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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims to the current application are merely broader than the claims to US Patent No. 12,146,284 and are thus encompassed by said claims.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/870,472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims to the current application claim the features of the copending application and are thus not patentably distinct from the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (4,727,672) in view of Van de Riet et al. (8,511,936).
With regard to claim 1, Hill discloses a device comprising: a shaft (44/48) operably attached to an anchor (10) at a first end of the shaft (fig. 6); and one or more protrusions (14) extending from the shaft between the first end of the shaft and a second end of the shaft (figs. 1-2), wherein the second end of the shaft is configured to transmit a torque to both the first end of the shaft and to the anchor (figs. 1, 6), wherein the one or more protrusions comprise a central support (68; fig. 2), wherein the central support is operably connected to one or more plates (64) or the central support is formed of a unitary piece of material with the one or more plates (fig. 2).
Hill discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to disclose a corkscrew as the anchor arrangement.
Van de Riet discloses a device wherein various anchors may be utilized to include a corkscrew (col. 2, lines 50-56; fig. 6).
It is well known within the art to utilize different types of anchoring arrangements based on the material and conditions of the ground/seafloor at hand, to include corkscrew anchors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowley and utilize a corkscrew foundation as taught by Van de Riet, since such a modification would have merely required interchanging known anchoring types, yielding a predictable result, and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 4, Hill further discloses the one or more plates comprise four plates (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 5, Hill further discloses each of the one or more protrusion is substantially concave (col. 5, lines 60-63).
With regard to claim 6, Hill further discloses the one or more protrusions comprises a shaft cavity, wherein the shaft cavity is configured to allow rotation of each of the one or more protrusions in just a clockwise direction, in just a counter-clockwise direction, or both a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (e.g. claim 1).
With regard to claim 7, Hill further discloses the one or more plates comprise grooves and/or indentations and/or a roughened surface (88).
With regard to claim 8, Hill further discloses the central support is operably connected to two or more plates or the central support is formed of a unitary piece of material with the two or more plates (fig. 2), wherein the two or more plates are spaced apart laterally from each other by a plate gap.
With regard to claim 9, Hill further discloses the one or more plates comprise a plate protrusion (88) on an upper surface of each of the one or more plates.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (4,727,672) in view of Van de Riet et al. (8,511,936), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett (2013/0118413).
With regard to claim 2, Hill, as modified discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to disclose the protrusion comprise calcium.
Bennett discloses a device wherein the device is constructed from material containing calcium (para 0019). It is well known within the art for calcium carbonate to be the basis of marine reefs and artificial marine habitats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hill and utilize calcium as taught by Bennet in order to support marine life.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (4,727,672) in view of Van de Riet et al. (8,511,936), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meltsov et al. (2015/0063910).
With regard to claim 3, Hill, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to disclose the shaft is operably connected to a substantially planar disc, wherein the substantially planar disc is operably connected to the corkscrew.
Meltsov discloses a device wherein the device comprising a shaft that is operably connected to a substantially planar disc (1e), wherein the substantially planar disc is operably connected to the corkscrew (1; fig 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hill and utilize a planar disc as taught by Meltsov in order to achieve optimum penetration of the corkscrew.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action is/are overcome and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the dependent claim(s). Underwater devices for erosion control and dynamic reefs are known such as those taught by Hill et al. (4,727,672) and Bishop et al. (5,700,108). However, the cited prior art lacks the plates with more protrusion cells and one or more protrusion apertures and the shaft comprising a securing flange configured to contact an upper surface of the one protrusion in an assembled configuration as required by the dependent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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.
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
02/25/2026