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 § 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 3 and 4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is 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, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent CN 202396302 to Tang et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,610 to Hilton and Korean Patent KR 200409968.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 21, Tang teaches a device and method for proliferation of underwater biodiversity, the device comprising: a shield structure comprising a primary wall configured as a front outer wall comprising at least one curved surface (Tang Fig. 1 Top curved surface of #3) and a secondary wall comprising at least a flat surface (Tang Fig. 1 top flat horizontal surface of #2), defining one or more internal compartments (Tang Fig.1 internal compartment area within tubular member #3), wherein each of the one or more internal compartments is arranged between the primary wall and the secondary wall (Tang the inside of #3 is between the top surface of #3 and the top surface of #2), and wherein each of said one or more internal compartments comprise two respective end portions at both sides of each of said one or more internal compartments, said two respective end portions are configured to be partially free of said primary and secondary walls (Tang opposing open ends of #3 satisfy being partially free of primary and secondary walls); a container structure comprising one or more walls forming one or more storage compartments (Tang Fig. 1 area between #2 and #1), 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, and wherein the primary wall and the secondary wall and the one or more storage compartments comprise a plurality of holes (Tang Fig. 1 holes in top surface of #3; paragraph [0010], [0021] and holes in side walls of #2), wherein each of said one or more internal compartments comprises an opening at each of the two respective end portions.
Tang teaches concert and corrosion resistance, but is silent on teaching being configured as a metal wall or as a wall made of a biocompatible material, wherein said biocompatible material comprises calcium carbonate. 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 as a ceramic material (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 modify the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Hilton before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to 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.
Tang as modified is silent on wherein at least one of the openings of said one or more internal compartments is partially covered by a covering wall. However, Korean Patent KR ‘968 teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a fish reef with at least one of the openings of the one or more internal compartments is partially covered by a covering wall (KR ‘968 Fig. 2 #14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Tang with the teachings of KR ‘968 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an optimal fish habitat and/or to provide shading as taught by KR ‘968. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Tang as modified teaches 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 (Tang Fig. 1 element 3 on left and right side, but not on #2; element #3 that is directly on element #1 is extended past #2 structure).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang as modified teaches 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 (Tang teaches 2 projecting wings Fig. 1 lower most elements #3 resting directly on #1 extend past #2; lateral and first direction are relative to orientation of the unit or the viewer).
Regarding Claim 11, Tang as modified teaches at least one auxiliary connecting element (Tang Fig. 1 vertical members of #2) configured to connect a lower part of the primary wall to the secondary wall, 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 (Tang Fig. 1 elements #3 on middle level of #2).
Regarding Claim 13, Tang as modified teaches 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 (Tang Fig. 1 vertical portion of #2 between different levels of #3) such that said at least one area does not delimit any internal compartment, wherein the bottom part of the container structure (Tang Fig. 1 area between #1 and #2) 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 free of the primary wall in a lower part of the secondary wall.
Regarding Claim 15, Tang as modified teaches the shield structure and the container structure are configured to form a single monolithic structure (Tang Fig. 1 #3 and #2; “monolithic” merely means large, massive; Tang satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 17, Tang as modified is silent on wherein at 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 Tang 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 that are capture nor the structural features that perform the capturing; nor has applicant claimed the duration of the time the substance is retained; Tang Fig. 1 satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation)
Regarding Claim 19, Tang as modified teaches comprising a connector configured to attach the device to an auxiliary subaquatic structure external to the device. (Tang Fig. 1 #1, applicant doesn’t provide structural details of the connector and the structure of Tang satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation and function).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Tang as modified is silent on the biocompatible material comprises a refractory clay; wherein the biocompatible material comprises steel with a carbon content in a range from 0.05 to 0.5% relative to the biocompatible material. However, the examiner takes official notice that these are known alternate equivalent biocompatible materials and do not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Tang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success based on availability and cost of materials. The modification is merely the selection of a known material for intended use [Leshin 125 USPQ 416] and/or the simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 24, Tang as modified teaches wherein at least one other of the openings of said one or more internal compartments is fully covered by the covering wall, wherein the at least one of the openings and the at least one other of the openings correspond to different internal compartments of said one or more internal compartments (Tang different members #3 are different internal compartments; KR ‘968 Fig. 3 #14 teaches it is known to cover some openings and leave other openings open).
Regarding Claim 25, Tang as modified teaches at least yet one other of the openings of said one or more internal compartments is not covered by the covering wall, wherein the at least one other of the openings and the at least yet one other of the openings correspond to different internal compartments of said one or more internal compartments (Tang has a plurality of internal compartments #3 that are open not all are covered per KR ‘968 does not cover all openings with #14).
Regarding Claim 26, Tang as modified teaches wherein at least one other of the openings of said one or more internal compartments is partially covered by another covering wall, wherein the at least one of the openings and the at least one other of the openings correspond to the same internal compartment of said one or more internal compartments (KR ‘968 places coverings on opposing sides of the same compartment Fig. 2 #14).
Regarding Claim 27, Tang as modified teaches at least yet one other of the opening of said one or more internal compartments is fully covered by the another covering wall, wherein the at least one other of the openings and the at least yet one other of the openings correspond to different internal compartments of said one or more internal compartments (Tang Fig. 1 plurality of #3 some could be covered and some could be left open as per teachings of KR ‘968 Fig. 2 #14).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent CN 202396302 to Tang et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,610 to Hilton and Korean Patent KR 200409968 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,071,285 to Van Doren.
Regarding Claim 6, Tang as modified is silent on wherein at least one or more internal compartments further comprises an inner dividing wall configured to divide said at least one of said one or more internal compartments into two respective internal sub-compartments, wherein each sub-compartment is configured to extend from one of the two respective end portions to the inner dividing wall, thereby forming a blind tunnel. However, Van Doren teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to put dividers in internal compartments of artificial reefs (Van Doren Figs. 1 and 3 elements #2a and #2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Van Doren before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to create calm waters and to protect small marine life as taught by Van Doren. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent CN 202396302 to Tang et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,610 to Hilton and Korean Patent KR 200409968 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,092,183 to Rehfeld.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Tang as modified is silent on 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; wherein the at least one of the one or more walls of the shield structure configured as a meshed wall is made of at least two overlapping mesh layers. However, Rehfeld teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to fabricate shield structures of a mesh or double mesh overlapping layers (Rehfeld Fig. 1-3 #17 and #18, overlapping can merely mean touching). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Rehfeld before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for bank erosion control as taught by Rehfeld. 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 know material for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,6,8-9,11,13,15,17,19 and 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights