The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Formal Matters
Claims 1-5 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application claims priority from US provisional application 63/488,234 filed on 3/3/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to products of nature without significantly more. Krachler et al (Science of The Total Environment, March 2019, volume 656, pages 952-958) teaches that blackwater rivers near seas/coastal ocean have natural iron fertilization due to chelating properties of humic and fulvic acids complex with iron in the river water (Introduction and conclusions and Krachler). Suzuki et al (Water Research, November 1992, volume 26, pages 1421-1424, abstract) teaches significant amounts of Fe(II) in river water exist as fulvic-Fe complex (abstract of Suzuki). This water with the iron complexes of fulvic acid (iron fulvate) would allow coating of many structures that can be at least partially underwater including rocks, water plants, and natural reefs by washing over the structures or depositing on them with silts/sediments. Natural reefs, plants and rocks/pebbles are natural structures that were formed naturally. As iron fulvates are naturally occurring, at least partially underwater structures can be naturally occurring and the formation and presence of iron fulvate water that would contact such structures is naturally occurring, these represent natural products and processes. There are also numerous manmade structures such as boats, bridges, and docks that would contact such natural waters on a regular basis. Applicant may define the coating substance of the independent claims further (as supported by the specification) in a manner where it no longer reads on the naturally occurring waters with iron fulvates (complexes of iron with fulvic acid). Note that the limitation of “generated by causing at least iron (ii) sulfate and a fulvic acid to react” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113) in claims 1 and 3 and also claim 5 as it is not presented as an active step of the process (e.g. by use of “generating” or “reacting”). If nature provides for iron (II) fulvate, then it provides the limitation regardless of how they were made or what reaction was involved (e.g. a materially similar product can be formed by different processes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikoosefat et al (Journal of Molecular Liquids, online Feb 11, 2023, volume 376, pages 1-13).
Claim 1 is to “A coating material” while the “wherein” clause is toward the intended use of the coating material on an outer surface of an underwater structure. Note the claim uses the preamble phrase “for underwater structures” (see MPEP 2111.02). The claim will be read for what the coating material is comprised of, and not for items related to the underwater structure.
In claim 2, the phrase “is sprayed and applied to…” is also toward the use of the material. If the material of the prior art is capable of being sprayed and applied, then it reads on the claim.
Nikoosefat teaches a strategy for synthesizing water soluble iron heterocomplexes (abstract). Nikoosefat teaches fulvate iron (II) complexes by combining 10 ml iron (II) sulfate and 200 ml fulvic acid, stirring at room temperature for 12 hours (section 2.2.1 and section 3.1). This is a liquid mixture in 2.2.1 that is in volumes, combined and stirred. As the coating material of the claims only necessitates iron (II) fulvate is in a liquid mixture form that could coat including by spraying, this formed mixture with fulvate iron (II) complexes represents a coating material.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200235846Y1 (published 10/2001, English translation provided) and Sadakata JP2006081457A (English translation provided).
Claim 1 is to “A coating material” while the “wherein” clause is toward the intended use of the coating material on an outer surface of an underwater structure. Note the claim uses the preamble phrase “for underwater structures” (see MPEP 2111.02). The claim will be read for what the coating material is comprised of, and not for items related to the underwater structure.
In claim 2, the phrase “is sprayed and applied to…” is also toward the use of the material. If the material of the prior art is capable of being sprayed and applied, then it reads on the claim.
KR ‘846 teaches using a special paint coating with iron sulfate on a concrete material to form an amorphous iron oxide coating layer that is capable of providing enough iron for the growth environment of aquatic plants and animals (abstract). KR ‘846 teaches table 1 with applying paint over the surface three times and then dried for 1 week to make a coating film. KR ‘846 teaches an artificial reef that is manufactured in the form of unevenness to accommodate more fish and shellfish (Description of ‘846). Table 1’s method provides that the thickness of the coating film was set to 50 um. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would determine the desired thickness of the coating by setting it. Thus, there is forming of an underwater structure (manufacturing) followed by coating/painting of its surface with a material that includes iron compounds to supply iron to the aquatic environment in teachings of ‘846). Prior to the examples, KR ‘846 provides that each of the components is dissolved in a solvent to form a solution.
KR ‘846 does not teach iron in the form of ferrous fulvate.
Sadakata teaches an environmental protection material that supplies ferrous (iron II) ion as iron fulvate in a stable state (abstract). Sadakata teaches a iron fulvic acid release material in a storage chamber which forms (last three paragraphs of Sadakata). Sadakata teaches iron fulvic acid can be continuously supplied to water for long periods of time (English translation).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have utilized iron (II) (ferrous) fulvate as a source of ferrous ions as it is seen as environmentally protective and its ability to be supplied to water for long periods of time for plants by teachings of Sadakata and incorporated it into iron releasing coatings of KR ‘846 for artificial reefs and concrete materials as it is seen as an acceptable iron compound for release in water for aquatic plants. Thus, there was reasonable expectation of success in using iron (II) fulvate as an iron source in the coating of Sadakata with the reasonable expectation of getting beneficial ferrous iron released in an environmentally friendly and stable manner. As KR’846 provides for setting the film to a thickness and using the coatings to release iron for plant growth, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably vary the thickness of the coating film as desired in part to achieve the desired amounts of iron ions released into the aqueous environment that the reef was placed into for plant growth.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200235846Y1 (published 10/2001, English translation provided), Sadakata JP2006081457A (English translation provided) and Orlikowski et al (Arch Metall Mater., 2020, volume 65, pages 169-174).
KR ‘846 and Sadakata teach the claims as discussed above.
KR ‘846 and Sadakata do not teach the thickness of 3 to 10 mm for the coating.
Orlikowski teaches protective coatings for underwater protection of materials (abstract). Orlikowski teaches the importance for corrosion protection (abstract). Orlikowski teaches increasing the number of coating layers (makes thicker coatings) will provide better resistance (page 173). Orlikowski indicates that if coating thickness is insufficient then the barrier properties will be poor and corrosion will occur (page 173 and Summary).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have increased coating thickness on underwater materials based on teachings of Orlikowski as it will help protect the coated material like those motivated by KR ‘846 and Sadataka from corrosion allowing it to last longer. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining more highly protected underwater materials when increasing coating thickness on the materials by the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would add more coating layers in order to achieve the thicker coatings as taught by Orlikowski.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached on (571)272-0581. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613