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 because:
Fig. 1 contains four separate views. Each figure should only include a single view. Each of the four views of Fig. 1 should be renumbered (i.e. Figs. 1A - 1D) and the specification should be amended accordingly. Figs. 2 - 8 contain similar issues.
Regarding Figs. 1 - 11, each of the figures should include at least one reference character to designate the various structural element(s) illustrated in the figure.
Regarding Figs. 9 - 11, the markings are too dark and blurry. Examiner is unable to identify and distinguish between the structural elements illustrated in the figures.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract described purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of paragraph 0019, the term “Calcium” should not be capitalized.
In line 4 of paragraph 0026, the meaning of the term “terMediterranean” is unclear.
In line 3 of paragraph 0039, the term “Bioreactive” should not be capitalized.
The term or abbreviation “RA” should be defined at least one specification (see lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 0040).
In line 2 of paragraph 0043, the term “Calcium” should not be capitalized.
The abbreviation “DNV” (see line 6 of paragraph 0056) should be defined at least once in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 - 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 2, “A system” should be changed to “The system”. Similar changes should be made in claims 3 - 15.
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 2 - 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 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 4, the limitation “the average weight of said plurality of units is at least about 2000 kg” is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation requires the average weight of each unit is at least about 2000 kg or if the limitation requires the average weight of the sum of all of the plurality of units is at least about 2000 kg.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 2, line 1: “the average weight” and “said unit”; It is unclear as to which of the “plurality of units” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, “said unit” refers.
Claim 3, line 1: “the average weight”
Claim 3, lines 1 - 2: “said unit”
Claim 4, lines 1 - 2: “the average weight”
Claim 7, line 2: “said unit”
Claim 8, line 1: “the thickness” and “said surface”
Claim 10, line 2: “said unit”
Claim 13, line 2: “the Portland cement”
Claim 15, line 2: “the marine fauna and flora”
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, 5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Birbeck et al. (US 2020/0149238).
Regarding claim 1, Birbeck discloses a system comprising a plurality of units (blocks 18), wherein each unit comprises a concrete matrix having a pH of less than 12 (pH of around 8.3); and wherein each unit can interlock with another unit (via male and female formations 20 and 22); wherein said system is a scour protection system for an aquatic infrastructure (Figs. 5, 6A, and 6B; paragraphs 0001, 0042, 0043, 0056, 0058, and 0059). Examiner takes the position that Birbeck teaches all of the limitations as explicitly recited in claim 1, but if “a plurality of units” comprises at least 300 units as described in the specification, Examiner takes the position that 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 modified the plurality of units as disclosed by Birbeck to include at least 300 units as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the surface area of the coastline or seabed to be covered by the system and the depth of the water in which the system is to be used when the system is placed on the bottom of a body of water such as a lake or adjacent a shoreline.
Regarding claim 5, Birbeck further discloses said pH is less than about 11 (pH of around 8.3) (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 15, Birbeck further discloses said concrete matrix is capable of promoting marine fauna and flora (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 17, Birbeck discloses a method of scour protecting an aquatic infrastructure comprising providing a system comprising a plurality of units (18), wherein each unit comprises a concrete matrix having a pH of less than 12 (pH of around 8.3); and wherein each unit can interlock with at least one other unit of said plurality of units (via male and female formations 20 and 22) (Figs. 5, 6A, and 6B; paragraphs 0001, 0042, 0043, 0056, 0058, and 0059). Examiner takes the position that Birbeck teaches all of the limitations as explicitly recited in claim 17, but if “a plurality of units” comprises at least 300 units as described in the specification, Examiner takes the position that 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 modified the plurality of units as disclosed by Birbeck to include at least 300 units as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the surface area of the coastline or seabed to be covered by the system and the depth of the water in which the system is to be used when the system is placed on the bottom of a body of water such as a lake or adjacent a shoreline.
Claims 2 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbeck et al. in view of DeShaw et al. (US 8,123,435).
Regarding claim 2, Birbeck further discloses each of the plurality of units (18) has the same size (Figs. 6A and 6B). Birbeck fails to disclose the average weight of said unit is between about 20 kg to about 150 kg. DeShaw teaches a weight of a unit (block) is between about 20 kg to about 150 kg (25 kg to 52 kg) (col. 2, lines 20 - 32) to allow the blocks to be carried by hand rather than requiring additional equipment such as a wheeled cart to transport the blocks to a work site. 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 modified the each of the units as disclosed above with the weight of the unit as taught by DeShaw to allow the units to be carried by hand rather than requiring additional equipment such as a wheeled cart to transport the units to a work site.
Regarding claim 3, Birbeck further discloses each of the plurality of units (18) has the same size (Figs. 6A and 6B). Birbeck fails to disclose the average weight of said unit is at least about 50 kg. DeShaw teaches a weight of a unit (block) is at least about 50 kg (52 kg) (col. 2, lines 20 - 32) ) to allow the blocks to be carried by hand rather than requiring additional equipment such as a wheeled cart to transport the blocks to a work site. 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 modified the each of the units as disclosed above with the weight of the unit as taught by DeShaw to allow the units to be carried by hand rather than requiring additional equipment such as a wheeled cart to transport the units to a work site.
Regarding claim 4, Birbeck in view of DeShaw discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the average weight of said plurality of units is at least about 2000 kg. Birbeck teaches a system comprising a plurality of units (Figs. 6A and 6B) and 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 modified the system as disclosed by Birbeck to include a number of blocks required to produce a system having an average weight of at least about 2000 kg as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the surface area of the coastline or seabed to be covered by the system and the depth of the water in which the system is to be used when the system is placed on the bottom of a body of water such as a lake or adjacent a shoreline.
Claims 6 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbeck et al. in view of Finkel et al. (US 2015/0366170).
Regarding claim 6, Birbeck discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the pH is between about 9 and 10.5. Finkel teaches a concrete matrix having a pH between about 9 and 10.5 (paragraph 0047). Birbeck is silent regarding the pH of the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed by Birbeck with the pH of between about 9 and 10.5 as taught by Finkel to promote growth of fauna and flora in aquatic environments such as artificial reefs.
Regarding claim 7, Birbeck fails to disclose the pH of the concrete matrix is the pH of the top surface of the unit. Finkel teaches the pH of the concrete matrix is the pH of the top surface of the unit (paragraph 0048). Birbeck is silent regarding the pH of the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed by Birbeck with the pH as taught by Finkel to promote growth of fauna and flora in aquatic environments such as artificial reefs.
Regarding claim 8, Birbeck fails to disclose the thickness of said surface is at least about 5 cm. Finkel teaches a thickness of a surface is at least about 5 cm (paragraph 0048). Birbeck is silent regarding the thickness of the 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 modified the thickness of the surface as disclosed above with a thickness of at least about 5 cm as taught by Finkel to provide a predetermined amount of structural stability and to promote a predetermined amount of growth of fauna and flora in aquatic environments by controlling the amount of concrete matrix that is available to promote fauna and flora growth.
Regarding claim 9, Birbeck fails to disclose salinity of aquatic environment is between about 0 to 45 ppt. Finkel teaches a salinity of an aquatic environment is between about 0 to 45 ppt (paragraph 0049). Birbeck is silent regarding the salinity of aquatic environment. 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 modified the system as disclosed above with the salinity of between about 0 to 45 ppt as taught by Finkel to control the types of aquatic organisms that can survive in the aquatic environment.
Regarding claim 10, Birbeck fails to disclose the unit has a surface roughness grade of at least 12. Finkel teaches a unit has a surface roughness grade of at least 12 (paragraph 0051). Birbeck is silent regarding the surface roughness grade. 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 modified the system as disclosed above with the surface roughness grade of at least 12 to control how the system interacts with flowing water, thereby influencing erosion resistance and long-term stability of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Birbeck fails to disclose said concrete matrix has a weight per volume of between about 1100 to 2700 Kg/m3. Finkel teaches said concrete matrix has a weight per volume of between about 1100 to 2700 Kg/m3 (paragraph 0052). Birbeck is silent regarding the weight per volume of the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed above with the weight per volume between about 1100 to 2700 kg/m3 as taught by Finkel to provide a desired amount of structural stability to the system.
Regarding claim 12, Birbeck fails to disclose said concrete matrix has a weight per volume of between about 1100 to 1800 Kg/m3. Finkel teaches said concrete matrix has a weight per volume of between about 1100 to 1800 Kg/m3 (paragraph 0052). Birbeck is silent regarding the weight per volume of the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed above with the weight per volume between about 1100 to 1800 kg/m3 as taught by Finkel to provide a desired amount of structural stability to the system.
Regarding claim 13, Birbeck discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the concrete matrix comprises between 0 to about 90% Portland cement. Finkel teaches the concrete matrix comprises between 0 to about 90% Portland cement (paragraph 0053). Birbeck is silent regarding the amount of Portland cement in the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed above such that the concrete matrix comprises between 0 to about 90% Portland cement to control vegetation growth by controlling nutrient availability in the concrete matrix.
Regarding claim 14, Birbeck discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the concrete matrix has average compressive strength of between about 30 to 80 Mpa. Finkel teaches the concrete matrix has average compressive strength of between about 30 to 80 Mpa (paragraph 0055). Birbeck is silent regarding the average compressive strength of the concrete matrix. 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 modified the concrete matrix as disclosed above with the average compressive strength of between about 30 to 80 Mpa to provide the concrete matrix with a predetermined durability by controlling the axial compressive loads that can be supported by the concrete matrix.
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
6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights