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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “58” has been used to designate both “restoration assembly module” and “opening”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “26”, “26A”, “26B”, “26C”, “28”, “38”, “58”, “60”, “30A”, “30B”, “30C”, “30D”, “34A”, “34B”, “34C”, “10A”, “10B”, “10C”, “40A”, “40B”, “40C”, “134”, “136”, “144”, “146”, “156”, “234”, “236”, “244”, “246”, “256”, and “336”.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear how the structural elements illustrated in Fig. 6C are connected together. Figs. 7C and 8C contain similar issues.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 2, “carbonat” should be changed to “carbonate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 - 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “cementitious material;a primarily calcium carbonate material” as recited in line 3 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation requires both a cementitious material and a primarily calcium carbonate material or if the cementitious material comprises a primarily calcium carbonate material. For purposes of examination, “a) a cementitious material;a primarily calcium carbonate material; and b) a cement that is capable of holding the primarily calcium carbonate material” as recited in lines 3 - 5 has been interpreted as “a cementitious material comprising a primarily calcium carbonate material and a cement that is capable of holding the primarily calcium carbonate material”, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how many restoration units Applicant intends to claim. The claims are directed to a single restoration unit as per the preamble of claim 1, but line 14 recites “the restoration units”, which requires a plurality of restoration units.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether “primarily calcium carbonate material” and “a cement” as recited in line 2 refers to the “primarily calcium carbonate material” and the “cement” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, or if they represent additional structural limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the use of the term “each” as recited in line 5 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural elements or limitations the term is referring.
Regarding claim 14, the term “sufficient” as recited in line 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it does not clearly define a specific amount of cement to be poured into the mold.
Regarding claim 14, the use of the term “when” as recited in line 4 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “when” indicates that the respective limitation is not required. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 6: “the form”
Claim 1, line 11: “the ends”
Claim 1, line 14: “the restoration units” and “the ends”
Claim 6, line 1: “the support units”
Claim 7, line 4: “the hypotenuse”
Claim 14, line 1: “the restoration unit”
Claim 14, line 3: “the primarily calcium carbonate material”. It is unclear as to which of the “plurality of calcium carbonate material” recited in line 2 the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 14, line 4: “the cement” and “the mold”
Claim 14, line 7: “the form”
Claim 14, line 8: “the restoration unit cab”
Claim 14, line 11: “the ends”
Claim 14, line 15: “the ends”
Claim 15, lines 1 - 2: “the primarily calcium carbonate material”. It is unclear as to which of the “plurality of calcium carbonate material” as recited in claim 14, from which claim 15 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 16, lines 1 - 2: “the primarily calcium carbonate material”. It is unclear as to which of the “plurality of calcium carbonate material” as recited in claim 14, from which claim 16 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 18, line 4: “the hypotenuse”
Claim 21, line 3: “the restoration units”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All of the limitations recited in claim 2 are recited in parts a) and b) of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 - 4, 6 - 10, 14 - 16, and 18 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hilton et al. (US 9,403,287) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hilton et al. in view of Bennett (US 2013/0118413).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14, Hilton discloses a restoration unit for construction of eco-friendly structures in a body of water comprising: a) a cementitious material comprising a primarily calcium carbonate material (limestone; oyster shells); and b) a cement (concrete) that is capable of holding the primarily calcium carbonate material; wherein the restoration unit is in the form of a slab having one or more openings (openings that can accommodate the ends of each blockout 30), wherein the restoration unit is configured such that the restoration unit can be placed on a support unit to form a restoration assembly module, wherein the restoration assembly module has a shape selected from (i) a substantially right-angled triangular prism shape with the restoration unit at an angle, wherein the ends of the substantially right-angled triangular prism shape are open or (ii) a symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape (surfaces 12, 14, 16, 18), having one side formed from the support unit (upper surface 36 of base 34) and two sides formed from the restoration units, wherein the ends of the symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape are open (triangular-shaped blockouts 32 designed as turtle escape opening), wherein the restoration assembly module is configured to attenuate waves (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 2, lines 9 - 14; col. 5, lines 5 - 18; col. 6, line 24 - col. 7, line 44; col. 8, lines 55 - 57). Examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring a primarily calcium carbonate material attached to at least one side of a cement slab. Assuming arguendo that the claim requires a primarily calcium carbonate material mixed with a cement to form a cementitious material, Bennett teaches a restoration unit comprising a calcium carbonate-based concrete (paragraphs 0016 and 0019). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the cementitious material comprising a carbonate-based concrete as taught by Bennett for the concrete as disclosed by Hilton as a design consideration within the skill of the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 14 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Hilton further discloses the primarily calcium carbonate material is obtained from once living material from an organism (oyster shells) (col. 8, lines 55 - 57).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Hilton further discloses the primarily calcium carbonate material comprises aquatic shells (oyster shells) (col. 8, lines 55 - 57).
Regarding claim 6, Hilton further discloses the support units (36, 34) are configured to hold each of the restoration units at an angle ranging from 30 degrees to 60 degrees (Figs. 2 - 4). While Figs. 2 - 4 of Hilton illustrates an angle ranging from 30 degrees to 60 degrees, neither Hilton nor Hilton in view of Bennett explicitly teaches an angle ranging from 30 degrees to 60 degrees. Examiner takes the position that the angle lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon environmental conditions such as ocean currents found in the location at which the restoration unit is to be installed.
Regarding claims 7 - 9 and 18 - 20, Examiner takes the position that Hilton teaches “(ii) a symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape, having one side formed from the support unit and two sides formed from the restoration units, wherein the ends of the symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape are open” as discussed below in the rejection of claim 1. However, claims 7 – 9 are directed to “(i) a substantially right-angled triangular prism shape with the restoration unit at an angle, wherein the ends of the substantially right-angled triangular prism shape are open”. Since Hilton was relied upon to teach part (ii) rather than to teach part (i), claims 7 - 9 being associated with part (i) fail to further limit claim 1, from which claims 7 - 9 depend.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Hilton further discloses the restoration assembly module has (ii) the symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape, having one side formed from the support unit (36, 34) and two sides formed from the restoration units (14, 18), wherein the ends of the symmetrical or asymmetrical triangular prism shape are open (see triangular-shaped blockouts 32 designed as turtle escape opening) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 5, lines 5 - 18; col. 6, line 24 - col. 7, line 44; col. 8, lines 55 - 57).
Regarding claim 22, Hilton further discloses a structure formed from a plurality of restoration assembly modules (see Fig. 7) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the structure is an artificial reef structure (Figs. 1 - 3 and 7; abstract; col. 2, lines 9 - 14; col. 5, lines 5 - 18; col. 6, line 24 - col. 7, line 44; col. 8, lines 1- 16 and 55 - 57).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton et al. in view of Bennett as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Hojaji (US 2014/0013554). Hilton in view of Bennet discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cement is a bio-cement. Hojaji teaches cement comprising a bio-cement (paragraphs 0149 and 0150) to encourage and promote the growth of living cells on their surface. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the bio-cement as taught by Hojaji for the cement as disclosed above to encourage and promote the growth of living cells on the restoration unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights