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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the” should be inserted at the end of line 2. 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 1-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the wording of “a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater, comprising a first gabion box and first emergent plants on a top of the first gabion box, wherein the first gabion box is located on a waterward side of the first emergent plants, and wherein a top elevation of the first gabion box is higher than a standing water level” in lines 3-7 is confusing. How can the first gabion box be located on a side of the plants when the plants are on top of the first gabion box? These locations are mutually exclusive. How can the top elevation of the first gabion box be higher than a standing water level when the first gabion box is submerged? These conditions are also mutually exclusive. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater, comprising a first gabion box and first emergent plants on a top of the first gabion box, wherein the first gabion box is located on a waterward side of the first emergent plants, and wherein a top elevation of the first gabion box is higher than a standing water level” to mean “a wave-absorbing partially submerged breakwater, comprising a first gabion box and first emergent plants on a top of the wave-absorbing partially submerged breakwater, wherein the first gabion box is located on a waterward side of the first emergent plants, and wherein a top elevation of the first gabion box is higher than a standing water level”. Further, it is unclear whether “shallow water beach area” in line 12 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “shallow beach area” in line 10 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “shallow beach area” in line 10 to mean “shallow water beach area” for consistency with depending claims. Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear which planting platform is meant by “the planting platform” in lines 18-19 because plural planting platforms are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the planting platform” to mean “the planting platforms”.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 219124967) in view of Wang et al (CN 1854395).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a shoreline structure, wherein the shoreline structure integrates wind-wave protection and ecological landscaping (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1), the shoreline structure comprises: a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. 200, Fig. 1), wherein a top elevation of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater is higher than a standing water level (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Applicant has not established the water used to determine the standing water level and the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater of Dai is higher than any lower standing water level); a slope protection, which is permanently located on the waterward side of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. sloped portion of 200 near 100, Fig. 1); a shallow beach area, located on a backwater side of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. 20, Fig. 1, paragraph 0049) and comprising third emergent plants (e.g. 700, Fig. 1, paragraph 0052); a deep-water ditch, located between the shallow water beach area and the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, paragraph 0049), wherein the deep-water ditch comprises submerged plants (e.g. 620, Fig. 1, paragraph 0050); and a plurality of planting platforms scattered within the deep-water ditch (e.g. 310, Fig. 1, paragraph 0047), wherein the plurality of planting platforms comprises second emergent plants (e.g. 330, Fig. 1, paragraph 0047). Dai does not disclose that the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater comprises a first gabion box and first emergent plants on a top of the first gabion box. Wang teaches a shoreline structure (e.g. Fig. 3, claim 1) comprising: a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. Fig. 3, claim 1, paragraph 0024), comprising a first gabion box (e.g. 4, Fig. 3, paragraph 0024) and first emergent plants on a top of the first gabion box (e.g. 6, Fig. 3, paragraph 0020), and wherein the first gabion box is located on a waterward side of the first emergent plants (e.g. Fig. 3); and a slope protection, which is permanently located on the waterward side of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. 1, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater with gabion boxes and emergent plants as taught by Wang for the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater of Dai because such is a known wave-absorbing submerged breakwater in the art that would provide the expected benefit of increasing stability and wave resistance (e.g. Wang, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dai and Wang further discloses that the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater comprises a soil embankment (e.g. Wang, 2, Fig. 3, paragraph 0007), a second gabion box (e.g. Wang, other 4, Fig. 3), wherein the first gabion box is permanently located on the waterward side of the soil embankment, and the second gabion box is permanently located on the backwater side of the soil embankment (e.g. Wang, Fig. 3, paragraph 0008), wherein the first gabion box and the second gabion box are permanently connected in parallel and form a planting grid, and wherein the first emergent plants are planted in the planting grid (e.g. Wang, Fig.’s 2 and 3, paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dai and Wang further discloses that the top elevation of the first gabion box is about 20 cm above the standing water level, and the top elevation of the second gabion box is equal to the standing water level (e.g. as explained above, Applicant has not established the water used to determine the standing water level and the top elevation of the gabion boxes of Dai and Wang are considered equal to and “about” 20 cm above a standing water level that matches the elevation of the second gabion box).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dai and Wang does not explicitly disclose that the slope protection comprises a gabion mat and a third gabion box. Wang further discloses that gabions are known supports (e.g. paragraph 0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the slope protection of the combination of Dai and Wang with gabions for the expected benefit of additional protection against waves and erosion (e.g. Wang, paragraph 0024). Forming the slope protection with gabions will result in a gabion mat permanently laid on the slope of the soil embankment with a top end of the gabion mat permanently connected to the first gabion box and a bottom end of the gabion mat permanently connected to a third gabion box. Further, a top elevation of the third gabion box will be at least half a mean wave height below a low water level such as the water level shown at 100 in Fig. 1 of Dai.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dai and Wang further discloses that the shallow water beach area has a water depth and the deep-water ditch has a water depth (e.g. Dai, Fig. 1) but the combination of Dai and Wang does not explicitly disclose that the shallow water beach area water depth is about 20 cm and the deep-water ditch water depth is about 1000 cm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the depth limitations disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this depth provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dai and Wang further discloses that the shoreline structure has a width (e.g. Dai, Fig. 1) but the combination of Dai and Wang does not explicitly disclose that the width is 30m to 100m. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Claim 5 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 219124967) in view of Wang et al (CN 1854395) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bestmann (US 5,338,131).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dai and Wang discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that the planting platforms comprise a plurality of planting stakes and planting soil. Bestmann teaches a shoreline structure (e.g. Fig. 2, claim 5) comprising: a planting platform (e.g. 15/17/25, Fig. 2) comprising emergent plants (e.g. 14, Fig. 2); wherein the planting platform comprises a plurality of planting stakes (e.g. 15, Fig. 2) and planting soil (e.g. 17, Fig. 2, claim 5), wherein bottom ends of the plurality of the planting stakes are embedded in the ground (e.g. Fig. 2), and the plurality of the planting stakes is connected in turn to form a planting cavity (e.g. Fig. 2), wherein the planting soil fills in the planting cavity (e.g. Fig. 2), and wherein the emergent plants are planted in the planting soil (e.g. Fig. 2, claim 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install planting platforms as taught by Bestmann in the deep-water ditch of the combination of Dai and Wang because such are known elements in the art that would provide the expected benefit of aiding in preventing erosion (e.g. Bestmann, claim 5).
Claim 8 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 219124967) in view of Bestmann (US 5,338,131).
Regarding claim 8, Dai discloses a construction method for minimizing wind and wave impacts on a shoreline while incorporating an ecological landscaping (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0033), wherein the method comprises following steps: delineating an extent of the shoreline along a water source perimeter according to the ecological landscape's requirement and topographic conditions of a water flow along a shoreline range (e.g. paragraph 0044), constructing a wave-absorbing submerged breakwater around the shoreline range (e.g. 200, Fig. 1, paragraph 0045), then laying out a slope protection for protecting a waterward slope of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. sloped portion of 200 near 100, Fig. 1, paragraph 0046); excavating a deep-water ditch which has a trapezoidal vertical cross-section on a backwater side of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater based on ecological landscape requirement in flow (e.g. 10, Fig. 1, paragraph 0049); and planting first emergent plants on a top of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. 320, Fig. 1, paragraph 0047), planting third water-supporting plants (e.g. 700, Fig. 1, paragraph 0052) on a shallow beach area (e.g. 20, Fig. 1, paragraph 0049), and planting submerged plants in the deep-water ditch (e.g. 620, Fig. 1, paragraph 0050), wherein the shallow beach area is located on the backwater side of the wave-absorbing submerged breakwater (e.g. Fig. 1). Dai does not disclose setting planting stakes into the deep-water ditch and filling with about 50cm depth planting soil into the deep-water ditch to form planting platforms according to a shape of the ecological landscape and flow requirements or planting second emergent plants on the planting platform. Bestmann teaches a construction method for minimizing wind and wave impacts on a shoreline while incorporating an ecological landscaping (e.g. claim 1), wherein the method comprises following steps: delineating an extent of the shoreline along a water source perimeter according to the ecological landscape's requirement and topographic conditions of a water flow along a shoreline range (e.g. Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 5-15), setting planting stakes into the ground (e.g. 15, Fig. 4) and filling with about 50cm depth planting soil to form planting platforms according to a shape of the ecological landscape and flow requirements (e.g. 17, Fig. 4, claim 5); and planting emergent plants on the planting platform (e.g. 14, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install planting platforms as taught by Bestmann in the deep-water ditch of Dai because such are known elements in the art that would provide the expected benefit of aiding in preventing erosion (e.g. Bestmann, claim 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678