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 .
Specification
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its length exceeds 150 words. 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“two adjacent lug structures (12); and a communication hole (40) runs through the gasket (4), and hexagonal bosses (41)” should read -- two adjacent lug structures (12); a communication hole (40) runs through the gasket (4); and hexagonal bosses (41)”
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 1-3 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.
Throughout the claims there is an issue of antecedent basis for many claimed structures. Particularly, the applicant consistently introduces multiple of a structure (e.g. “main body splicing units”; “buoyant units”; “first buoyancy modules”; “second buoyancy modules”; “fixed bolts”), then later refer to the same structure but in singularity (e.g. “the main body splicing unit”; “the buoyant unit”; etc.). Given the prior introduction of several structures, when the applicant recites “the *structure*”, it is unclear to which structure the applicant refers. This causes an overall lack of clarity in the claims; for example, when the applicant says that “the main body splicing unit comprises a square frame….” – is the applicant saying that at least one of the main body splicing units must have a square frame? That each of them must have a square frame? That a specific one must have a square frame?
There is a lack of clarity in regard to the number and positioning of the first and second buoyancy modules, and the general connected configuration of the main body splicing unit(s) and buoyancy modules required by claim 1. Claim 1 requires buoyant units disposed on outer sidewalls of several mutually connected main body splicing units. Claim 1 further remarks that “the main body splicing unit comprises a square frame,” and says that “the buoyancy unit comprises first buoyancy modules disposed on sides of the square frame and second buoyancy modules disposed at four corner positions of the square frame.” It is unclear whether the applicant is requiring four second buoyancy units per main body splicing unit, and at least two first buoyancy units per main body splicing unit, or if the applicant is attempting to claim that the buoyancy modules are disposed at corner positions/sides of any of the square frames of the main body splicing units (not necessarily all disposed around a singular square frame), or something else. If the first option is the case, upon clarification, the examiner notes that the drawings do not show this claimed subject matter, and will need to be amended such that they do in future.
Claim 1 recites “lug structures” that are disposed at four corner positions of the square frame of the main body splicing unit, and later recites that the first buoyancy module is provided with “the lug structures” and the second buoyancy module is also provided with “the lug structures”. It is unclear, given the buoyancy modules are separable from the square frame, how each buoyancy module may have the lug structures that are disposed at four corner positions of the square frame. If the applicant is saying that the buoyancy modules have their own sets of lug structures, and that the lug structures are the same type of lug structures as those disposed at the four corner positions of the square frame, this language needs to be changed. Further, later in the claims the applicant recites “the lug structures”, and the claim is also unclear at this point, given it is unclear whether the applicant refers to the lug structures of the buoyancy module(s) or main body splicing unit(s). Perhaps the applicant could name the various lug structures first lug structures, second lug structures, third lug structures, etc. for improved clarity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent square frame" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites an H-shaped retainer that is “movably clamped between” the first and second clamping grooves, but also recites that the H-shaped retainer is “fixedly connected to” the first and second clamping grooves. The nature of connection between the retainer and clamping grooves is unclear, as these statements appear contradictory. Did the applicant mean to say that the retainer is removably clamped between the clamping grooves?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for indicating allowability:
The closest prior art of record is Chen (CN 113955857 A) which teaches a modular floating plant cultivation assembly formed of square frame main body buoyant splicing units with lug structures at its corners and H-shaped retainers at its sides. However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of the applicant' s claimed invention. Specifically, at the least, Chen fails to disclose sawtooth portions on the outer sidewall of the square frame, in combination with the remaining claim limitations, and adding such portions would appear to interfere with the operability of the existing H-shaped retainers. Further Chen fails to disclose that each of the lug structures is respectively slidably engaged with the square frame by using sliding guide rods, and adding sliding guide rods would not result in obvious improvements to the device.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowability or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form but not discussed in the reasons for allowability above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly Kim (KR 20060027302 A), Cui (CN 202430058 U), Huang (US 2003/0070357), and Walker (WO 2019104377 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights