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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 19 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. The newly-added limitation reciting a plurality of cylindrical members are “coupled to one another at a central point in the formation” is not described in the specification and, therefore, represents new matter.
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, 4, 18, and 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation "the shape of a mangrove tree root" as recited in line 2 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because the aforementioned limitation does not clearly define a shape of the mangrove tree root. For purposes of examination the shape of "a mangrove tree root" has been interpreted as a vertical cylindrical shape, as best understood by Examiner. Claims 4, 18, and 19 contain similar errors.
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 –
Claims 1 - 4, 7, 8, 11 - 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reulet (US 10,648,146).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Reulet discloses a system for mitigating coastal erosion, the system comprising at least one cylindrical member (hollow members 12, extension portion 13), wherein the at least one cylindrical member has a predetermined porosity (openings or holes 19 are located at predetermined locations, thus producing a predetermined porosity) and wherein the at least one cylindrical member 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; col. 10, line 46 - col. 11, line 45; col. 19, line 66 - col. 20, line 10). Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 11 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Reulet further discloses the at least one cylindrical member (12, 13) comprises a vertical cylindrical shape (Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 3, Reulet further discloses the at least one cylindrical member comprises a plurality of cylindrical members (12, 13) coupled to one another (via soil mass 21) in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (vertical cylindrical shape) (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 11, lines 8 - 15).
Regarding claim 4, Reulet further discloses each of the plurality of cylindrical members (12, 13) are coupled to one another (via soil mass 21) at a central point in a formation of a mangrove tree root (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 at least one cylindrical member (12, 13) comprises concrete (col. 2, lines 58 - 60; col. 19, lines 66 - 67).
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 18, Reulet further discloses the at least one cylindrical member (12, 13) comprises a plurality of cylindrical members coupled (via soil mass 21) to one another in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (vertical cylindrical shape) (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 11, lines 8 - 15).
Regarding claim 19, Reulet further discloses each of the plurality of cylindrical members (12, 13) are coupled to one another (via soil mass 21) at a central point in a formation of a mangrove tree root (vertical cylindrical shape) (Figs. 1A and 1B).
Claims 1 - 5, 7 - 9, 11 - 13, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepard, III (US 8,635,973).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Shepard discloses a system for mitigating coastal erosion, the system comprising at least one cylindrical member (root elements 41, 44, 47, 50), wherein the at least one cylindrical member has a predetermined porosity (root elements 41, 44, 47, and 50 are non-porous and, therefore, have a predetermined porosity of 0%) and wherein the at least one cylindrical member 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). Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 11 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Shepard further discloses the at least one cylindrical member (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 3, Shepard further discloses the at least one cylindrical member comprises a plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) coupled to one another (see connection points 45, 48) in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (artificial mangrove assembly 10) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Shepard further discloses each of the plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) are coupled to one another (45, 48) at a central point in a formation of a mangrove tree root (10) (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 at least one cylindrical member (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).
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 18, Shepard further discloses the at least one cylindrical member (41, 44, 47, 50) comprises a plurality of cylindrical members coupled (45, 48) to one another in a formation approximating a shape of a mangrove tree root (10) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Shepard further discloses each of the plurality of cylindrical members (41, 44, 47, 50) are coupled (45, 48) to one another at a central point in a formation of a mangrove tree root (10) (Fig. 1).
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).
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 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reulet.
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 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 at least one cylindrical member positioned in coastal water increases proportionally to the coastal erosion risk level, wherein greater numbers of the at least one cylindrical member 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 at least one cylindrical member positioned in coastal water increases proportionally to the coastal erosion risk level, wherein greater numbers of the at least one cylindrical member 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 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 at least one cylindrical member 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 with respect to claims 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
3/5/2026