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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Korean Patent KR 101108147 to Song in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,266,509 to Gollott et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Song teaches a reef frame structure and method of
assembling, comprising: a frame structure comprising a plurality of interconnected beams (Song
Fig. 1 #41, #42 and H; Fig. 5 provides a picture of an unnumbered beam); a plurality of deployment hooks (Song Fig. 2 and 5 #56, applicant does not provide structural limitations or details of the structural make-up of the hook, a hook can merely be a catch or hanger and element #56 satisfies the broad limitation) directly connected to the frame structure (Song Fig. 5 #56 is directly connected to the frame beam), and configured to releasably connect to a plurality of articles (Song Fig. 5 #50 and Fig. 2 show a plurality of articles #50, element #56 releasably connects to each #50 satisfying the broad nature of the claim); and wherein each of the plurality of deployment hooks is configured to attach to a respective link of each of the plurality of articles (Song Fig. 2 #50, article and Fig. 5 #55, link; no structural details is provided in the claim to define the structural make-up of the link, element #55 satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation).
Song is silent on a plurality of buoys attached to each of the plurality of deployment
hooks. However, Gollott teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it
is known to attach buoys to each hook (Gollott Fig. 1 #52 is attached to each #36). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Song with the
teachings of Gollot before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable
expectation of success to identify for lifting as taught by Gollott. The modification is merely the
application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable
results. Song as modified by Gollott teaches a buoy (Gollott Fig. 1 #52), but is silent on a
plurality of buoys. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
further modify the teachings of Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with
a reasonable expectation of success since the modification is merely an obvious engineering
design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for one skilled in the for
increased visibility. The modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple
effect performing the same intended function [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378,
380 (CCPA 1960)].
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Song as modified teaches the plurality of interconnected
beams of the frame structure are made of steel (Song English translation "Description of
Embodiments" section).
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Song as modified teaches the frame structure comprises at
least one attachment link configured to attach to a crane, a lift, or a hoist (Song Fig. 2 #70)
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean
Patent KR 101108147 to Song in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,266,509 to Gollott et al as applied to
claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No.7,513,711 to Walter.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Song as modified teaches the frame structure defines a
rectangular layout (Song Fig. 4), but is silent on a square layout, or a circular layout. However,
Walter teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to
provide a square frame structure (Walter Fig. 7, claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Song with the teachings of Walter
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
for an efficient use of space for use or storage. The modification is merely the application of a
known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The
change is merely an obvious engineering design choice of a change in ornamental aesthetics
and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [In re Seid, 161 F.2d
229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has clarified the above claim rejections to reflect applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner maintains that Song as modified by Gollot and later Walter satisfies all claim limitations. The limitations are very broad in nature and do not provide enough structural detail to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record. Song teaches a reef frame structure and method of assembling, comprising: a frame structure comprising a plurality of interconnected beams (Song Fig. 1 #41 and #42; Fig. 5 provides a picture of an unnumbered beam). Song Figure 1 illustrates a frame structure as claimed since it includes a plurality of interconnected beams. In addition, Song teaches a plurality of deployment hooks (Song Fig. 2 and 5 #56, applicant does not provide structural limitations or details of the structural make-up of the hook, a hook can merely be a catch or hanger and element #56 satisfies the broad limitation). The hooks of Song #56 are directly connected to the frame structure (Song Fig. 5 #56 is directly connected to the frame beam), and configured to releasably connect to a plurality of articles (Song Fig. 5 #50 and Fig. 2 show a plurality of articles #50, element #56 releasably connects to each #50 satisfying the broad nature of the claim). Song #56 and Song #55 are not permanently connected and Song #56 can be released since it does not lock anything into place. Furthermore, Song teaches wherein each of the plurality of deployment hooks is configured to attach to a respective link of each of the plurality of articles (Song Fig. 2 #50, article and Fig. 5 #55, link; no structural details is provided in the claim to define the structural make-up of the link, element #55 satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation). Song’s link #55 attaches to the deployment hook #56.
Applicant’s arguments are more detailed than the claims themselves. When determining patentability, the limitations of the claims are evaluated and not the distinct advantages as argued by applicant. Currently, the limitations of the claims do not distinguish. In addition, 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.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Song is silent on a plurality of buoys attached to each of the plurality of deployment hooks. However, Gollott teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it
is known to attach buoys to each hook (Gollott Fig. 1 #52 is attached to each #36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Song with the teachings of Gollot before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to identify for lifting as taught by Gollott. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Song as modified by Gollott teaches a buoy (Gollott Fig. 1 #52), but is silent on a plurality of buoys. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for one skilled in the for increased visibility. The modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple effect performing the same intended function [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)].
Applicant merely claims “a plurality of buoys attached to each of the plurality of deployment hooks.” The claim language does not explicitly assign to each hook its own buoy, but merely that plurality buoys are attached to each of the hooks. In other words, the buoys are not directly attached to each hook nor are the buoys assigned specifically to its own hook. If a plurality of buoys were attached to Song’s frame anywhere on the frame it would satisfy being attached to each of the plurality of deployment hooks. Gollot is merely cited to teach the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to teach at least one buoy to a hook of a frame structure (Gollot Fig. 1 #52 to #36) and the examiner is not looking to Gollot for the teaching of the frame structure itself to satisfy the claim limitations.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
22 February 2026