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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creech et al. (US 2023/0304244) in view of “Why use Recycled Concrete/Crushed Concrete” by Superior Groundcover Incorporated {Hereinafter SG}.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Creech discloses an apparatus and method of providing a plurality of structural units for construction of eco-friendly structures in a body of water comprising: a) a primarily calcium carbonate material and b) a cement that is capable of holding the primarily calcium carbonate material in the form of a slab [Abstract; Paragraphs 26 & 27].
Creech fails to disclose breaking up the formed slabs of cement and calcium carbonate material into variable sizes.
Superior Groundcover teaches breaking up slabs of concrete into variable sizes to be recycled as rip-rap [whole document].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Creech by adding the breaking up step as described by Superior Groundcover to breakdown the slab into various sizes such that it can be used in a number of different applications including along shorelines to control erosion or form a breakwater, making the material incredibly versatile.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Creech further discloses the calcium carbonate material is aquatic shells [Paragraph 28].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Creech further discloses the cement is a bio-cement [Abstract].
Regarding claims 5, Superior Groundcover further teaches the concrete slab is broken down into a plurality of units of various sizes [whole document].
Regarding claims 6-10 and 15-19, although the Creech-Superior Groundcover combination is silent as to the size and weight of the structural units, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art attempting to re-create the invention to utilize dimensions of 3 to 24 inches and .5 to 300 pounds based on a number of variables including the density/component mixture of the slab, and the anticipated wave loads that need to be mitigated. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 20, Creech further discloses and Superior Groundcover further teaches the structural units form a shoreline stabilization structure [Title and whole document respectively].
Regarding claim 21, Superior Groundcover further teaches the structural units form a revetment structure [whole document].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Creech-Superior Groundcover as applied to claims 1-20 and 22 above, and further in view of Amari (US 6830411).
The Creech-Superior Groundcover combination is silent as to utilizing the structural units as an artificial reef structure.
Amari teaches using rip-rap [5] as part of an artificial reef structure [Figure 1].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of the Creech-Superior Groundcover combination by applying it as an artificial reef structure as described by Amari to provide a natural barrier to storms, protect the shoreline from erosion, and create a habitat for aquatic life [Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619