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 NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/283,604 application filed on September 22, 2023. Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 20-22 are pending and have been fully considered. The examined claims are directed to a method.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 20-22, in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-6, 11-19 and 23-48 were cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2023, 10/18/2023, 08/23/2024, 02/10/2025 and 08/15/2025. Please refer to the signed copies of the PTO-1449 forms attached herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive because Applicant cancelled the apparatus claims. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. The italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step, act, or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step or act to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
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 roots, a plurality of non-root natural fibers, a plurality of filters; or a combination thereof. Both the lack of the ‘and’ before the plurality of filters and the last phrase “or a combination thereof” makes it unclear which elements are required in the root network. Does the claimed root network require all the noted elements or at least two of the elements. For example, if the root network does not require plant roots, and can include just filters and natural fibers, then why is it considered a root network?
Applicant should review the dependents claims in view of this issue since one or more such claims appear to suggest that all the above recited portions of the root network are required.
Also, in claim 1, ‘a macroporous layer’ is mentioned twice. It is unclear if this is the same or different macroporous layer.
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 Yu (CN1035888302)(IDS of 08/15/2025) in view of Eriksson (SE539657)(IDS of 08/23/2024) (Abstract and full FIT machine translations are referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a method for removing impurities from a body of water (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a. allowing a body of water comprising impurities to flow past a root network of at least one apparatus coupled to an anchor ([0001], [0007], [0018], [0030], where a purification system, an oxygen supply system and a control system are noted, and where the floating bed 1, for example is an anchor), 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, 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 ([0030]-[0032], disclosing a floating bed frame and bed body; a top and bottom surface is implicit);
a root network operably coupled to the frame and extending below the frame, where the root network comprises:
a plurality of roots of long-root plants coupled to a macroporous layer, the macroporous layer comprising an array of holes extending from a top surface to a bottom surface, the macroporous layer being removably attached to the frame ([0007], [0012], [0018]-[0024], [0027], [0028], [0039], where a planting hole, aquatic plants 1, submerged roots, and grass 3 are noted);
a plurality of non-root natural fibers 4 coupled to a macroporous layer, the macroporous layer comprising a hole extending from a top surface to a bottom surface, the macroporous layer being removably attached to the frame (where ecological cotton, is a natural fiber; [0034] also refers to fiber enzymes);
a plurality of filters ([0007], [0018], [0019], [0023]; ecological cotton also corresponds to filters); or
a combination thereof;
b. allowing the impurities to be physically entangled by the root network (this is implied by the nature of the root system); and
c. removing the root network from the at least one apparatus (this is necessary and implied for fully removing all impurities).
Therefore, Yu discloses the claimed invention, except
where an array of holes is noted,
where the impurities are specified as microplastics, and
the specifics of removing the root network.
However, regarding item i), an array of holes is merely the duplication of the noted hole with the expected benefit of more convenience and operational flexibility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an array of holes since this is the mere duplication of parts with no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Concerning item iii) and the notion of removing the root network, since it is known that the root network contains the undesired impurities, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to physically remove any structure that contains such impurities as one manner of fully removing the undesired impurities.
With respect to the item ii) and the microplastics, Eriksson discloses a screen pool (1) to shield at least one water area (2) from a surrounding water area (3), land or similar, where the screen pool comprises at least one inlet (5) and at least one outlet (6) comprising at least one wall element (4), which in its upper part is intended to be connected to at least a floating unit such as at least one floating body or unit such as a bridge or similar, and the wall element (4) at its lower part comprises at least one sink (19) or the like (Abstract, Figs. 5a-5c, pages (pp.) 1-6). Erikson discusses the known concept of floating wetlands which are achieved by connecting plants to floating units that are placed in a shielded water area, where the roots of the plants extend into the water and the roots pick up particles in the water (pp. 2, 5, 6). Further, according to Eriksson, the floating units 32, plants 33 and the like have been connected, planted or otherwise positioned and a favorable purifying effect is achieved by the fact that the roots of the plants 34 extend down into the water (p. 5). By planting the roots 34 of the plants into the water, purification of the water takes place (Id.). In combination with the sedimentation function, a very good purifying effect of the water is obtained (Id.). Referring to Figure 5B, it is shown how a plurality of floating units have been interconnected in the transverse direction (Id.). Through the interconnection, the flow is controlled past the roots of the plants in the floating interconnected units (Id.). Thus, Erikson shows the removal of particles with a submerged root system.
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, Yu and Eriksson combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, wherein the long-root plants or non-root natural fibers are coupled to the macroporous layer via one or more wires,
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),
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 at least one apparatus further comprises a growing medium layer on a top surface of the macroporous layer (claim 1 analysis; Yu, [0030], 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 ([0029], 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 the long-root plants comprise a sedge, arrow arum, or both, and/or wherein the non-root natural fibers comprise coir, and
wherein each hole in the array of holes has a diameter of between 0.5 inches and 6 inches.
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 long root plants and non-root natural fibers and to choose an appropriate sized diameter for the 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 (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 (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, Yu and Eriksson 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).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
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.
Prosecution Insights