Examiner.
With continued reference to claim 8, “the impeller” lacks antecedent basin in the claim language.
With continued reference to claim 8, “wherein gas can be introduced and the amount of mixing can be controlled by a bypass valve” does not include an actively required method step. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations of claim 8 to be optional, especially since the scope of “ingredients” is not defined.
With continued reference to claim 9, the scope of the limitation “or other surfactant” is not clear to the Examiner, and the claims merely provide one specific example of a surfactant as “sodium oleate”.
With respect to claim 10, the scope of the limitations “ingredients” and “other solution” is not clear to the Examiner.
With continued reference to claim 10, the limitations “the particles” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language, nor is the scope of this limitation understood, and the limitation “the foam” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language.
The term “wider area” in claim 10 is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wider area” 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. Clarification is respectfully requested.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations “all methods of producing froth of bubbles” includes all known and as-yet discovered means of producing a froth of bubbles. As such, the limitations are undefined.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
With continued reference to claim 11, the limitations “can be pumped directly on the water surface or into the prop of a boat to facilitate dispersion” does not include an actively required method step. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations of claim 8 to be optional, especially since it is unclear as to which step of claim 1 these limitations refer.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (Water Research, 2011, 45, 4355-4366) as evidenced by Kheshgi et al. (Energy, 1995, 20, 915-922), in view of IT 1089309 B (machine translation provided and relied upon).
Due to the extensive nature of the rejections of the claims under 35 UC 101 and 35 USC 112(b), the Examiner will treat claims 1-11 in a general way, in order to advise Applicant of the state of the closest prior art.
With respect to claims 1-11, Schilling teaches (see Sections 2.1, 2.3, 6.2) that the occurrence of sea foam is a widely-known phenomenon around the world, wherein sea foam (“creating of bubbles in the ocean water”) is in part caused by algae blooms and seaweed where algae and seaweed are found in sea water (locating/observing an area of the ocean), which produce mucilage, carbohydrates and proteins which comprise surface active agents which are dispersed through sea water via wave action, which also disperses the sea foam/bubbles, and wherein seawater comprises alkaline materials including inorganic carbon in the form of bicarbonate (see Kheshgi: Page 915: Section 2).
Although there is no specific discussion on whether bicarbonate ions are attached to the bubbles that make up sea foam on the ocean water surface as a result of wave action, the Examiner notes that Schilling as evidenced by Kheshgi teaches that the ocean naturally carries out the active process steps recited in claim 1 (please refer also to the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, wherein “creating bubbles” in the (ocean) water is identified as a natural phenomenon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least some bicarbonate (alkaline material/mineral) is attached to the sea form bubbles in the target ocean section, as all active steps are taught. Likewise, the preamble limitations of claim 1 are presumed to be met, as all active steps of claim 1 are taught/rendered obvious by Schilling as evidenced by Kheshgi.
Regarding addition of non-naturally occurring surfactants paired with mineral surfaces, The Examiner notes that dispersion of solutions of surface-active organics from a boat using a pumping system with nozzle to an area of the ocean with mixing is conventionally known from the art of treating oil spills on the ocean, wherein dispersion of surfactant and emulsification is aided by boat propeller (see IT 1089309 B: Example 3).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to consult the art of surfactant treatment on ocean waters in order to determine ways of effectively dispersing surfactant treatment solutions to the ocean comprising alkaline materials.
For the sake of compact prosecution and in view of the above rejections, the Examiner respectfully asks Applicant to consider amending the claims to recite addition of particular supported surface active agents and alkaline materials (to differentiate from those that are naturally occurring within the ocean), along with generating bubbles as an active step (and not just something that ocean wave action inherently does), as well as reciting that alkaline minerals are attached to the bubbles generated via surfactant molecules, which is not recited in claim 1. The Examiner believes that this will advance prosecution and resolve at least some of the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b) set forth above, as well as the 103 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 30 September 2025