DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 02/19/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/19/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 11, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 11, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim by the phrasing “a cumulative risk between 1 and 10%”. It is unclear what defines cumulative risk. The metes and bound of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claims 21 and 25, the claim states the method while parent claims 1 is directed towards a system. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 21, no “step c” has been previously introduced. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-18, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (6,190,301) in view of Lenz (WO 2012/145464 A1) and Roumeli et al. (2024/0076235).
With regard to claim 1, Murray discloses a system for the permanent storage of carbon in the ocean using a freefall penetrator device comprising a tube-like device (1; col. 3, lines 50-56) capable of delivery to the ocean floor and penetrating the ocean floor (col. 3, lines 9-20); and a hollow internal (internal of tube 1; fig. 7) portion capable of containing carbon waste (2) and the penetrator device comprises a body, tail, and nose (figs. 4,7), however is silent the device comprises organic material and fabric; carbon enriched material; or a mixture of ARB and carbon enriched material.
Lenz discloses constructing a penetrator device from concrete (e.g. paras 0016-0018; 0027-0029). Furthermore, Roumeli discloses caron enriched concrete utilizing algae (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lenz and utilize a carbon enriched concrete material as taught in Lenz and Roumeli, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further increase the carbon sequestration of the device. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With regard to claim 2, Murray further discloses the system sequesters atmospheric carbon in a deep-sea benthic ecosystem (col. 11, lines 6-18).
With regard to claim 3, Murray further discloses the carbon stored is atmospheric and/or from anthropogenic activities and it is stored for a period of time to allow removal of carbon from the atmosphere (col. 1, lines 4-14).
With regard to claim 5, Murray further discloses the penetrator device for ocean carbon dioxide removal (CDR) generates C-offset by the removing atmospheric CO2 and permanently disposing of C-rich materials (col. 1, lines 4-14).
With regard to claim 6, Murray further discloses the penetrating device is comprised of organic and/or inorganic carbon (col. 1, lines 4-14), or a combination thereof and results in no harm to the ecosystem and does not affect any ecotoxicity for the food chain by bioaccumulation of harmful compounds (col. 11, lines 6-18).
With regard to claims 8-9, Murray further discloses the penetrator device comprises a size greater that 3L volume capacity, carbon content, carbon storage capacity as a CDR storage composition (col. 15-16).
With regard to claim 10, Murray further discloses the penetrator device dimensions and density allow penetration into the seabed and long-term storage of its carbon content material (col. 3, lines 9-20; col. 11, lines 6-18).
With regard to claim 11, Murray further discloses the penetrator device has a cumulative risk between 1 and 10% (col. 11, lines 6-18; “permanent isolation”).
With regard to claim 12, Murray discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as a density higher or equal to about 1000 kg/m3, however fails to disclose the penetrator device has a length of about 1 to about 5 m and L/D ratio between about 8 and about 15. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the penetrator device be any desired size to include length of about 1 to about 5 m and L/D ratio between about 8 and about 15 based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 14, Murray, as best understood, further discloses the penetrator device is comprised of external material and internal filling made directly to capture carbon into structural material (col. 3, lines 46-67).
With regard to claim 15, Murray, as best understood, further discloses the penetrator device includes a mechanism to allow delivery of to the burial zone of the ocean from a boat (col. 3, lines 46-67).
With regard to claim 17, Murray further discloses the penetrator device comprises a tail (fig. 4) that allows the composition to penetrate into the sediment about 1 to about 30 m depth to allow a long-term storage of C (col. 6, lines 5-20).
With regard to claim 18, Murray further discloses the penetrator device stored in the deep-sea sediment avoids the disturbance to the benthic ecosystem, shorter storage of the carbon due to respiration or leakage for in the seabed water bodies and return to the surface with the ocean thermocline cycle (col. 11, lines 6-18; col. 14, lines 32-46).
With regard to claim 21, Murray further discloses allowing for the storage of a ton of CO2 equivalent with an emission-to-removal ratio of 0.001 to 0.1 (col. 14, line 54 to col. 15, line 16).
With regard to claim 25, Murray, as modified, further discloses the organic biomass is pre-formed into rigid-shaped free-fall penetrators avoids the need for manufacturing an outer shell layer (col. 4, lines 1-13, 42-65).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (6,190,301) in view of Lenz (WO 2012/145464 A1) and Roumeli et al. (2024/0076235), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (“Feasibility of Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste into the Seabed”).
With regard to claim 16, Murray, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the penetrator device is included in modified containers for the transport by sea and such modified containers are equipped with quick release hooks or similar that are loaded at a later stage.
Anderson discloses penetrator device wherein the device is included in modified containers for the transport by sea and such modified containers are equipped with quick release hooks or similar that are loaded at a later stage (pg. 31; “purpose-built ships”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify further Murray and utilize modified containers as taught in Anderson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to safely transport the penetrator devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments have overcome the rejection. The new limitations have been addressed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
04/02/2026