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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a hardening agent that has hardened through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with the ash powder” is requiring that the hardening agent reacts with the ash powder to cause the hardening. Applicant’s disclosure appears to state that hardening of materials like gypsum hemihydrate or slaked lime occurs when reacted with water (instant specification at paragraph [0017]), and that the ash powder is simply combined with the hardening agent. Claim 7 is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 6 is indefinite because one skilled in the art would not understand what exactly is meant by the recitation “attached in advance”.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Claims 2-6, depending on rejected claim 1 above, are rejected the same.
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, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichimura et al. (JP 2017093425 A), hereafter referred to as “Ichimura”.
Regarding claim 1, Ichimura discloses an algal reef (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001] and figs. 1-5), comprising:
ash powder obtained by burning coal or biomass (machine translation, paragraphs [0020]-[0021], e.g., teaching fly ash); and
a hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0020], e.g., teaching cement and gypsum) that has hardened through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with the ash powder (machine translation, paragraph [0020] disclosing that the hardening agents are mixed with the ash powder and hardens as a result of a chemical reaction, as best understood).
Regarding claim 3, Ichimura discloses the algal reef according to claim 1, and further discloses a granule containing calcium carbonate as an aggregate (machine translation, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Ichimura discloses the algal reef according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein the granule containing calcium carbonate (machine translation, paragraph [0012]) is produced by the reaction of calcium hydroxide with carbon dioxide in a carbon dioxide absorption facility (machine translation, paragraph [0012]; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966).
Regarding claim 5, Ichimura discloses the algal reef according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein a pellet (1; fig. 1) comprising the ash powder and the hardening agent (machine translation, paragraphs [0020]-[0022]) is put into a liquid-permeable bag (2; fig. 1 and machine translation, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Ichimura discloses a method for manufacturing an algal reef (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001] and figs. 1-5), comprising:
kneading ash powder obtained by burning coal or biomass (machine translation, paragraphs [0020]-[0021], e.g., teaching fly ash) and a hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0020], e.g., teaching cement and gypsum; machine translation at paragraphs [0015]-[0016] teaching kneading) that hardens through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with the ash powder (machine translation, paragraph [0020] disclosing that the hardening agents are mixed with the ash powder and hardens as a result of a chemical reaction, as best understood),
shaping the kneaded materials (machine translation, paragraph [0018]), and
hardening the shaped material (machine translation, paragraph [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son (KR 20090126929 A), hereafter referred to as “Son”.
Regarding claim 2, Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 1, and further teaches that the hardening agent comprises gypsum that hardens with water (machine translation, paragraph [0020]), but does not explicitly teach gypsum hemihydrate.
Son teaches an algal reef (fig. 1) including gypsum hemihydrate (see machine translation, page 4, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the algal reef of Ichimura, such that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate, as taught by Son, in order to provide a quickly acting hardening agent.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20110100408 A), hereafter referred to as “Lee”.
Regarding claim 6, Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach that an algae seedling cultured in filtered seawater or a medium is attached in advance to a surface of the pellet.
Lee teaches an algal reef (figs. 1-2; see also machine translation, abstract) including an algae seedling (130; fig. 2) cultured in filtered seawater or a medium is attached in advance to a surface of a pellet (150; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the algal reef of Ichimura to include an algae seedling cultured in filtered seawater or a medium is attached in advance to a surface of the pellet, as taught by Lee, in order to further promote marine life (machine translation, abstract).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646