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 .
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP H0750952 A), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi”, in view of Kususe (JP 2002058382 A), hereafter referred to as “Kususe” and Ichimura et al. (JP 2017093425 A), hereafter referred to as “Ichimura”.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an algal reef (machine translation, paragraph [0001]), comprising:
biomass ash powder obtained by burning materials (machine translation, paragraphs [0010], [0018]);
crushed granules (machine translation, paragraph [0018]); and
a hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0009]),
wherein the algal reef is configured to permit algae to attach to a surface in order to propagate the algae in water (machine translation, paragraph [0011]). Kobayashi further teaches that the ash powder is obtained by burning coal, but does not explicitly teach that it is by burning woody materials. Additionally, Kobayashi further teaches that the granules are obtained by crushing stone, but not obtained by crushing shells.
Kususe teaches a method for manufacturing an algal reef including ash powder obtained by burning woody materials (machine translation, paragraph [0001]).
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 Kobayashi, such that the ash powder is obtained by burning woody material, as taught by Kususe, in order to provide nutrients necessary for the growth of algae (machine translation, paragraph [0001]).
Ichimura teaches a method for manufacturing an algal reef including granules of crushed shells (machine translation, paragraph [0012]).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe, such that the granules including crushed shells, as taught by Ichimura, in order to provide additional attracting components and shorten the time required for impregnation (machine translation, paragraph [0012] of Ichimura).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 1, and Kobayashi further teaches that the hardening agent comprises slaked lime (machine translation, paragraph [0005]) that hardens with water (machine translation, paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 1, and Ichimura further teaches that at least one of the granules contains calcium carbonate or gravel as an aggregate (machine translation, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 3, and Ichimura further teaches that the at least one of the granules containing calcium carbonate is produced by a 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, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 1, and Kobayashi further teaches a pellet comprising the ash powder and hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0008]), but does not explicitly teach that the pellet is put into a liquid-permeable bag.
Ichimura further teaches that a pellet (1; fig. 1) comprising ash powder and the hardening agent (machine translation, paragraphs [0020]-[0022]) is put into a liquid-permeable bag (2; fig. 1 and machine translation, paragraphs [0006] and [0026]).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura, such that the pellet is put into a liquid-permeable bag, as further taught by Kobayashi, in order to provide shelter to the aquatic organisms by creating groupings of contained pellets for ease of installation and handling (machine translation, paragraph [0026] of Ichimura).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches a method for manufacturing an algal reef (machine translation, paragraph [0001]), comprising:
kneading ash powder obtained by burning materials (machine translation, paragraphs [0010], [0018]), crushed granules (machine translation, paragraph [0018]), and a hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0009]),
shaping the kneaded materials (machine translation, paragraphs [0010], [0018]), and
hardening the shaped material (machine translation, paragraph [0010]),
wherein the algal reef is configured to permit algae to attach to a surface in order to propagate the algae in water (machine translation, paragraph [0011]. Kobayashi further teaches that the ash powder is obtained by burning coal, but does not explicitly teach that it is by burning woody materials. Additionally, Kobayashi further teaches that the granules are obtained by crushing stone, but not obtained by crushing shells.
Kususe teaches a method for manufacturing an algal reef including ash powder obtained by burning woody materials (machine translation, paragraph [0001]).
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 Kobayashi, such that the ash powder is obtained by burning woody material, as taught by Kususe, in order to provide nutrients necessary for the growth of algae (machine translation, paragraph [0001]).
Ichimura teaches a method for manufacturing an algal reef including granules of crushed shells (machine translation, paragraph [0012]).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe, such that the granules including crushed shells, as taught by Ichimura, in order to provide additional attracting components and shorten the time required for impregnation (machine translation, paragraph [0012] of Ichimura).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the method according to claim 7, and Kobayashi further teaches that the hardening agent is slaked lime (machine translation, paragraphs [0008] and [0018]) and hardens through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with air (machine translation, paragraphs [0008] and [0018], teaching that slaked lime is exposed and reacts with ambient air).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 2, and Kobayashi further teaches that the hardening agent is slaked lime (machine translation, paragraphs [0008] and [0018]) and hardens through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with air (machine translation, paragraphs [0008] and [0018], teaching that slaked lime is exposed and reacts with ambient air).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 5, and Kobayashi further teaches that the pellet includes a weight percent of 30% of slaked lime, but does not explicitly teach a weight percent of 8% to 14% of slaked lime.
It is well settled, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In this case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of a weight percentage of 8%-14% slaked lime (instant specification at paragraph [0017]). 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 to including a weight percent of 8%-14% of slaked lime, in order to modify the desired amount of rigidity and pores formed within the pellet as desired by the user (machine translation, paragraph [0008]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kususe and 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, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and 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 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 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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura to include an algae seedling cultured in filtered seawater or a medium is attached to a surface of the pellet, as taught by Lee, in order to further promote marine life (machine translation, abstract).
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura as applied to claims 2, 5, and 7 above, and further in view of Son (KR 20090126929 A), hereafter referred to as “Son”.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the method according to claim 7, and Kobayashi further teaches that the hardening agent is gypsum (machine translation, paragraph [0005]) and hardens through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with water (machine translation, paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0011]), but does not explicitly teach that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate.
Son teaches an algal reef (fig. 1) including gypsum hemihydrate (see machine translation, page 4, third to last paragraph beginning with “Gypsum used in the present invention…”).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura, such that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate, as taught by Son, in order to provide a quickly acting hardening agent.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 2, and Kobayashi further teaches that the hardening agent is gypsum (machine translation, paragraph [0005]) and hardens through a chemical reaction in a state of being mixed with water (machine translation, paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0011]), but does not explicitly teach that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate.
Son teaches an algal reef (fig. 1) including gypsum hemihydrate (see machine translation, page 4, third to last paragraph beginning with “Gypsum used in the present invention…”).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura, such that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate, as taught by Son, in order to provide a quickly acting hardening agent.
PNG
media_image1.png
345
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 1 of Kobayashi Translated by Google Translate.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches the algal reef according to claim 5, and Kobayashi further teaches that the pellet includes a weight percent of 2% to 6% of gypsum (translation of Table 1 above showing a weight percentage of gypsum), and that gypsum is utilized as a hardening agent (machine translation, paragraph [0009]), but does not explicitly teach that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate.
Son teaches an algal reef (fig. 1) including a hardening agent with gypsum hemihydrate (see machine translation, page 4, third to last paragraph beginning with “Gypsum used in the present invention…”).
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 Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura, such that the gypsum is gypsum hemihydrate, as taught by Son, in order to “promote latent hydraulic properties to prevent condensation and expansion by condensation and curing, and to improve strength in the long term” (see machine translation of Son, page 4, third to last paragraph beginning with “Gypsum used in the present invention…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-13 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. As shown above, Kobayashi in view of Kususe and Ichimura teaches each and every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7.
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.
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. For example, KR-20210094801, CN-110292014-B, and KR-100571288-B1 teach similar artificial reefs that include utilize similar materials like ash, wood materials, and shell.
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
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights