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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gaps” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12, 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation “a gap is formed between opposing surfaces of the first reef module and the second reef module”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what component of the invention is intended to be claimed, as there can by may “gaps” between opposing surfaces of adjacent modules.
Claims 2-12 and 19 are similarly rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Birbeck (US 2020/0149238).
Regarding claims 1-4, 13, 14 and 20, Birbeck discloses a customizable artificial reef structure and method of installing them underwater [Paragraph 1] comprising a plurality of reef modules [Figures 6A & 6B] having holes and male/female keying features on opposing sides [Figure 14 embodiment]; a gap formed between opposing surfaces of adjacent modules [between top surfaces, gaps in dovetail seats, gaps between holes/features of the crushed shellfish in the concrete block; Paragraphs 57, 83 & 84]; wherein the modules are positioned in a berm and spur configuration [via block configuration 60 in Figure 12, should the dovetails be connected with, this configuration would be achieved].
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) 5-12 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbeck (US 2020/0149238) alone.
Regarding claims 5-12 and 21-26, although Birbeck is silent as to the specific combinations of the module configurations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct them with multiple spurs, and with crests [smaller modules at the apex of larger modules best seen in Figure 3A] between said spurs, depending on a number of factors including module size, wave velocity and tidal ranges, length of the berm etc, to increase rigidity, water dispersion, and habitats for plant life on said module configuration. Furthermore, Birbeck discloses the modules can be utilized for multiple purposes and be positioned in any imagined configuration [Paragraphs 54-56 & Paragraphs 76-87].
Specifically regarding the height/width, wave reduction percentage, and fractal dimension requirements of claims 7, 9, 23 and 25, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to construct them in such a manner for the reasons noted above. Additionally, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klenert (US 2017/0268191) discloses an artificial shell reef comprising berms and spurs like those of the claimed invention. Lee et al. (KR 101329554 B1) discloses an artificial reef comprising a berm and a crest behind it like those of the claimed invention. Lim (KR 20200052158 A) discloses an artificial reef comprising m/f “key features” like those of the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights