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 § 102
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 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, 8-10, 13 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray et al. (US 2022/0080480).
As to claim 1 and 13, Gray et al. discloses a method for sequestering carbon in a body of water (abstract), the method comprising: receiving a mass of carbon-containing matter (“sargassum”; paragraph 0163; figure 1), the mass having an initial average density that is less dense than the water (paragraph 0014); a motor (e.g. pump or crane) for submerging the mass in the body of water to a depth at which the mass becomes denser than the water due to compression of the mass by water pressure (paragraph 0112, 0165, 0176); and when the mass has become denser than the water, releasing the mass to sink in the body of water (paragraph 0047, 0078-0080, 0108, 0178; Figure 12-16).
As to claim 8 and 20, Gray et al. discloses wherein the carbon- containing matter is in the form of loose matter, and wherein the mass comprises a portion of matter selected from the loose matter (“sargassum” ; abstract and paragraph 0245).
As to claim 9 and 21, Gray et al. discloses wherein submerging the mass comprises enclosing the portion in a cage having an open bottom, and translating the cage so that the portion submerges to the depth (paragraph 0022 and 108).
As to claim 10 and 22, Gray et al. discloses wherein translating the cage comprises registering that the cage has reached the depth using an indication provided by at least one of a camera attached to the cage and an accelerometer attached to the cage (paragraph 0107; conventional equipment used in the art).
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) 2-7, 11-12, 14-19, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 2022/0080480).
As to claims 2 and 14, Gray et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gray et al. is silent about wherein the carbon- containing matter is in the form of a plurality of bales, and wherein the mass comprises a given bale selected from the plurality. It is old and well known in the art and merely a straightforward packaging alternative that would substitute the loose matter or cage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Gray et al. to use bale packaging, since it would merely substitute a known packaging alternative for another for easier transport.
As to claims 3-7 and 15-19, Gray et al. teaches wherein submerging the mass comprises attaching the mass to a cable by way of a cage and crane and translating the cable so that the given bale submerges to the depth; and comprising releasing the given bale when the given bale is at the depth (paragraph 0258). Gray et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gray et al. is silent about wherein submerging the mass comprises attaching the given bale to a connector of a cable, and translating the cable so that the given bale submerges to the depth; and comprising releasing the given bale from the connector when the given bale is at the depth. It would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to include a connector for the bale fix the mass to the cage and release the mass at the desired depth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gray et al. to include a connector for the bale, since it would provide a way to fix and release the bale at the desired depth.
With regards to claims 11 and 23 Gray et al. discloses a method and apparatus for sequestering carbon in a body of water (abstract), the method comprising: receiving at least one mass of carbon-containing matter (sargassum), each of the at least mass having an initial average density that is less dense than the water (paragraph 0112, 0165, 0176); attaching the mass to a cable (crane cable see paragraph 0258); attaching a weight (cage) to the cable, so that the cable, the attached weight, and the attached mass exerts a net downward force when submerged in the water; and releasing mass to sink in the body of water. Gray et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gray et al. is silent about wherein submerging the mass comprises attaching the given bale to a connector of a cable, releasing the cable, the attached weight, and the at least one bale to sink in the body of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the weighted cage with a cable attached to a weight since it would be considered an obvious alternative to create a source of gravitation to sink the bale. Furthermore, it is old and well known in the art and merely a straightforward packaging alternative that would substitute the loose matter or cage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Gray et al. to use bale packaging, since it would merely substitute a known packaging alternative for another for easier transport.
As to claims 12 and 24, Gray et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gray et al. is silent about prior to attaching the weight, computing a value of the weight so that the cable, the attached weight, and the attached at least one bale exert the net downward force when submerged in the water. It would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to calculate the amount of weight needed to sink the bale, since it is a conventional practice in the art to make sure the bale sinks to the desired depth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights