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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: auxiliary connecting element 190. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation biocompatible material, and the claim also recites calcium carbonate which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation ceramic material or metal, and the claim also recites preferably refractory clay or steel with a carbon content in the range of 0.05% to 0.5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 contains indefinite claim language with regard to the use of the terms “preferably.” The claim language lacks specificity and the structure which goes to make up the device is not clearly and positively specified.
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,071,285 to Van Doren et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2006246867 to Kato.
Regarding Claim 1, Van Doren teaches a device for the proliferation of underwater biodiversity, the device comprising: a shield structure comprising a primary wall configured as a front outer wall (Van Doren Fig. 1 top wall #1) and a secondary wall (Van Doren Fig. 1 bottom wall #1) comprising at least a flat surface, defining one or more internal compartments, wherein each of the one or more internal compartments is arranged between the primary wall and the secondary wall; and wherein said one or more internal compartments comprises two respective end portions configured to be partially free of said primary and secondary walls (Van Doren Fig. 1 the space between walls #1 are partially free and open); wherein the primary wall comprises a plurality of holes (Van Doren Fig. 1 top wall #1 has holes #6); a container structure comprising one or more walls (Van Doren Fig. 1 container consists of bottom #10 and vertical walls #2 and #2 extending upward from #10) forming one or more storage compartments, wherein the secondary wall of the shield structure is configured to separate the one or more internal compartments of the shield structure from the one or more storage compartments of the container structure (Van Doren Fig. 1 bottom wall #1 separates the compartments created by the spacing layers of walls #1 and the bottom compartment created by #10, #2, and #2), and wherein the primary wall and the secondary wall, and the one or more storage compartments comprises a plurality of holes (Van Doren Fig. 1 top wall and bottom wall #1 have holes #6, and holes in the storage compartment are created by the spacing between elements #2 and #3) and are configured as a metal wall or as a wall made of a biocompatible material, wherein said biocompatible material is configured as a material comprising calcium carbonate (Van Doren teaches metal as a known reef material Col.1 lines 39 and 60; applicant claims in the alternative meaning one or the other).
Van Doren is silent on the front outer wall comprising at least one curved surface. However, Kato teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a front outer wall of an underwater biodiversity proliferation device with at least one curved surface (Kato Figs. 1 and 2 #2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Kato before the filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide habitat for vegetation, fry and larvae as taught by Kato. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Van Doren as modified teaches on wherein the primary wall is configured to extend along the first direction longer than the secondary wall, thereby forming at least one projecting wing extending beyond at least one of the end portions of at least one of the one or more internal compartments; wherein the at least one projecting wings comprises: a first projecting wing extending from the primary wall along the first direction, the first projecting wing being configured to overhang beyond all the end portions arranged on a first lateral side of the device; and/or a second projecting wing extending from the primary wall along the first direction, the second projecting wing being configured to overhang beyond all the end portions arranged on a second lateral side of the device, wherein the first and second lateral sides of the device are distal sides of the device along the first direction (Van Doren Figs. 3 and 4 #1 extends beyond secondary wall #1). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren 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 to change the size and/or aesthetics of the known device to cove a larger area and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)]; [In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)]. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Van Doren as modified teaches wherein the one or more internal compartments comprise: at least one internal compartment comprising a respective opening at each of its two respective end portions; and/or at least one internal compartment comprising a respective opening at one of its end portions, wherein the shield structure further comprises a respective cover wall configured to completely cover the other end portion (Kato teaches covering the end portion with net, Kato Fig. 6 #10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Kato before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prevent fish from eating the grass planted therein as taught by Kato. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Van Doren as modified is silent on teaching wherein one or more of the at least one internal compartment comprising a respective opening at each of its two respective end portions further comprises an inner dividing wall (Van Doren Fig. 1 and 3 #2) configured to divide the respective internal compartment into two respective internal sub-compartments, wherein each sub-compartment is configured to extend from the respective end portion to the inner dividing wall, thereby forming a blind tunnel (Van Doren Fig. 1 blind tunnel entrance through #18).
Regarding Claim 8, Van Doren as modified teaches wherein at least one of the one or more walls of the shield structure, is configured as a meshed wall made of at least one mesh layer (Kato #2, net).
Regarding Claim 9, Van Doren as modified teaches mesh (Kato #2), but is silent on teaching one or more walls of the shield structure configured as a meshed wall is made of at least two overlapping mesh layers. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide additional strength and durability. The modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple effect [In re Harsa, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)] and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely the application of a know technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Van Doren as modified teaches comprising at least one auxiliary connecting element configured to connect a lower part of the primary wall to the secondary wall (Van Doren Fig. 4 #3 connects bottom of primary wall #1 to a lower secondary wall #1), wherein the one or more internal compartments comprises: a lower internal compartment delimited by the primary wall, the secondary wall and the at least one auxiliary connecting element; and at least one upper internal compartment, arranged above the lower compartment, and delimited by the primary wall and the secondary wall (depending which wall of Van Doren is designated that secondary wall #1, the stacked structure of Van Doren Fig. 4 creates five levels of compartments made up of the primary wall #1, secondary wall #1 and auxiliary connector #3 which satisfy the broad nature of the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 15, Van Doren as modified teaches wherein the shield structure and the container structure are configured to form a single monolithic structure (Van Doren Fig.1, “monolithic” merely means large, massive; Van Doren as modified satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 17, Van Doren as modified teaches least one of the one or more storage compartments comprises: at least one storage element configured to capture and store contaminating substances; and/or a plurality of passive sound-producing elements configured such that when a flow of water enters the respective storage compartment through the plurality of holes, the flow of water moves the plurality of passive sound-producing elements causing contacts between them, thereby producing a sound (applicant claims in the alternative so the sound producing elements are not required, the surface structure of Van Doren is capable of capturing and storing contaminating substances since it is a containment space and has a surface area and applicant hasn’t claimed what contaminating substance are that are capture nor the structural features that perform the capturing; nor has applicant claimed the duration of the time the substance is retained; Van Doren satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation)
Regarding Claim 19, Van Doren as modified teaches comprising a connector (Van Doren Fig. 4 #4, applicant doesn’t provide structural details of the connector and Van Doren satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation and function) configured to attach the device to an auxiliary subaquatic structure external to the device.
Claim(s) 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,071,285 to Van Doren et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2006246867 to Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,610 to Hilton et al.
Regarding Claim 2, as best as can be interpreted by the indefinite nature of the claim Van Doren as modified is silent on wherein the biocompatible material comprises calcium carbonate is configured as a ceramic material, more preferably refractory clay, or is configured as a metal, more preferably a steel with a carbon content in the range 0.05 to 0.5%. However, Hilton teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to configure underwater biodiversity devices out of biocompatible material of calcium carbonate (Hilton Col. 6 line 45; Col. 10 lines 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Hilton before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success allow marine wildlife to attach to as taught by Hilton. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Van Doren as modified teaches a primary wall configured as a front outer wall (Van Doren Fig. 1 top wall #1) comprising at least one curved surface (Kato Fig. 1 #2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Kato before the filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide habitat for vegetation, fry and larvae as taught by Kato. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Van Doren as modified teaches a secondary wall comprising at least a flat surface (Van Doren Fig. 1 bottom wall #1), defining one or more internal compartments arranged between the primary wall and the secondary wall (Van Doren space between walls #1 created by spacers #2 and #3); comprising said one or more internal compartments respective end portions configured to be partially free of said primary and secondary walls (Van Doren vertical distance between walls #1 are partially free, i.e. there are no obstructions Fig. 1); and c) a container structure comprising one or more walls forming one or more storage compartments (Van Doren Fig. 1 #10 and vertical members #2 and #3 extending to secondary wall #1 create the container at the bottom of the structure), wherein said shield device is configured as a material comprising calcium carbonate for use in the proliferation of underwater biodiversity (Hilton Col. 6 line 45; Col. 10 lines 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Hilton before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success allow marine wildlife to attach to as taught by Hilton. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,071,285 to Van Doren et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2006246867 to Kato as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of French Patent FR 2468304 to Devin.
Regarding Claim 13, Van Doren as modified is silent on the primary wall of the shield structure comprises an upper wing projecting upwardly at least partially along the vertical direction beyond the top part of the container structure; and/or at least one area of the secondary wall is free of the primary wall along at least a part of the vertical direction such that said at least one area does not delimit any internal compartment, wherein preferably the bottom part of the container structure is configured to extend longer downwards along the vertical direction than the primary wall of the shield structure, thereby forming the at least one area of the secondary wall of the primary wall in a lower part of the secondary wall.
However, Devin teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a primary wall of the shield structure with an upper wing projecting upwardly at least partially along the vertical direction beyond the top part of the container structure (Devin Fig. 8 top layer right back upturned end near element #21; the curved surface of the top layer of Devin ends with an upward extension; applicant claims the features of the secondary wall in an alternative form meaning that both are not required merely “and” or “or”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Doren with the teachings of Devin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for raising crustaceans as taught by Devin. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to underwater biodiversity proliferation devices:
U.S. Patent No. 2,092,183; French Patent FR 1392670; French Patent FR 1449905; U.S. Patent No. 3,316,881; French Patent FR 2032055; U.S. Patent No. 4,913,094; U.S. Patent No. 4,993,362; U.S. Patent No. 5,109,796; U.S. Patent No. 5,113,792; Japanese Patent JP H10150873.
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
06 January 2026