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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “138” has been used to designate both engines (fig. 1c) and frustoconical portion (fig. 3a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13 line 29 reads “a second section 11B” and should read –a second section 110B—
Reference character 138 has been used to identify both “one or more engines” and “frusto-conical portion”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "each orifice" in line 3 and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; line 3 reads “at least one orifice” which requires only one orifice. The term “each” suggests more than one orifice, which has not been established by claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as they depend upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vladimir (SU 1375172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vladimir discloses an apparatus for at least partially stripping seaweed (2) from a net (1) comprising the seaweed, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one harvest plate (6), wherein the harvest plate comprises at least one orifice (8) extending through the harvest plate, wherein each orifice is configured to receive a respective net containing seaweed, and is configured to at least partially strip the seaweed from the respective net as the respective net is passed through the orifice (paragraph 0020);
wherein each orifice (8) comprises a respective release channel (9), which extends from the orifice to an edge of the harvest plate (see fig. 1), for releasing the net from the orifice (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 2, Vladimir discloses an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each orifice is circular in cross section (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Vladimir discloses an apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a conveying device (not shown) configured to receive the stripped seaweed, wherein the conveying device is at least partially located underneath the harvest plate (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 5, Vladimir discloses a method of harvesting seaweed by at least partially stripping seaweed from a net (1) comprising the seaweed using the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
passing the net (1) comprising the seaweed (2) through the at least one orifice (8) of the harvest plate (6); and
at least partially stripping the seaweed (2) from the net (1) to produce a harvested seaweed as the net is passed through the at least one orifice (8) of the harvest plate (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 6, Vladimir discloses a method according to claim 5, wherein the net (1) is a cylindrical net, wherein the seaweed is located in the cylindrical net and at least partially projects from an outer surface of the cylindrical net (see fig. 1) prior to the net being passed though the at least one orifice (8) of the harvest plate (6).
Regarding claim 7, Vladimir discloses a method according to claim 5, wherein the method further comprises:
stopping the net (1) passing through the at least one orifice (8) of the harvest plate (6); and
moving the net (1) through the respective release channel (9) of each orifice to release the net from the at least one orifice of the harvest plate (paragraphs 0015, 0020).
Regarding claim 14, Vladimir discloses a seaweed product (2) produced by a method according to claim 5 (paragraphs 0008, 0020).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vladimir (SU 1375172 A1) in view of Yu (KR 20120010440 A).
Regarding claim 3, Vladimir discloses an apparatus according to claim 1.
Vladimir does not disclose wherein the harvest plate comprises a plurality of orifices, wherein each of the plurality of orifices comprises a respective release channel for releasing the respective net from the orifice.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses an apparatus (29, fig. 2) for stripping seaweed from a net having a plurality of orifices (29a, 29d) for receiving a respective net (21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Vladimir with a plurality of orifices as disclosed by Yu to yield the predictable result of a harvesting apparatus having multiple orifices to harvest multiple nets.
Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vladimir (SU 1375172 A1) in view of Katzen (US 20050048080 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Vladimir discloses a method according to claim 5.
Vladimir does not disclose subjecting the harvested seaweed to a post-harvest treatment.
Katzen discloses subjecting harvested seaweed (paragraph 0061) to a post-harvest treatment to provide a product having a substantially reduced mineral content and an increased nutritional value that can be used in larger quantities (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to subject the harvested seaweed of Vladimir to a post-harvesting treatment as disclosed by Katzen to increase the nutritional value of the harvested seaweed.
Regarding claim 9, Katzen of the resultant combination, discloses a method according to claim 8, wherein the post-harvest treatment is selected from the group consisting of washing, preserving treatments, color removal treatments, odor removal treatments, and combinations thereof ().
Regarding claim 10, Vladimir discloses a method according to claim 5.
Vladimir does not disclose drying the harvested seaweed.
Katzen discloses subjecting harvested seaweed (paragraph 0061) to drying (paragraph 0078) as part of a process to provide a product having a substantially reduced mineral content and an increased nutritional value (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dry the harvested seaweed of Vladimir as disclosed by Katzen to increase the nutritional value of the seaweed.
Regarding claim 11, Katzen, of the resultant combination, discloses a method according to claim 10, wherein the harvested seaweed is sun dried (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 12, Katzen, of the resultant combination, discloses a method according to claim 10, further comprising washing the dried harvested seaweed (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 13, Katzen, of the resultant combination, discloses a method according to claim 10, further comprising milling the dried harvested seaweed (paragraph 0091).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vladimir (SU 1375172 A1) in view of Kati (US 20160219811 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Vladimir discloses the apparatus of claim 1, which may be used in both coastal and marine conditions (paragraph 0008).
Vladimir does not disclose a nautical craft comprising the apparatus of claim 1.
In the same field of endeavor, Kati discloses a nautical craft (104, fig. 10) that carries an apparatus for stripping seaweed (102).
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 nautical craft with the apparatus of Vladimir in view of the teaching by Kati that it is known in the art to provide a nautical craft with a stripping apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220071092 A1 discloses a nautical craft having a seaweed stripping apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671