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
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0018470, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 1, Kim discloses a floating structure (as discussed in the abstract), comprising: a plurality of tubular elements (Figs. 1-3: 11, 21) connected with joints (Fig. 2: 22, 23 for tubular elements 201; and as discussed in [0047]: thermal bonded joints for tubular elements 11) at the ends of adjacent tubular elements to form a plurality of stackable, closed ring-structures (Figs. 1-3: 10, 20) and wherein said closed ring-structures (10, 20) are provided with a vertical attachment means (Fig. 1 and as discussed in [0039]: 51) binding adjacent, stacked, closed ring-structures (10, 20) together vertically to form a vertical wall structure (as shown in Fig. 1: 1) with an internal volume intended for filling with water and other objects such as fish (as discussed in [0039]: “thereby providing a space to farm fisheries, etc.”), the vertical wall structure, when assembled, adapted for filling with a concrete filling within its interior (Figs. 3-4B show hollow interior 10, 11, 12 adapted for filling with a concrete filling within its interior), a bottom structure (Fig. 1: bottom horizontal net 50 spanning the space interior of closed ring-structure 20) covering a bottom end of the vertical structure (as shown in Fig. 1).
In the reference to Kim, while the closed ring-structures are buoyant, only one closed ring-structure of the plurality of closed ring-structures is provided with buoyancy chambers (as discussed in [0041]: “the upper frame 10 provides a buoyancy large enough for the submersible offshore marine aquaculture apparatus 1 to float on the surface of water” and [0050]: “The fixed buoyant body 12 may be implemented in the form of a double pipe together with the rim structure 11.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of closed ring-structures to all be provided with buoyancy chambers for the advantage of selectively adjusting the weight and buoyancy of the floating structure, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 2, Kim discloses the floating structure according to claim 1, wherein said buoyancy chambers (as discussed in [0050]: “The fixed buoyant body 12 may be implemented in the form of a double pipe together with the rim structure 11.”) comprise a closed inner tube (Figs. 3-4B: 12) arranged inside the tubular elements (Figs. 3-4B: 10) and/or a vertical pipe extending vertically through the wall structure at the joints (this limitation not being a required claim element following the use of “and/or”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0018470, as cited by Applicant) in view of
Jakobsen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0059339, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 3, Kim discloses the floating structure according to claim 1 substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show vertical reinforcement structures arranged vertically through the tubular elements of the closed ring-structures and extending at least partly into two adjacent stacked tubular elements. Jakobsen teaches a floating structure (as shown in Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of stacked tubular elements (Figs. 1-4: 7, 9); vertical reinforcement structures (Fig. 4: 25) arranged vertically through the tubular elements of the closed ring-structures and extending at least partly into two adjacent stacked tubular elements (as discussed in [0078] and in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floating structure of Kim to include the vertical reinforcement structures as taught by Jakobsen for the advantage of routing support structures, feeding hoses, and/or sensors through the tubular elements (Jakobsen as discussed in [0078]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0018470, as cited by Applicant) in view of Zheng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0025369).
For claim 5, Kim discloses the floating structure according to claim 1 substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the bottom structure is provided with buoyancy chambers connected to fluid supply for ballasting. Zheng et al. teaches a floating structure (as shown in Fig.1 and discussed in the abstract) comprising: a plurality of tubular elements defining a buoyant vertical structure (Figs. 1, 4: cage 4) and a bottom structure (as discussed in [0048] and in Fig. 4: bottom of cage 4 at bottom crossed pontoons 46) is provided with buoyancy chambers connected to fluid supply for ballasting (as discussed in [0048]: “contain segmented ballast tanks”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floating structure of Kim to include the bottom structure as taught by Zheng et al. for the advantage of selectively adjusting the depth of the floating structure.
For claim 6, Kim discloses the floating structure according to claim 1 substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the bottom structure comprises - an upper flooring of concrete - a lower flooring of concrete - a buoyancy section between upper and lower flooring comprising buoyancy elements. Zheng et al. teaches a floating structure (as shown in Fig.1 and discussed in the abstract) comprising: a plurality of tubular elements defining a buoyant vertical structure (Figs. 1, 4: cage 4) and a bottom structure (as discussed in [0034], [0048] and in Fig. 4: bottom of cage 4 at bottom crossed pontoons 46), wherein the bottom structure comprises ballast tanks filled with “high-density metals and/or concrete…Seawater may also be poured into the ballast tanks” (as discussed in [0034]). Although Zheng et al. fails to show buoyancy elements between an upper and a lower flooring of concrete, the reference teaches it is well known to provide both concrete and seawater within the bottom structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floating structure of Kim to include the bottom structure as taught by Zheng et al. for the advantage of balancing and stabilizing the floating structure against deformation when pushed by rough waters.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0018470, as cited by Applicant) in view of
Langlie (EP 0347489 A2, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 7, Kim discloses the floating structure according to claim 1 substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the bottom structure comprises means for suction of water and particles out from the internal volume of the floating structure. Langlie teaches a floating structure (as discussed in the abstract), comprising: a plurality of floating platforms (Fig. 1: 1, 2) joined together to form a vertical structure (as shown in Fig. 1), the vertical structure having a bottom structure (as discussed in the translated description and in Fig. 6: “the fish silos 4 each have a funnel-like bottom 16”), wherein the bottom structure comprises means for suction of water and particles out from the internal volume of the floating structure (as discussed in the translated description and in Fig. 6: “a pump 7 with a lockable discharge line 8 being disposed as the disposal device for the resulting impurities in the deepest part of the bottom”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floating structure of Kim to include the means for suction as taught by Langlie for the advantage of removing impurities from the bottom of the floating structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 1 “Kim discloses only one upper rim and one lower rim, not "a plurality" of discrete ring-structures each of which can be stacked. The cited passages ([0037]-[0042]) describe the upper frame and lower frame as the sole annular members; there is no repetition of identical ring modules, no description of intermediate rings, and no indication that either frame is intended to be duplicated and stacked. Kim, in contrast, fails to disclose stacked structures. While there are two ring structures, these are not stacked but widely separated to form a top and bottom of a submersible offshore marine aquaculture apparatus, and are connected by ropes 51, see paragraph [0039].”
The examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality” is more than one. Given this interpretation, there two ring structures (10 and 20), one above and directly adjacent the other, thus able to be stacked – which meets the requirement of the claim language “stackable”. The two ring structures are further formed from a plurality of parts (11 and 21, respectively), as shown in Figures 1-3 of Kim.
Applicant argues, “Claim 1 requires vertical attachment means located on every ring so that adjacent rings lock together to carry compressive loads and form a watertight concrete shell. Kim's ropes 51 are merely tension elements suspending a net; they do not connect ring edges in face-to-face contact, do not transmit vertical load, and certainly are not "attachment means" in the sense recited. See Kim [0039] (ropes 51 "support nets"), Fig. 1 (ropes run inside the frame, not between stacked rings).”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., they do not connect ring edges in face-to-face contact, do not transmit vertical load, and certainly are not "attachment means" in the sense recited) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The ropes 51 of Kim are vertically disposed and provide attachment of the two ring structures 10 and 20.
Applicant argues, “The obviousness rationale is limited to an uncorroborated assertion that "mere duplication of parts" would have been routine. However, under [MPEP § 2143.03] and In re Kahn, an element absent from the reference must be shown or there must be articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for adding it. The Office cites no art disclosing (or suggesting) stacked annular modules for concrete tanks, nor any reason why the aquaculture cage of Kim (whose function is to remain light and buoyant) would be redesigned into a heavy concrete-filled cylinder.”
The reference to Kim shows the upper closed ring-structure includes buoyancy chambers, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower closed ring-structure of Kim to include buoyancy chambers, since adjustable buoyancy is exceedingly well-known in the art of floating structures to achieve the desired flotation or submersion of the structure. Here, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant argues, “Additionally, Kim expressly teaches away from - and would be rendered inoperable by - the claimed concrete-filled wall; no motivation to substitute water/air with concrete. Claim 1 also relates to a vertical structure adapted for filling with concrete. A person skilled in the art will know that concrete is significantly denser than water and elements must be adapted for this.”
It should be noted that claim 1 merely recites “the vertical wall structure, when assembled, adapted for filling with a concrete filing within its interior”. Thus, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Specifically, the claim limitation “adapted for filling with a concrete filling within its interior”. The vertical wall structure was previously defined in the claim to include the stacked, closed ring-structures together with the vertical attachment means, such that as broadly interpreted, at least the tubular elements are “adapted for filling with a concrete filing”, as claimed.
Applicant argues “Kim lacks both a rigid bottom structure and the specific buoyancy chamber architecture of claim 2; essential limitations are simply missing 1. Bottom structure (claim 1, final element) - Kim's net 50 is a flexible mesh permeable to water and incapable of covering the bottom end of a rigid wall to form a closed tank. The specification of the present application (para. [0045]-[0048]) explains that bottom structure 110 is concrete, integral with the wall, and supports the tank's hydrostatic load. Kim [0040]-[0041] portrays the net merely as containment for fish, not as a structural floor.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., bottom structure 110 is concrete, integral with the wall, and supports the tank's hydrostatic load) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “Buoyancy chambers as closed inner tubes inside each tubular element (claim 2) - Kim's fixed buoyant body 12 is a single continuous pipe housed inside the peripheral rim 11, not within "tubular elements 300" that make up the wall rings. There is no teaching of inserting discrete closed tubes into every wall element, nor of vertical pipes 234 through joints.” Kim clearly shows the claim language “a closed inner tube (Figs. 3-4B: 12) arranged inside the tubular elements (Figs. 3-4B: 10)”, where the tubular elements 10, in part form the vertical wall structure.
Applicant argues “The Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 3 requires (i) members that pass through the concrete-receiving tubular elements of each ring, and (ii) that over-lap into the next ring up down to create true reinforcing continuity.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the reference to Jakobsen shows, in Fig. 4, a tube defining a vertical reinforcement structure (25) that provides support and passes through the buoyant member (7). The features upon which applicant relies (i.e. over-lap into the next ring up down to create true reinforcing continuity.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
With regard to arguments directed to claims 5-6, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 5-6 for the reasons discussed above as stated with respect to claims 1-3.
In response to applicant's argument that “Because neither reference teaches or suggests a bottom structure that both (i) closes the tank and (ii) incorporates a suction system, the combination still lacks the claimed feature. An examiner may not rely on parts of Langlie that are resident in a different sub-assembly (the silo) to satisfy a limitation directed to the tank's bottom structure (MPEP §2131.05; structural limitations must read on the same element). The rejection therefore fails factually and should be withdrawn.”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643