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 . 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 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.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending and Examined
3-6, 11-19 and 23-48
1 and 2
7-10 and 20-22
1, 2, 7-10 and 20-22
The examined claims are directed to a method.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 04/15/2026) 35 USC §112 and §103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections. However, after careful reconsideration of the claims, Examiner believes new 35 USC §103 rejections are appropriate and has applied such rejections to the noted claims.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated July 15, 2026, Applicant amended the claims to address the rejections and claim interpretations of the prior Office action (OA), to clarify the claim language, and to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies new grounds of rejections in this OA including.
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, 2, 7-10 and 20-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a root network that comprises a plurality of non-root natural fibers . . . In the amendment Applicant removed the plant roots feature. The following remains unclear: if the root network does not require plant roots, and can include just non-root natural fibers, then why is it considered a ‘root network’?
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the macroporous layer” and "the array of holes." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 7-10 and 20-22 depend on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Schuck et al. (US20070209277; Schuck) in view of Asher (US6014838)(IDS of 09-22-2023) and Schuhen et al. (WO2019215218, Schuhen)(Abstract and English machine translation referenced below).
Regarding claim 1, Schuck discloses a method for removing impurities/pollutants from a body of water (Abstract, [0001], [0002], [0012], Figs 1-7; also, substituting "microplastics" as the target pollutant is an obvious optimization of a known filtration apparatus), comprising:
a. allowing a body of water comprising impurities to flow past a root network of at least one apparatus coupled to an anchor ([0012], [0018], [0019], [0029]-[0031], Figs. 1-3, where the mat serves as a surface on which biomass grows downward), each at least one apparatus comprising:
a frame, the frame having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface of the frame defining at least one anchor point coupled to the anchor ([0015], [0018], [0021], [0030]), the frame configured to keep at least a portion of the top surface of the frame above a top surface of the body of water ([0015], [0017]; the frame inherently possesses a top and bottom surface);
a root network operably coupled to the frame and extending below the frame ([0015], [0016], [0018]), where the root network comprises:
a plurality of non-root natural fibers where either (a) each non-root natural fiber is coupled to a central wire, or (b) the plurality of non-root natural fibers form a porous fibrous fabric in an elongated cylindrical shape ([0031], where coir is a non-root natural fiber derived from coconut husks; the coir fibers form a porous fibrous fabric arranged across the frame extending downwards);
a plurality of filters; or
a combination thereof ([0015], [0016], [0031]; it’s expected that as water flows past, suspended particulates, organic materials, and debris will become physically trapped and caught within the interlocking, dense weave of the coir fiber mat; the root network is written in the alternative such that only one feature is required);
b. allowing the impurities to be physically entangled by the root network ([0012], [0017]; also, this is implied by the nature of the root network); and
c. removing the root network from the at least one apparatus ([0012], [0015], [0017], [0030]; [Abstract]: “The biodegradable mat and associated biomass can be removed and subsequently replanted (i.e., replaced)... the floating raft body is durable and can be used repeatedly by attaching a freshly planted mat.").
Therefore, Schuck discloses the claimed invention, except
aspects of sub-features (a) or (b) where either (a) each fiber is coupled to a central wire, or (b) form a porous fibrous fabric in an elongated cylindrical shape the specifics of removing the root network; and
where the impurities are specified as microplastics.
With respect to the item i) Asher discloses a buoyant apparatus for floating plants and other foliage in ponds that is directed to a floating support or raft for one or more plant pots (Abstract, Figs. 1-4). A mesh screen is adapted to cover exposed surfaces of the collar to prevent fish from biting it (Id.). The foliage container 4 and buoyant float member 8 are illustrated in FIG. 2, where the container or plant pot 4 is a substantially cylindrical holder, opened at the top end to form a body or cavity to receive the foliage as illustrated in FIG. 2 (col. 2, lines 25-30). the outside surfaces of collar 8 are covered with a screen 10. The screen can be wrapped around surfaces s and then sewn, glued or otherwise attached beneath rim 6, as well as along the base b inside the collar (FIG. 2). The exposed surfaces of the collar will thus be enveloped by a relatively fine mesh screen 10 as shown in FIG. 1 (col. 2, lines 28-47).
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to either couple each fiber to a central wire or form the plurality of non-root natural fibers into a porous fabric in an elongated cylindrical shape where the wire can support the fibers and a cylindrical shape is design choice but that would also serve to contain the fibers, as suggested in Asher.
Regarding item ii) or the use of microplastics, Schuhen discloses a method for removing impurities, especially microplastics particles, from water and/or a body of water and/or for purifying and/or processing water and/or a body of water (Abstract). Schuhen teaches that microplastics are a pervasive environmental impurity distributed within bodies of water that can be filtered and remediated by intercepting water pathways with porous, fibrous networks that trap particles through mechanical entanglement ([0005], [0014], [0023]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize natural fibrous structures suspended from floating platforms to entangle microplastics as this is a predictable application of the disclosed known water-filtration apparatuses to catch emerging target particulates, as described in Schuhen. Moreover, any structural optimization of the fiber matrix into an elongated cylindrical form or twisted around a central wire is well-established within standard aquatic filters or floating apparatuses, as described in Asher.
Microplastics are merely one type of particle and they are known to be an important emerging contaminant found in multitude of open waters throughout the world. Thus, placing a known apparatus in a body of water comprising microplastics will inherently provide the effect of removing any microplastic particles that may be present, by the roots of the apparatus, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place such an apparatus properly configured and suitably designed for the body of water, with appropriate framing, anchors, holes, plants, roots, natural fibers, and filters, as necessary, to effectively and efficiently achieve the result of removing impurities such as emergent particles, including microplastic contaminants, from the body of water.
Regarding claims 2, 7-10 and 20, Schuck, Asher and Schuhen combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, wherein non-root natural fibers are coupled to [a]the macroporous layer via one or more wires (claim 1 analysis),
wherein the macroporous layer is a first composite structure and optionally the first composite structure comprises fiberglass, carbon fiber, a wire array, cross-laminated timber, or a combination thereof (claim 1 analysis, where carbon and wire array are disclosed in Asher and Schuhen respectively),
wherein the frame is a second composite structure and optionally the composite structure comprises fiberglass, carbon fiber, a cross laminated timber, an inflatable bladder, or a combination thereof (claim 1 analysis),
wherein the non-root natural fibers comprise coir (claim 1 analysis),
wherein the at least one apparatus further comprises a growing medium layer on a top surface of the macroporous layer (claim 1 analysis; Schuck, [0012], [0015], where support for plant growing is noted; also it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a growing medium layer on a top surface of the macroporous layer to promote the growth of the plants),
wherein the plurality of fiber filters comprises between 3 and 15 fiber filters removably coupled to the frame, and/or wherein the plurality of fiber filters are configured such that each fiber filter has a filtration surface that is normal to an expected direction of flow of the body of water, and each fiber filter is offset in a direction parallel to the expected direction of flow of the body of water from at least one other fiber filter by an equal distance (where control of water body circulation suggests that the filtration surface can be normal to the flow of water or can be adjusted as necessary, or alternately it would have been obvious to appropriately locate or optimize the filters’ location relative to the water flow, by design choice; also, one can readily adjust the number of filters based on need and the volume of the apparatus and it would have been obvious to do so),
except wherein each hole in [an]
Schuck notes, in the background section, that roots of plants can extend through a bag and holes in a raft and out into the water ([0007]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to claimed to use suitable non-root natural fibers and to choose an appropriate sized diameter for any array of holes based on routine experimentation and engineering choice.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 7: The growing medium layer comprises coir or mineral soils (claims 1 and 2 analyses); Claim 8: The growing medium layer is a soilless medium (claims 1 and 2 analyses); Claim 9: The method further comprises:
d. replacing the root network after the microplastics have been removed from the root network; and e. repeating steps a-d (claim 1 analysis; also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the root network and to repeat the steps to garner enhanced water body purification); Claim 10: In the method, removing and replacing the root network includes removing and replacing a macroporous layer coupled to the root network (claim 1 analysis; also, it would be obvious to remove all components that may contain microparticles for maintenance and to ensure that all particles are removed); and Claim 20: The method further comprises removing material physically entangled by the root network (claim 10 analysis; also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove all physically entangled material to allow the root system to work more effectively and to provide a fresh start for further contaminant removal).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Schuck, Asher and Schuhen combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 20, except further comprising performing an analysis of a sample of the material physically entangled by the root network.
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a sample analyses to determine the nature of the material for further monitoring and to assess the effectiveness of the removal method.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 22: The method further comprises repositioning the at least one apparatus based on a result of the analysis (claim 21 analysis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07-15-2026 have been fully considered. In view of the claim amendments, Examiner has modified the rejections and added new prior art such that Applicant’s arguments may no longer be applicable.
With respect to the amended claims, Examiner has added one or more new references and associated rationales with respect to any new or added/amended limitations. As such, Examiner believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the modified patentability analysis above.
While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts to expedite prosecution of the Application, for the stated reasons, Examiner believes the claims are not presently in condition for allowance.
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.
