DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pre-grant publication corresponding to this application: US 2024/0246823. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application; Restriction
The Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-25 and 37-39) in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the article of Group II is the direct product of the process of Group I.” (Remarks of 7/16/2026 at 2). This is not found persuasive because Claim 1/Group I is not specially adapted for the manufacture of the “article” of Claim 26/Group II.
“Carbon source” in Claim 1/Group I is broad and generic. Inducing negative buoyancy in it does not inherently result in a solid carbon required by Claim 26/Group II. That is the test interpreting 37 CFR 1.475. See MPEP 1850 III. A. (“A process is specially adapted for the manufacture of a product if it inherently results in the product and an apparatus or means is specifically designed for carrying out a process if the contribution over the prior art of the apparatus or means corresponds to the contribution the process makes over the prior art.”). This is further evidenced by at least Claim 2, which requires a solid carbon source. Claim differentiation requires that solid carbon is not required of Claim 1.
The Remarks argue PCT Rule 13.2, stating “Under PCT Rule 13.2, unity exists where the inventions share the same or corresponding special technical features; a genus-species relationship between the recited carbon sources is a corresponding technical feature, not the absence of one.” PCT Rule 13.2 states: “Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same international application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” This does not address a genus / species situation between two different statutory classes of invention, as argued. This was not persuasive.
The Remarks argue the alternative position taken in the Restriction / Unity of Invention Requirement, i.e. that the special technical feature does not define a contribution over the art. The Remarks state “[t]he shared special technical feature is not a bare carbon source, not merely a carbon source rendered negatively buoyant, but the combination of inducing negative buoyancy in a carbon source and submerging that carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment for carbon sequestration. … By reducing the common subject matter to a generic ‘carbon source’…” (Remarks of 7/16/2026 at 3). In response – it is generic. “Carbon source” is almost as generic as they come in patent claims. A carbon source is almost anything. It is a very broad claim. Again, as stated in the Restriction Requirement, this reads on bottom fishing. It reads on littering in the ocean, as evidenced by the search reports / office actions of the world’s patent offices (applying the Nauendorf reference cited on the 11/9/2023 IDS).
The anoxic language is problematic, but not unworkable. It is construed below. Again, the claims read on bottom fishing. Carbon sequestration only appears in the preamble, but regardless, by putting a piece of bait on or near the bottom of a body of water, the bait cannot decay and release carbon into the environment. How is lowering bait into the water any different than what is depicted in Figs. 15-17?
See also the references applied below.
The arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 1-39 is/are pending.
Claims 26-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected article, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
8/25/2026
8/6/2025
6/3/2025
1/6/2025
9/11/2026
5/20/2024
11/9/2023
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97-1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, except as noted below:
NPL Cite No. 1 on the 11/9/2023 IDS and NPL Cite No. 2 on the 5/20/2024 IDS does not match the document provided, which appears to be some authors manuscript or pre-print. It is crossed off and not considered.
Discussion – Claim Construction
Claim 1 recites “anoxic.” The Specification states:
[0038] A general overview of the various features of the invention will be provided, with a detailed description following. Broadly, an embodiment of the present invention provides a method, process, and article of carbon sequestration in an anoxic environment. An anoxic environment is an area depleted of oxygen, such as a deep-sea ocean basin which has likely neither been in contact with an oxygen-rich atmosphere in centuries nor has likely not mixed with oxygen-rich surface waters in centuries.
[0039] An anoxic basin typically forms when a ‘bowl-like’ shape of an ocean bottom prevents ocean currents from mixing with a water in a basin. As organisms and bacteria naturally consume oxygen in the basin, the basin becomes anoxic. Oxygenated water is not refreshed via ocean circulation. With limited oxygen, or chemical gradients, the anoxic basin is a dead zone and hostile to life. While such basins exist across Earth's ocean floor, it is estimated that 99.8% of the ocean bottom is not anoxic. Said differently, approximately only 0.2% of Earth's ocean floor features an anoxic basin. The sequestration of a carbon source, such as biomatter, into these anoxic basins, may achieve sequestration on a geological time scale.
…
[0050] An anoxic basin may also be engineered and man-made. An engineered anoxic basin as well as a naturally occurring anoxic basin may be used for the sequestration of carbon sources. A pre-existing open pit mine or a fractured salt mine may be a site of an engineered anoxic basin. A new basin may also be dug or mined. The engineered anoxic basin may be formed by filling the site with water and removing or allowing nature to remove the oxygen. Anoxia may be induced by a low circulation of water. Warmer temperatures increase the induction of anoxia. A carbon source may then be deposited into the engineered anoxic basin. The basin may then be covered or sealed.
(emphasis added). This is an application for a U.S. patent, which extends to the United States, its territories and possessions. See 35 U.S.C. §271 (infringement), 35 U.S.C. §100 (definitions). Limited time exists for examination of patent applications, let alone brushing up on the intersection of patent and maritime laws and pondering the depths of the oceans1. If – according to the Specification – 0.2% of the Earth’s ocean floor has “anoxic” basins, and territorial waters extend 12 miles off shore2, it stands to reason that not many of the “anoxic basis” exist in US territorial waters. While drafting claims someone will infringe is not a requirement of the patent laws, the claims would seem to have diminished value under such a construction. Presumably the Applicants don’t want it to be limited to conditions found on 0.2% of the Earth’s ocean floor, as stated in the Specification. Likewise, with the patent term being 20 years from filing, presumably Applicants don’t want “anoxic” to mean something that has “neither been in contact with an oxygen-rich atmosphere in centuries nor has likely not mixed with oxygen-rich surface waters in centuries.” (S. 2: [0038]) (emphasis added).
It is noted the Specification refers to “engineered anoxic basin[s],” which amounts to digging a hole and letting nature take its course. See (S. 3: [0050]: “A new basin may also be dug or mined. The engineered anoxic basin may be formed by filling the site with water and removing or allowing nature to remove the oxygen.”). This is also claimed in dependent Claim 7. In view of this, “anoxic environment” is interpreted broadly. The term is construed as something including and between the conditions of 0.2% of the Earth’s ocean floors and a hole filled with water, exposed to nature. This construction is made in lieu of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), as “anoxic,” as used in the Specification (S. 2: [0038]: “an area depleted of oxygen”) is clearly a term of degree (depleted relative to what?), which are problematic under indefiniteness doctrines. MPEP 2173.05(b). Applicants are free to point out errors3, and the Examiner reserves the right to make the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-13 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adair, et al., The Effect of Wood Burial And Submersion on Decomposition: Implications for Reducing Carbon Emissions, Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, accessed online at: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/10081 (2010) (hereinafter “Adair at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “inducing a negative buoyancy in a carbon source.” A loblolly pine (a tree) – interpreted as a carbon source – is cut into disks. (Adair at 36 et seq.). The discs are placed in an oyster cage, which is understood to ““induc[e] negative buoyancy.”” (Adair at 43). Note the depiction of the oyster cage below a buoy or “bobber.” (Adair at 44, Fig. 10).
Claim 1 further requires “submerging the carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment.” The carbon source / oyster cage is submerged. (Adair at 43). The pond is interpreted as an anoxic environment. Id.
As to Claim 2, trees are a solid carbon source. (Adair at 36 et seq.).
As to Claim 3, placing the trees in an oyster cage is interpreted as the claimed “bundling.” (Adair at 43).
As to Claim 12, chemical properties of the water are measured. (Adair at 35 – 3.1.3.8 Salinity and pH (Pond Only)).
As to Claim 13, salinity and pH measure organisms / microbiological activity. Id. (“indicative of organisms”).
II. Claim(s) 7 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair, et al., The Effect of Wood Burial And Submersion on Decomposition: Implications for Reducing Carbon Emissions, Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, accessed online at: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/10081 (2010) (hereinafter “Adair at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 7, Adair teaches a pond. (Adair at 30). Ponds can be natural or manmade. Official notice is taken. To the extent this can’t be readily verified by a retention pond outside the window of whomever is reading this, etc., documentary evidence will be provided if requested. Digging a pond when the reference calls for a pond reflects application of known techniques (“digging,” a shovel, etc.) to achieve predictable results (a hole in the ground). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
III. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 19 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsouris, et al., Hydrate Composite Particles for Ocean Carbon Sequestration: Field Verification, Environ. Sci. Technbol. 2004; 38: 2470-2475 (hereinafter “Tsouris at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “inducing a negative buoyancy in a carbon source.” Negative buoyancy is induced in carbon dioxide containing composite particles (i.e. a carbon source). (Tsouris at 2472, col. 1-2 – Results).
Claim 1 further requires “submerging the carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment.” The carbon source is submerged. Id. (“Liquid CO2/water/CO2 hydrate composite particles were successfully created during field injections in Monterey Bay, CA at ocean depths of 1100-1300 m.”).
As to Claim 2, the composite particles are interpreted as a solid carbon source. Id.
As to Claim 3, bundling with a non-buoyant material is taught. (Tsouris at 2472, col. 2: “a flow rate ratio for CO2/H2O of less than 1:3 is needed to form a negatively buoyant composite.”
As to Claim 4, mixing in a slurry is taught. (Tsouris at 2470, col. 2).
As to Claim 19, an enclosed tube is taught. (Tsouris at 2171, Fig. 1).
IV. Claim(s) 1 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0260839 to Maher, et al.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “inducing a negative buoyancy in a carbon source.” Maher teaches gas storage vessel 10 on the sea surface, interpreted as having negative buoyancy induced upon it. (Maher 2-3: [0035]; Fig. 1-6). The gas being stored is understood to be natural gas, interpreted as a carbon source. (Maher 1: [0005]-[0010]).
Claim 1 further requires “submerging the carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment.” The storage vessel is submerged. (Maher 2-3: [0035]; Fig. 1-6).
V. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 13 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0210005 to Jones, et al.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “inducing a negative buoyancy in a carbon source.” Jones fertilizes (via nitrogen/urea) phytoplankton (a carbon source) in the ocean, and then the phytoplankton dies and sinks. (Jones 2: [0028] et seq. – general fertilization scheme; 3: [0049]: “Dead phytoplankton and organic material comprising excretion from zooplankton subsequently fall to lower levels of the water column (i.e. the deep ocean) as organic detritus, and the ocean current carries the urea and phytoplankton over the sea bed. The organic detritus carries with it carbon originating from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, enabling effective sequestering of carbon to deeper ocean layers or the sea bed.”).
Claim 1 further requires “submerging the carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment.” The carbon source is submerged. (Jones 3: [0049]).
As to Claim 2, phytoplankton is interpreted as a solid carbon source.
As to Claim 3, the addition of iron (understood as non-buoyant) is taught. (Jones 3: [0052]).
As to Claim 4, mixing iron with the phytoplankton is reasonably suggested. (Jones 3: [0048]-[0052]) (note ocean mixing in paragraph [0048]). The phytoplankton/urea/iron is interpreted as a slurry.
As to Claim 6, the addition of iron is taught. (Jones 3: [0052]).
As to Claim 13, measuring microbiological activity is taught. (Jones 3: [0055]).
VI. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 19 and 20 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Geomar, Manned submersible “JAGO,” Journal of large-scale research facilities 2017; 3: A110, PP. 1-12 (hereinafter “Geomar at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “inducing a negative buoyancy in a carbon source.” Geomar teaches a human occupied underwater vehicle (HOV) called “Jago” for underwater exploration. (Geomar Abstract; entire reference). At least the humans are construed as carbon sources. Note also the reference to food on board. (Geomar at 6).
Claim 1 further requires “submerging the carbon source into an aqueous anoxic environment.” The carbon source is submerged. (Jones 3: [0049]). The HOV is submerged. (Geomar at 4, Fig. 1). To the extent the preamble is limiting, for the time the humans are underwater and exhaling into the submersible, that carbon is ““sequestered.””
As to Claim 2, humans are solid carbon sources. (Geomar Abstract; entire reference).
As to Claim 3, the humans are bundled with the submersible. (Geomar at 8, Fig. 2(b)).
As to Claim 19, Jago has tubular design features that help guide the humans in the water. (Geomar at 4, Fig. 1).
As to Claim 20, Jago is deployed from a boat with a crane. (Geomar at 8 – 4 Deployment, recovery and operations). See also (Geomar Figs). Cranes are generally understood to have pulley systems. These appear visible in Fig. 1(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 37, 38 and 39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guyette, et al., The Temporal Distribution and Carbon Storage of Large Oak Wood in Streams and Floodplain Deposits, Ecosystems 2008; 11: 643-653 (hereinafter “Guyette at __) is noted. The teachings are similar to Adair, discussed above. Trees sequester carbon via photosynthesis. Dead trees under water store that carbon.
The following are relevant, regardless of their status as prior art:
Zeng, et al., 3775-year-old wood burial supports “wood vaulting” as a durable carbon removal, Science 2024; 395: 1454-1459.
Zeng, et al., Wood vault: remove atmospheric CO2 with trees, store wood for carbon sequestration for now and as biomass, bioenergy and carbon reserve for the future, Carbon Balance and Management 2022; 17(2): 1-29.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1 “We can’t say we’ve explored the seafloor until we’ve seen it, and explorers have seen less than 0.001% of the deep ocean seafloor — that’s roughly the size of Rhode Island. Since more than 90% of the ocean is deep ocean (i.e., deeper than 200 meters/656 feet), a very large majority of the ocean remains to be explored.” How much of the ocean has been explored?, accessed online at https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ocean-fact/explored/ on 9/4/2026.
2 “In 1988, President Reagan by Proclamation extended the U.S. territorial sea to 12 nautical miles.” NOAA Office of Coast Survey, Maritime Zones of the United States, accessed online at https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/docs/gis-learnaboutmaritimezones1pager.pdf on 9/4/2026.
3 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) (“The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.”).
Prosecution Insights