DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
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 1-4 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 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if sargassum is required within the composition as claimed. Examiner assumes that the plant-based material can be any material that is plant-based and meet the limitations as claimed.
Claim 2 recites the term “can be”. The term “can be” is vague and ambiguous as it is not clear if the plant-based material is one of the claimed materials. Further, it is not clear if sargassum is required or optional in light of what is recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 also recites “any other type of wood”. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). Furthermore, since the group recites “consisting of language”, the term “any other type of wood” renders the limitation indefinite since it is not clear what materials would be within the inventive scope.
Claim 2 further recites the term “among others”. It is not clear would be considered “among others” in light of the specification. Further, the term “a mix of the same can be used” is not clear since it is not clear what is considered “the same”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “can be”. The term “can be” is vague and ambiguous as it is not clear if plant-based material is a mixture of materials and sargassum.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the materials" in second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “can be”. The term “can be” is vague and ambiguous as it is not clear if the lumber material is required to be in a rectangular shape.
Claim 4 further recites “in different thicknesses”. It is not clear what thicknesses would meet the limitation. Examiner assumes any thickness would meet the limitations as claimed. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20200283600) in view of Rosato et al. (Plastic Product Material and Process Selection Handbook) with evidence from Palm Beach Dolphin Project Fact Sheet: Seaweed and Sargassum (Hereafter “Fact Sheet”).
Shi discloses algae-blended thermoplastic compositions and articles thereof. Concerning claim 1, Shi discloses the thermoplastic composition comprises a polyethylene, which would include low, linear low, high, and medium density polyethylene resins and algae biomass particles, wherein the algae biomass can be based off of brown algae which includes sargassum as evidenced by the Fact Sheet. As such, the recitation of the genus of “brown algae” would include the species of sargassum as disclosed by the Fact Sheet. Examiner notes that brown algae are within the phylum phaeophyta which is disclosed as one of phyla for the algae biomass (para. 0008-0044). The algae biomass is found at a content of 10 to 55 wt% of the composition (para. 0020). However, Shi is silent to the weight ratio between HDPE and MDPE. With respect to claim 4, the finished article can be a panel, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have any size and thickness for the appropriate use (para. 0036-0037). However, Shi is silent to the weight ratio between HDPE and MDPE.
Rosato discloses MDPE has improved impact strength and HDPE has good tensile strength (p. 47; Table 2.4). While it is noted that Rosato is silent to the specific weight ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed weight ratio between MDPE and HDPE, in order to have the desired mechanical properties and balance thereof.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20200283600) in view of Rosato et al. (Plastic Product Material and Process Selection Handbook) with evidence from Palm Beach Dolphin Project Fact Sheet: Seaweed and Sargassum (Hereafter “Fact Sheet”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lightsey et al. (Polymer Engineering and Science).
Shi discloses the above but is silent to the additional plant-based materials.
Lightsey discloses adding pulp mill wood residue to polyolefins to improve mechanical properties, wherein the pulp mill wood residue (or wood chips) are added at a content of up to 20 wt% of the composite to improve tensile strength and modulus, while keeping production costs down (p. 305-310; abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the wood chips of Lightsey into the composite of Shi, in order to improve mechanical properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hammer (WO 2024/208821) discloses a composite building material formed from a thermoplastic binder and ground shells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783