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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, 4 - 17, 19, and 20 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 1 recites “each one of the plurality of cylindrical members is coupled to one another and arranged in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root”. The aforementioned limitation renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it does not clearly define the shape of the formation. For example, the aforementioned limitation can be interpreted as requiring the cylindrical members to be coupled to each other in an end-to-end fashion along a linear axis or the cylindrical members are intertwined with each other.
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 (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 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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reulet (US 10,648,146).
Regarding claim 1, Reulet discloses a system for mitigating coastal erosion, the system comprising a plurality of cylindrical members (hollow members 12, extension portion 13), wherein the plurality of cylindrical member is coupled to one another (col. 5, lines 24 - 28; col. 8, lines 25 - 29) and arranged in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (Examiner takes the position that since the claim does not clearly define the shape of the formation, the claim only requires the plurality of cylindrical members to be coupled to one another thereby creating a formation having a shape.), wherein the plurality of cylindrical members has a predetermined porosity determined by a total number of cylindrical members and a size of said cylindrical members within the formation (Reulet teaches a variety of total number of cylindrical members and a variety of size of the cylindrical members.), and wherein the plurality of cylindrical members has a predetermined submergence level (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 11, lines 8 - 19) in coastal water (shore of a waterway) (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 1, lines 27 - 34; col. 3, lines 1 - 5; col. 5, lines 1 - 3 and 24 - 28; col. 8, lines 25 - 29; col. 10, line 46 - col. 11, line 45; col. 19, line 66 - col. 20, line 10). Examiner takes the position that the total number of cylindrical members and a size of said cylindrical members within the formation as disclosed by Reulet would inherently determine the porosity of the plurality of cylindrical members by controlling the volume of the voids (empty spaces) in the system relative to the total volume of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Reulet further discloses at least one of the plurality of cylindrical members (12, 13) comprises a vertical cylindrical shape (Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Reulet further discloses the predetermined submergence level is from 10% to 100% submergence (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 11, lines 8 - 19).
Regarding claim 8, Reulet further discloses the plurality of cylindrical members (12, 13) comprises concrete (col. 2, lines 58 - 60; col. 19, lines 66 - 67).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepard, III (US 8,635,973).
Regarding claim 1, Shepard discloses a system for mitigating coastal erosion, the system comprising a plurality of cylindrical members (root elements 41, 44, 47, 50), wherein each of the plurality of cylindrical members is coupled to one another and arranged in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (Examiner takes the position that since the claim does not clearly define the shape of the formation, the claim only requires the plurality of cylindrical members to be coupled to one another thereby creating a formation having a shape.), wherein the plurality of cylindrical members has a predetermined porosity determined by a total number of cylindrical members and a size of the cylindrical members within the formation, and wherein the plurality of cylindrical members has a predetermined submergence level in coastal water (coastal sediment habitats) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 1, lines 13 - 32; col. 3, line 52 - col. 5, line 49). Examiner takes the position that the total number of cylindrical members and a size of said cylindrical members within the formation as disclosed by Shepard would inherently determine the porosity of the plurality of cylindrical members by controlling the volume of the voids (empty spaces) in the system relative to the total volume of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Shepard further discloses the plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) comprises a vertical cylindrical shape (a portion of each of the elements 41, 44, 47, and 50 has a vertical cylindrical shape (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shepard further discloses the predetermined porosity is from 0% to 90% water-to-root volume (root elements 41, 44, 47, and 50 are non-porous and, therefore, have a predetermined porosity of 0%) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 7, lines 33 - 37).
Regarding claim 7, Shepard further discloses the predetermined submergence level is from 10% to 100% submergence (Figs. 1 and 2; see water surface 91).
Regarding claim 8, Shepard further discloses the plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) comprises PVC (col. 7, lines 33 - 37).
Regarding claim 9, Shepard further discloses an anchoring member (connection members 19 anchor the mangrove tree root to seawall 90) (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 7 - 13).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 4, 6, 11 - 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reulet.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Reulet further discloses the plurality of cylindrical members are positioned in a variety of arrangements (curved or straight rows) (col. 6, lines 25 - 27; col. 12, lines 39 - 41). Reulet fails to explicitly teach a total of eight individual cylindrical members positioned around a central cylindrical member. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have been considered obvious to have modified the plurality of cylindrical members as disclosed by Reulet to include a total of eight individual members positioned around a central cylindrical member as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the composition of the soil and the water flow pattern found in which the system is used. Mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d. 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The configuration (shape) of the plurality of cylindrical members is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Reulet further discloses a porous (see holes 19) cylindrical member (12, 13) (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 11, lines 26 - 35). Reulet fails to explicitly teach the predetermined porosity is 47% water-to-root volume. Examiner takes the position that the specific predetermined porosity lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon flow conditions within a body of water.
Regarding claim 11, given the apparatus as disclosed by Reulet (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the method of claim 11 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Reulet further discloses the area in need of coastal erosion protection is selected from a group consisting of ocean shorelines and lake shorelines (col. 1, lines 52 - 54; col. 3, lines 1 - 5; col. 5, lines 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 13, Reulet further discloses the at least one erosion force includes waves (wave action) and running water (scouring) (col. 2, lines 7 - 17).
Regarding claim 14, Reulet fails to disclose the coastal erosion risk level increases in parallel to the strength of the at least one erosion force. Reulet teaches a coastal erosion force comprising wave action (col. 2, lines 7 - 10) and the coastal erosion risk level would obviously increase in parallel to the strength of the wave action because stronger waves can obviously produce more coastal erosion.
Regarding claim 15, Reulet discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a number of the plurality of cylindrical members positioned in coastal water increases proportionally to the coastal erosion risk level, wherein greater numbers of the plurality of cylindrical members are placed based on an increase in the coastal erosion risk level. Reulet teaches a variety of numbers of cylindrical members (12, 13) (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 6, lines 25 - 32) and it would have been considered obvious to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Reulet such that a number of the plurality of cylindrical members positioned in coastal water increases proportionally to the coastal erosion risk level, wherein greater numbers of the plurality of cylindrical members are placed based on an increase in the coastal erosion risk level as a design consideration within the skill of the art to provide an optimum level of protection against shoreline erosion.
Claims 4, 11 - 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepard, III.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Shepard further discloses the plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) are positioned in a circular arrangement around a central cylindrical member (57) (Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 13 - 17). Shepard fails to explicitly teach a total of eight individual cylindrical members. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have been considered obvious to have modified the plurality of cylindrical members as disclosed by Shepard to include a total of eight individual members as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the composition of the soil and the water flow pattern found in which the system is used.
Regarding claim 11, given the apparatus as disclosed by Shepard (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the method of claim 11 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Shepard further discloses the area in need of coastal erosion protection is ocean shorelines (see seawall 90) (Fig. 1; col. 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 13, Shepard further discloses the at least one erosion force includes waves (wave action) (col. 1, lines 5 - 9).
Regarding claim 20, Shepard further discloses the predetermined proximity is a point between a shoreline and a wave breaking point and the shoreline (a seawall 90 is a structure that is located at the shoreline) (Fig. 1; col. 4, line 9).
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepard, III in view of Van de Riet et al. (US 8,511,936).
Regarding claim 10, Shepard discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a sediment integrating member. Van de Riet teaches a sediment integrating member (threads of screw anchor device; auger blade of auger anchor device (Fig. 7; col. 2, lines 41 - 54; col. 6, lines 20 - 23; col. 9, lines 18 - 21). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the simulated root system as disclosed above with the sediment integrating member as taught by Van de Riet to provide a means for fixing the artificial mangrove roots to a seabed to maintain the roots in predetermined locations relative to the seabed.
Regarding claim 16, Shepard discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except anchoring the plurality of cylindrical members to the sediment floor with an anchoring member. Van de Riet teaches a biomechanical structure that mimics a mangrove root system, including anchoring the biomechanical structure using an anchoring member (fixed anchor such as auger and screw mechanisms; anchor device 14) (Figs. 3A, 3B, and 7; col. 2, lines 41 52; col. 6, lines 20 23; col. 9, lines 18 21 and lines 58 64). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the simulated root system as disclosed above with the anchoring members as taught by Van de Riet to provide a means for removably fixing the artificial mangrove roots to a seabed.
Regarding claim 17, Shepard discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except inserting a sediment integrating member into the sediment floor. Van de Riet teaches inserting a sediment integrating member (threads of screw anchor device; auger blade of auger anchor device) into the sediment floor (sea bed 30) (Fig. 7; col. 2, lines 41 54; col. 6, lines 20 23; col. 9, lines 18 21). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the simulated root system as disclosed above with the sediment integrating member as taught by Van de Riet to provide a means for fixing the artificial mangrove roots to a seabed to maintain the roots in predetermined locations relative to the seabed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Reulet fails to teach the cylindrical members are coupled to one another. Examiner replies that col. 5, lines 24 - 28 and col. 8, lines 25 - 29 of Reulet explicitly teaches the cylindrical members are coupled together.
Applicant argues that the hollow members 12 of Reulet are not arranged in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root. Examiner replies that “a shape of a mangrove tree root” does not clearly define the shape of the formation. For example, the aforementioned limitation can be interpreted as requiring the cylindrical members to be coupled to each other in an end-to-end fashion along a linear axis or the cylindrical members are intertwined with each other. Since the shape of the formation of cylindrical members is not clearly defined in the claim(s), the claim(s) only requires the plurality of cylindrical members to be coupled to one another thereby creating a formation having a shape. Since Reulet teaches a plurality of cylindrical members coupled together creating a formation having a shape, the apparatus as disclosed by Reulet reads on the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Shepard fails to teach a plurality of cylindrical members coupled together in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root. Examiner replies that “a shape of a mangrove tree root” does not clearly define the shape of the formation. For example, the aforementioned limitation can be interpreted as requiring the cylindrical members to be coupled to each other in an end-to-end fashion along a linear axis or the cylindrical members are intertwined with each other. Since the shape of the formation of cylindrical members is not clearly defined in the claim(s), the claim(s) only requires the plurality of cylindrical members to be coupled to one another thereby creating a formation having a shape. Since Shepard teaches a plurality of cylindrical members coupled together creating a formation having a shape, the apparatus as disclosed by Shepard reads on the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Shepard fails to teach the plurality of cylindrical members has a predetermined porosity determined by a total number of cylindrical members and a size of said cylindrical members within the formation. Examiner replies that the total number of cylindrical members and a size of said cylindrical members within the formation as disclosed by Shepard would inherently determine the porosity of the plurality of cylindrical members by controlling the volume of the voids (empty spaces) in the system relative to the total volume of the system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights