Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/517,904

FLOATING WETLANDS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
National Aquarium Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1334 granted / 1610 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1648
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1610 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over document entitled “How Our Floating Wetland Work” herein referred to as Aqua in view of Pritchett (US 4,934,298). As to claim 1, Aqua discloses (see article and figure) floating wetland system comprising: decking; polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layers mounted on the decking; a plurality of pontoons coupled to the decking, each of the pontoons defining a hollow interior space and having a discharge port located on a side of the pontoon away from the decking and an inlet port, the plurality of pontoons arranged in modules. Aqua does not disclose the pontoon having a discharge port, the piping having a second discharge port, the piping connecting the inlet port to a compressed air system and the second discharge port; and manually adjusted globe valves, each manually adjusted globe valve connected to one of the modules to provide a mechanism to control the buoyancy of the pontoons of each module independently. Pritchett discloses a pontoon system that is capable of being raised and lowered in a body of water. The pontoon system comprising a pontoon (14,16) including a discharge port (30,32), the piping (24) having a second discharge port (within pontoon 14,16), the piping connecting the inlet port to a compressed air system (not shown, see col. 2, lies 6-14) and the second discharge port; and manually adjusted globe valves (26,28), each manually adjusted globe valve connected to one of the modules to provide a mechanism to control the buoyancy of the pontoons of each module independently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pontoon having a discharge port, the piping having a second discharge port, the piping connecting the inlet port to a compressed air system and the second discharge port; and manually adjusted globe valves, each manually adjusted globe valve connected to one of the modules to provide a mechanism to control the buoyancy of the pontoons of each module independently as disclosed by Pritchett, since doing so provides the expected benefit of controlling buoyancy of pontoon members so as to be raised and lowered in a water body. As to claim 2, Pritchett also discloses a plurality of airlift assemblies (24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of airlift assemblies as disclosed by Pritchett, since doing so provides the expected benefit of controlling buoyancy of pontoon members so as to be raised and lowered in a water body. As to claim 3, Pritchett discloses (see figure 2, the valves 26 and 28, appear to be tee wye type fittings) wherein each airlift assembly comprises a body including a length of pipe attached to a tee wye fitting, an end of the pipe opposite the tee wye filling is open, an upper end of the tee wye fitting is sealed, and a lateral end of the tee wye fitting is open. As to claim 8, Aqua discloses wherein the PET layers define boundaries of a central channel through the floating wetland system. As to claim 9, Pritchett discloses airlift assemblies 24 positioned along the central channel with discharges oriented along the central channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of airlift assemblies as disclosed by Pritchett, since doing so provides the expected benefit of controlling buoyancy of pontoon members so as to be raised and lowered in a water body. As to claim 10, Aqua disclose the floating wetland system may be used to culture oysters. As such, the float wetland of Aqua may include a layer of oyster shells placed on the decking in the central channel. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the floating wetland system wherein each airlift assembly further comprises air supply tubing connected to a valve at the sealed upper end of the tee wye fitting and connected to a bubbler disposed in the body of the airlift assembly. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 12/2/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as stated 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 FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm. 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. /FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601126
HYBRID POWERTRAIN FOR PLANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600436
MOORING SYSTEMS FOR FIXED MARINE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595719
EFFICIENT SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE HEATING OF INJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577855
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MICROBUBBLE AND NANOBUBBLE CO2 AND OTHER GAS DISSOLUTION AND SEQUESTRATION IN GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565824
INTEGRATED CARBON SEQUESTRATION INJECTION CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1610 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month