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 .
The amendment filed 5/14/2026 has been entered.
It is noted that amended claims 12 and 13 is understood to be as followings:
– 12. (Amended) The cladding of Claim 1 wherein …--
– 13. (Amended) The cladding of Claim 1 wherein …--
Regarding claim amendment, please see below for your future reference.
CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)).
In the amendment filed 5/14/2026, applicant did not provide the amended claim set in a separate page but claims 23 and 24 were included in the Remarks page.
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1: “a mesh” should be changed to -- an interior mesh --.
In claim 4, line 2, “the mesh” should be changed to – the interior mesh --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the newly added limitation, “wherein the one or more holes do not support any load transmitting members” in lines 6-7 is not described or disclosed in the specification. So, it is considered as a new matter.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 are dependent upon claim 1.
In claim 14, the newly added limitation, “wherein the perforations do not support any load transmitting members” in lines 4-5 is not described or disclosed in the specification. So, it is considered as a new matter.
Claims 15 and 16 are dependent upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 14 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al (CN 217500286) (see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to Claims 1 and 14, Dong et al disclose a cladding/caisson for containment of concrete mixtures, comprising: A bottom floor 13; a wall or walls/perforations of permeable cabin 11 or backfilling cabin 12 of the housing 1 with a thickness defined by an interior side and an exterior side, rising from the bottom floor; the wall or walls on their interior side(s) of the housings 1 is/are against the concrete mixture 12 (see the paragraphs under subtitle “Embodiment 1”); and the wall or walls include one or more holes/perforations 21 of the cabin 11, the one or more holes/perforations 2 do not support any load transmitting members (see Figs. 3 & 4, Para starting with “S70…” under “Embodiment 1”) (see Figs. 1-4, see the paragraphs under the subtitle “Embodiment 1”).
With respect to Claim 2, Dong et al further comprise of an open-top structure (see Fig. 4.)
With respect to Claim 3, Dong et al disclose each hole incorporates a removable plug board (see claim 4 of the reference).
With respect to Claim 20, Dong et al disclose the walls and floor comprise an open-top box caisson (see Figs. 1-3).
With respect to Claim 21, Dong et al disclose a method of installing a concrete cladding in a marine environment, comprising: providing a cladding 1 having a bottom floor 13 and one or more walls of permeable cabin 11 or backfilling cabin 12 rising from the bottom floor, the walls having an interior side, an exterior side, and one or more holes/perforations 21 extending through the walls, the cladding having dimensions selected to float when empty; positioning the cladding at a deployment location on a body of water, said positioning comprising one of (a) floating the empty cladding to the deployment location and (b) floating the cladding partially or fully filled with a reactive concrete mixture to the deployment location; introducing a reactive concrete mixture into the interior of the cladding; submerging the cladding at the deployment location; and admitting seawater to the interior of the cladding through the one or more holes to cure the reactive concrete mixture in place (see Figs. 3 & 4, paragraphs starting with“S30…” , “S50…”, and “S70…” under “Embodiment 1”)
With respect to Claim 22, Dong et al discloses the dimensions of the cladding are selected such that the cladding floats when empty and submerges under its own weight upon being filled with the reactive concrete mixture and having seawater admitted to the interior (see Figs. 3 & 4, paragraphs starting with “S70…” under “Embodiment 1”)
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 217500286) in view of JP H0424315 (see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to Claims 4 and 6, Dong et al fails to disclose a mesh affixed to the interior side of the wall and the mesh being a permeable fabric lining wherein the mesh simultaneously inhibits egress of uncured concrete mixture through the one or more holes and inhibits ingress of aquatic or marine life through the one or more holes.
JP H0424315 discloses a pipe 1 having a plurality of holes with a plurality of corks 4 having a filter protection member/ mesh 8 is affixed on the interior side of the at least one wall, covering the at least one hole and the mesh being made of synthetic fiber/permeable fabric lining (see Figs. 1-3, whole paragraph under the subtitle, “[Detailed Description of the Invention]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the cork with wire mesh as taught by JP H0424315 to the perforations of Dong et al in order to secure water permeability to this protection member/mesh where many small holes are provided.
Claims 7-9, 15, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 217500286) (see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to Claims 7-9, although Dong et al fail to specifically disclose the wall has a length rising from the bottom floor, and the thickness of a wall is 8% to 10% of the length of the wall as recited in claim 7; the at least one hole has a diameter between 15% to 40% the thickness of the wall as recited in claim 8; and the area of the bottom floor is between 12% to 15% the area of the largest adjacent wall as recited in claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such dimension to the caisson in order to optimize the caisson structure in order to achieve the desired results for the installation of the caisson in a marine environment.
With respect to Claim 15, although Dong et al fail to specifically disclose the wall or walls are comprised to include one or more of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), magnesium oxychloride cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cement, magnesium phosphate cement, geopolymer cement, or alkali- activated materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such content of the OPC in order to speed up the hardening of the concrete when it is poured to be cured under a marine environment.
With respect to Claim 18, Dong et al disclose a containment of concrete mixtures, comprising: a bottom floor 13; a wall or walls/perforations of permeable cabin 11 of the housing 1 with a thickness defined by an interior side and an exterior side, rising from the bottom floor; the wall or walls on their interior side(s) of the housings 1 is/are against the concrete mixture 12 (see the paragraphs under subtitle “Embodiment 1”); and the wall or walls include one or more holes/perforations 2, the one or more holes/perforations 2, one or more walls on the exterior comprise a surface of textured channels (between the wall sections shown in Fig. 4) such that it is believed to be inherent that the surface would be physically biocompatible with aquatic and marine life (see (see Figs. 3 & 4, Para starting with “S70…” under “Embodiment 1”) (see Figs. 1-4, see the paragraphs under the subtitle “Embodiment 1”).
Although Dong et al fail to specifically disclose the walls exhibit a pH of between 6 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a PH number in order to produce the concrete walls for the friendly environment for a marine life.
With respect to Claim 23, although Dong et al fail to specifically disclose the cladding walls comprising one or more of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), magnesium oxychloride cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cement, magnesium phosphate cement, geopolymer cement, or alkali- activated materials, and the cladding walls exhibit a surface PH of between 6 and 11 selected to promote biocompatibility with marine organism and colonization of the cladding surface thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such content of the OPC in order to speed up the hardening of the concrete when it is poured to be cured under a marine environment and to provide such a PH number in order to produce the concrete walls for the friendly environment for a marine life.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 217500286) in view of JP S5975198 (see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to Claim10, Dong et al fails to disclose the bottom floor has two or more channels configured for movement using a forklift or crane rigging.
JP S5975198 discloses a container 27 having a type of cavity/channel 31 of the depth in which maintenance arm 30 of forklift 29 (see Figs. 3-5, whole paragraph under the subtitle, “[Detailed Description of the Invention]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the cavity/channel to the bottom of the caisson in order to move the caisson to the desired location by forklift.
Claims 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 217500286) in view of Toshiaki (WO 2007/074840) (see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to Claims 12, 13 and 16, Dong al fails to specifically disclose the at least one wall is reinforced with non- corrosive and biocompatible glass-fiber rods as recited in claim 12; the at least one wall is reinforced with non- corrosive basalt-fiber rods as recited in claim 13; and the wall or walls are reinforced with rebar or fiber-reinforced polymers as recited in claim 16.
Toshiaki discloses a structure 340 reinforced with a fiber-reinforced plastic/polymer rod 10 /non-corrosive and biocompatible glass or basalt-fiber rods(see Figs. Para [0007] & [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the fiber-reinforced plastic/polymer rod as taught by Toshiaki in order to produce the prestressed concrete with the plastic rod as a reinforcement which would not be corroded over time.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 217500286) in view of Masatsugu et al (JP 2014125823).
Dong et al disclose the one or more holes/perforations are initially sealed by water permeable plug board (see Claim 4 of Dong et al’s reference) which is removable.
However, Dong et al fails to disclose the plug board comprising a biodegradable material, and wherein the step of admitting seawater comprises one of: removing the removable plugs, allowing the biodegradable plugs to degrade upon contact with seawater, or admitting seawater through holes covered on the interior side by a permeable mesh.
Masatsugu et al disclose the perforations 28 include plugs 122 initially sealing the perforations, said plugs made from resin material which is believed to be inherent that the resin would be a biodegradable material that degrades upon contact with water or seawater (see paragraph (3) under the subtitle, “ <<< Modified Example of Second Embodiment >>>”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the resin material as taught by Masatsugu et al to make the plug board in order to make the plug board a biodegradable material that degrades upon contact with water or seawater for the friendly environment to a marine life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 221956766 U Easily fluctuant gravity type wharf caisson structure
CN 116813089 A Three-dimensional combined ecological floating island revetment and construction method
CN 112814002 A A sinking well and negative pressure sinking construction technique thereof
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 Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights