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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation at least one biofilm, and the claim also recites preferably comprising natural compounds which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1-7, 9, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spain Patent ES 2141685 to Jose in view of French Patent FR 1382257 to Frame.
Regarding Claim 1, Jose teaches a biodegradable substrate for growth accommodation of oysters and/or oyster larvae, (italics indicates functional language the structure of Jose is capable of performing) comprising: an extruded block comprising a ceramic material (Jose page 3 English translation provided by applicant, “hardened clay pieces manufactured by extrusion”), at least one hollow formed as a through-hole (Jose Fig. 1 #1), at least partially surrounded by the extruded block, wherein at least part of the extruded block comprises a porous structure (Jose extruded clay is porous).
Jose is silent on explicitly teaching extending in the extrusion direction of the extruded block; wherein at least part of an inner surface of at least one hollow and at least part of an outer surface of the extruded block comprises a wavy and/or undulating pattern. However, Frame teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide extending in the extrusion direction of the extruded block; wherein at least part of an inner surface of at least one hollow and at least part of an outer surface of the extruded block comprises a wavy and/or undulating pattern (Frame Figs. 1-3 #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jose with the teachings of Frame before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good fixation of spat as taught by Frame (Frame English translation provided by application claims section). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Jose as modified teaches wherein the wavy and/or undulating pattern comprises a plurality of parallel grooves, extending in the same direction as the extrusion direction of the extruded block (Frame Figs. 1 and 2 #6).
Regarding Claim 3, Jose as modified teaches wherein at least part of the extruded block is substantially trapezoidal-prism shaped, wherein a second side of the extruded block is wider compared to a first side of the extruded block, wherein the first and the second sides are located at the opposite of each other (Jose Fig. 1 #4)
Regarding Claim 4, Jose as modified teaches at least part of at least one hollow is quadrilateral-shaped; or trapezium-shaped (Jose Fig. 1 left and right hollows #1).
Regarding Claim 5, Jose as modified teaches at least two hollows; or at least three hollows, wherein each hollow is formed as a through hole and wherein the hollows are positioned at a distance from each other in a direction perpendicular to the extrusion direction of the extruded block (Jose Fig. 1 three hollows #1).
Regarding Claim 6, Jose as modified teaches at least 50% of the outer surface of the extruded block comprises a wavy and/or undulating pattern, and/or wherein at least 50% of the inner surface of at least one hollow comprises a wavy and/or undulating pattern (Frame Figs. 1-3 100% wavy/undulating which satisfies “at least” 50%).
Regarding Claim 7, Jose as modified teaches the importance of ease of transporting, but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the substrate weighs less than 20 kilograms, and wherein the density of the extruded block is between 1 and 4 kg/m3. However, the examiner takes official notice that the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize manufacturing and installation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for durability and ease of transport. The modification is merely adjusting physical properties i.e. “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9, Jose as modified is silent on wherein the height of at least part of the substrate is between 10 and 20 cm, and/or wherein the width of the substrate is between 25 and 35 cm. However, the examiner takes official notice that the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize ease of transport and desired size to accommodate a desired amount of aquaculture and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely adjusting physical properties i.e. “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success and/or obvious change in size performing the same intended function [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 UPSQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)].
Regarding Claim 12, Jose as modified teaches at least one wavy and/or undulating pattern varies along the outer circumference of the extruded block and/or wherein at least one wavy and/or undulating pattern varies along an inner surface of at least one hollow (Frame Fig. 1-3 #6 all do not appear to be perfectly uniform; Frame satisfies the broad nature of the limitation “varies”; claim does not structurally identify the varying structural difference).
Regarding Claim 13, Jose as modified teaches at least part of the wavy and/or undulating pattern resembles sine or sinusoidal waves (Fra, Fig. 3 #6).
Regarding Claim 14, Jose a variety of shapes and as modified teaches at least a part of at least one side of the extruded block is at least partially concaved or recessed (Frame Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose with the teachings of Frame before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ease of stacking as taught by Frame. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Jose as modified appears to teach at least one hollow, is defined by a wall part, wherein the ratio of the thickness of the wall part and the height of the hollow is at least 1:3, the wall thickness of at least one wall part is at least in the range of 2 to 3cm (Jose Fig. 1), but is silent on exactly teaching the ratio and thickness range. However, the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice involving merely a change in size derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize performance efficiently and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success and/or obvious change in size performing the same intended function [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 UPSQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)].
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spain Patent ES 2141685 to Jose in view of French Patent FR 1382257 to Frame as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Effects of Biofilm Age and Composition on Oyster Larval Setting, by Alaina Hart, Virginia Commonwealth University [retrieved from internet 10 August 2026 https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=etd] 59 pages, 2009.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Jose as modified is silent on comprising at least one biofilm, said biofilm preferably comprising natural compounds; wherein at least 50% of the inner surface of at least one hollow and/or at least 50% of the outer surface of the extruded block is covered with at least one biofilm. However, Hart teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide natural biofilm covering an outer surface “at least 50%” (Hart page 17 last paragraph; page 4 second paragraph “covered” which equates to 100%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose with the teachings of Hart before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to encourage oyster settlement as taught by Hart. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spain Patent ES 2141685 to Jose in view of French Patent FR 1382257 to Frame as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Korean Patent KR 20200136221 to Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Jose as modified is silent on at least part of the ceramic material is sintered incompletely. However, Kim teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to sinter clay when fabricating clay substrates for oysters (Kim English translation “sintering temperature of 950 to 1030 degree C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to strengthen it as taught by Kim. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19. Jose as modified teaches a method for manufacturing a biodegradable substrate comprising the steps of: a) mixing at least one ceramic material and/or a combustible material into a malleable core material (Jose teaches clay); b) extruding the core material into an extruded block and forming at least one through-hole in the extruded block in the extrusion direction (Jose English translation extruded clay; Figs.1), wherein during extrusion, at least part of the surface of the extruded block is provided with a wavy and/or undulating pattern (Kim Fig. 1(c); Frame Fig. 3 #6); c) drying or solidifying the extruded block (Kim English abstract); and d) baking the extruded block thereby burning at least part of the ceramic material and/or the combustible material of the extruded block such that a porous structure is obtained (Kim English translation “sintering temperature of 950 to 1030 degree C); e) cutting the extruded block in a plurality of substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose with the teachings of Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide durability and strength to the substrate as taught by Kim. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Jose as modified teaches the step d) is performed at a temperature of at most 1050 degrees Celsius (Kim teaches 950-1030 degrees C; which does not exceed the claimed upper end of 1050 degrees C). Jose teaches within the claimed range, but is silent on teaching the upper end limit. However, the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize manufacturing efficiency and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 21is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spain Patent ES 2141685 to Jose in view of French Patent FR 1382257 to Frame and Korean Patent KR 20200136221 to Kim et al as applied to claims 1, 18, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Effects of Biofilm Age and Composition on Oyster Larval Setting, by Alaina Hart, Virginia Commonwealth University [retrieved from internet 10 August 2026 https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=etd] 59 pages, 2009.
Regarding Claim 21, Jose as modified is silent on further comprising the step of: f) applying at least one biofilm to the extruded block and/or; g)pre-charging the extruded block with oyster larvae. However, Hart teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide at least one biofilm to a substrate i.e. extruded block (Hart page 17 last paragraph; page 4 second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jose with the teachings of Hart before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to encourage oyster settlement as taught by Hart. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to:
- artificial reef substrate structures:
U.S. Patent No. 3,561,402; Korean Patent KR 2002027402; Korean Patent KR 2003003179; Korean Patent KR 20090096572; China Patent CN 213961368; Korean Patent KR 101116724; Korean Patent KR 20110107712.
- extruded blocks/brick structures:
U.S. Patent No. 3,461,196; U.S. Patent No. 6,122,881; Korea Patent KR 100878406.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights