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 Group II, claims 14-18, along with new claims 21-35, in the reply filed on 10/31/25 is acknowledged.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s cancelation of the non-elected claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The Examiner notes several non-patent literature references listed throughout the specification, for example, in paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0049], [0060] and [0061].
Furthermore, the extensive listing of references in [0223]-[0300], [0344]-[0387] and [0439]-[0502] is not proper. Unless these, or any other references cited throughout the specification, have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 recites “wherein the algal biomatter comprises at least one of” and recites several algal biomatter of various species; the Examiner notes, independent claim 14, upon which claim 16 depends, requires wherein the algal biomatter comprises at least one of a Saccharina sp. or an Ulva sp.. Although the biomatter recited in claim 16 recites Saccharina latissimi, Ulva Lactuca and Ulva expensa, additional biomatter is also recited therein including other species outside of Saccharina sp. or an Ulva sp., such as Clorella, Sargassum, Caulerpa, etc.. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to further define the species of claim 14 in claim 16, or if the biological cement is intended to further comprise the algal biomatter of claim 16. Clarification is required.
Claim 17 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation 5% to 110%, and the claim also recites 90% to 110%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 21 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation 3% to 15%, and the claim also recites 10% to 15%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 23 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitations 20 wt% to 40 wt%, with respect to water and 55 wt% to 80 wt%, with respect to cement, and the claim also recites 20 wt% to 33 wt%, with respect to water and 55 wt% to 74 wt%, with respect to cement, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 28, along with claims 29 and 30, dependent therefrom, is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation 50% to 100%, and the claim also recites 90%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 29 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 29 recites the broad recitation 20oC to 30oC, and the claim also recites 25oC, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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.
Claims 14-18, 21-23, 26-32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101491589 B1 (‘189 herein - all citations are to provided English translation) in view of Kang (KR 102273480 B1).
With respect to independent claim 14, ‘189 discloses a biological cement comprising dry matter and water (p. 10, [Experiment], first paragraph, wherein the compositions are disclosed as prepared by mixing with water), wherein the dry matter comprises:
algal biomatter per dry matter comprising (p. 3, middle paragraphs, wherein seaweed is disclosed); and
cement (p. 3, top paragraphs, wherein various forms of cement are disclosed).
‘189 discloses wherein any seaweed may be used, noting wherein about 8,000 species exist, with 500 species living in the sea of Korea and all of them can used, but it is preferable to use green algae, brown algae including seaweed and kelp, red algae or the like (p. 2). The reference, however, fails to explicitly identify such as at least one of a Saccharina sp. or an Ulva sp. as claimed. Kang teaches seaweeds found in the sea of Korea to include large brown algae, as well as many additional species including seaweed, algae and kelp; the brown algae typically include kelp of the Saccharina sp. (p. 2 and 4).
Since ‘189 discloses wherein all species of seaweed living in the sea of Korea, such as brown algae in the form of kelp, can be used to promote binding of constituents of the biolgocial cement and prevent cracks therein and Kang teaches kelp found in the sea of Korea to include that of a Saccharina sp., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try kelp of the Saccharina sp. in the biological cement of ‘189 since such is known source of brown algae kelp present in the sea of Korea, and thus would be recognized as a suitable form thereof to try in the biological cement of ‘189 in order to yield the predictable result of promoting binding of constituents of the biological cement and thereby preventing the formation of cracks therein.
‘189 discloses wherein the amount of algae is preferably between 2-40 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cement (p. 3, middle paragraphs). Although silent to specifically providing for any amount thereof of 0.5-15 wt%, given the overlap of the near entirety of the instantly claimed range disclosed by ‘189, wherein it is further suggested the algae is provided for the purpose of preventing the concrete block formed therefrom from being easily broken due to a large shrinkage during drying and curing (p. 3, middle paragraphs), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an amount of algal biomatter as instantly claimed in the biological cement of ‘189 since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the algal biomatter as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using the instantly claimed weight percents therefor. Since the algal matter of ‘189 promotes the binding of the constituents of the concrete block and prevents cracks, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed weight percent thereof, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent of algal matter in the biological cement of ‘189 would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to dependent claim 15, ‘189 discloses the biological cement made by a method comprising:
forming a biological cement paste by mixing dry matter and water (p. 10, [Experiment], first paragraph, wherein the compositions are disclosed as prepared by mixing with water), wherein the dry matter comprises 0.5 wt% to 15 wt% (see explanation above in the rejection of claim 14 with regard to the weight percent) algal biomatter per dry matter and cement;
pouring the biological cement paste into a mold (p. 2, last paragraph-p. 3, first two lines); and
curing the biological cement paste, thereby forming the biological cement (p. 2, last paragraph-p. 3, first two lines).
The Examiner notes, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Kang further suggests wherein seaweed in the sea of Korea includes Sargassum (p. 2 and 4). Since ‘189 discloses wherein all species of seaweed living in the sea of Korea, such as brown algae in the form of kelp, can be used to promote binding of constituents of the biolgocial cement and prevent cracks therein, and, further, wherein at least two of such algaes may be used (p. 3), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try Sargassum in the biological cement of ‘189 since such is known source of brown algae present in the sea of Korea, and thus would be recognized as a suitable form thereof to try in the biological cement of ‘189 in order to yield the predictable result of promoting binding of constituents of the biological cement and thereby preventing the formation of cracks therein.
With respect to dependent claim 17, ‘189 discloses example compositions and properties thereof, wherein it is shown the blocks produced showed sufficient compressive strength and no deformability (p. 10, [Experiment]). Although silent to such as within 5-110% of a same mechanical property of “conventional” cement, given the compositions are disclosed to provide, for example, sufficient compressive strength, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, at least, the optimal compressive strength to impart to the biological cement so that it is sufficient for use in the purposes intended therefor and thus within a range of 5-110% of the compressive strength of a “conventional” cement used for the same purposes since it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Given the absence of evidence of criticality of percent within which the mechanical property is to fall, as exemplified by the extensiveness of the range claimed therefor, as well as ‘189’s disclosure of the biological cement as providing a concrete block having high strength and durability, it does not appear that providing for a mechanical property within 5-110% of a conventional cement would be considered an unexpected result, and, as such, the determination of optimal percent range within which to provide a mechanical property to the biological cement as compared to a conventional cement would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to dependent claim 18, ‘189 discloses a building product of a mortar or a concrete (Abstract; p. 10, Experiment).
With respect to new dependent claim 21, ‘189 discloses wherein the biological cement paste comprises between 2-40 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cement (p. 3, middle paragraphs). Although silent to specifically providing for any amount thereof of 3-15 wt%, given the overlap of the near entirety of the instantly claimed range disclosed by ‘189, wherein it is further suggested the algae is provided for the purpose of preventing the concrete block formed therefrom from being easily broken due to a large shrinkage during drying and curing (p. 3, middle paragraphs), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an amount of algal biomatter as instantly claimed in the biological cement of ‘189 since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the algal biomatter as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using the instantly claimed weight percents therefor. Since the algal matter of ‘189 promotes the binding of the constituents of the concrete block and prevents cracks, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed weight percent thereof, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent of algal matter in the biological cement of ‘189 would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to new dependent claim 22, ‘189 discloses wherein the biological cement paste is mixed with water to prepare the concrete blocks (p. 10, [Experiment]). The reference further discloses wherein the cement paste comprises a cement conventionally used in the art (p. 3, 3rd paragraph), and, further wherein the content of the remaining components other than cement in the concrete block composition is based on 100 parts by weight of cement (p. 3, 5th paragraph). Although silent to the water to cement ratio thereof, since ‘189 discloses water is indeed added to the cement so as to form the cement paste, and, further, wherein such is poured into a mold and dried to cure to form the concrete block, it is the position of the Office that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal water to cement ratio to employ in order to form a paste capable of being poured into a mold and cured therein, since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed water to cement ratio as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using a ratio within the range that is instantly claimed. Since the concrete block formed by ‘189 exhibits sufficient compressive strength and no deformability (p. 10, [Experiment]), and further is not easily aged by physical or chemical influences (Abstract) it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for a water to cement ratio within the range instantly claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal water to cement ratio to employ in forming the biological cement of ‘189 would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to new dependent claim 23, ‘189 discloses wherein the biological cement paste comprises a cement conventionally used in the art (p. 3, 3rd paragraph), and, further wherein the content of the remaining components other than cement in the concrete block composition is based on 100 parts by weight of cement (p. 3, 5th paragraph). Although silent to the weight percent of cement as within the range of 55-80 wt% as claimed in the broader range, based on the amounts of additional components further disclosed as present in the composition (Abstract), it is the position of the Office that given the disclosure of ‘189, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal amount of cement to include when forming the concrete block in order to create the intended eco-concrete block therewith since it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percent for the cement as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using the instantly claimed weight percents therefor. Since the concrete block formed by ‘189 exhibits sufficient compressive strength and no deformability (p. 10, [Experiment], it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed weight percent thereof, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percent of cement in the biological cement of ‘189 would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
With respect to new dependent claim 26, ‘189 discloses wherein the dry matter further comprises one as claimed (p. 10-11, Claims).
With respect to new dependent claim 27, ‘189 discloses wherein the curing comprises drying (p. 3, wherein the seaweed prevents the concrete block from being easily broken due to a large shrinkage during drying and curing).
With respect to new dependent claims 28-31, ‘189 discloses the biological cement made by a method corresponding to that of claim 15, as set forth above in the rejection thereof. Although silent to wherein the curing comprises one or more of incubating at a relative humidity and/or ambient conditions as claimed by claims 28-30, or by applying additional water to the biological cement paste as claimed by claim 31, the Examiner notes, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). ‘189 discloses a biological cement comprising the same dry matter as instantly claimed and required by claim 14, upon which claim 15 depends; ‘189 further suggests wherein the concrete block is cured after the pouring step is completed and further suggests wherein the compositions are prepared at standard conditions (p. 10 [Experiment]). As such, it is the position of the Office the product of ‘189 provides for that which is instantly claimed by the product-by-process limitations of dependent claims 28-31. See United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as "anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made.").
With respect to dependent claim 32, ‘189 discloses wherein at least apportion of the algal biomatter is dried (p. 3, “…seaweeds…may be used in the form of dried seaweeds”).
With respect to dependent claim 34, ‘189 discloses wherein at least a portion of the algal biomatter is formulated as a bioplastic (p. 3, middle, wherein the seaweed is in the form of powders or concentrates and, therefore, formulated as a bioplastic as claimed).
With respect to dependent claim 35, ‘189 discloses wherein at least a portion of the algal biomatter is a powder (p. 3, “…seaweeds…may be used in the form of dried seaweeds, seaweeds in the form of powders…it is advisable to use a solid form of dried powder after being dried).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘189 as applied to claims 15 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Kim (KR 101079705 B1).
With respect to dependent claims 24 and 25, ‘189 discloses the biological cement, as set forth above with respect to claims 15 and 14, wherein the cement is preferably Portland cement; the contents of components of the composition are disclosed as based on 100 parts by weight of cement (p. 3, 3rd-5th paragraph). The reference additionally suggests wherein gypsum may be included therein (p. 10, Claims). ‘189, however, is silent to wherein the cement comprises tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and tetracalcium aluminoferrite therewith as claimed. Kim discloses eco-friendly cements wherein Portland cement is used therein; the Portland cement is defined as tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and tetracalcium alumino ferrite, wherein it is noted such compounds account for more than 90% of the total constituents thereof (p. 5, under (5) cement). Since ‘189 discloses wherein the biological cement comprises Portland cement and gypsum may be used therewith and Kim teaches wherein Portland cement includes tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and tetracalcium aluminoferrite, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a combination of tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and tetracalcium aluminoferrite with gypsum in the biological cement of ‘189 in order to yield the predictable result of forming an environmentally friendly concrete block therewith. ‘189 clearly discloses Portland cement as from a list of finite options for cement in the composition, along with gypsum as from a finite list of additives to include therewith. Kim discloses wherein Portland cement indeed includes a combination of Applicant’s instantly claimed elements of tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and tetracalcium aluminoferrite. As such, the combination of such, as present from the Portland cement of ‘189, with the further inclusion of gypsum as is disclosed by ‘189 would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
With respect to the further elements of weight percents for each of the above identified compounds recited by claim 25, as noted above, Kim teaches wherein the above compounds account for more than 90% of the total constituents of Portland cement, wherein amounts of each component can vary based on the color of the cement; for example, additional tricalcium silicate may be present for the purpose of increasing the whiteness of the cement (p. 5, (5) cement). Since ‘189 suggests Portland cement and/or white cement as suitable options for the cement of the biological cement composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for an amount of each of the aforenoted compounds as claimed as based on the form of Portland cement used to form the environmentally friendly concrete block of ‘189 since
it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed weight percents for each component of the cement as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by providing for such; since ‘189 in view of Kim provides for wherein Portland cement indeed comprises each of the instantly claimed components in ana mount of more than 90 wt% thereof, and ‘189 further provides for wherein gypsum may be used in combination therewith, wherein such a combination provides for a concrete block exhibiting sufficient compressive strength and no deformability (p. 10, [Experiment], it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of providing for a Portland cement having weight percents of each component as claimed, and, as such, the determination of optimal weight percents for each component thereof would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘189 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 102256238 B1).
‘189 discloses the biological cement as set forth above with respect to claim 14; the reference additionally suggests wherein the seaweeds are in the form of dried seaweeds, powders or concentrates in concentrated form, but it is advisable to use a solid form of dried powder after being drier out (p. 3, middle to bottom paragraphs). The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the algal biomatter has been preprocessed by hot water extraction, cold water extraction, and/or self-bonding as claimed by claim 33.
Kim et al. teaches green production methods to produce a seaweed containing powder additive of Sargassum sp. for inclusion in a concrete structure for enhancing the performance thereof (Abstract) wherein a dried powder of the seaweed is formed by preprocessing such in a process that includes extracting with an alkali solution at a temperature of 75oC (Example 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try producing the solid form of dried powder seaweed in ‘189 by preprocessing with hot/cold water extraction in order to yield the predictable result of providing a powder form of the seaweed suitable for use in enhancing the properties of a concrete formed therewith.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2024/243591 A1 discloses a concrete admixture containing an Ulva extract.
WO 2022/212695 A1 discloses cement comprising algae and/or derivatives thereof.
TW 1855281 A discloses a carbon sequestration system that includes at least one of the seaweed seedlings and the corresponding mature seaweed are selected from a group that includes Ulva with cement.
KR 1347793 B1 discloses quick hardening concrete that includes Sargassum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
01/24/26