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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuse (JP 2007185149) in view of Ortega (US 2007/0107663) and Munz (US 3017857).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 20-21, Sakuse discloses an artificial oyster growing structure comprising an ephemeral substrate material (1), the ephemeral substrate material (1) comprising a biodegradable cloth, fabric, or netting (plant fiber of cotton or hemp formed into a netting matrix, Fig. 1) and a binder comprising a mineral-based hardening agent (the mortar or concrete is a material obtained by low pH cement consisting mainly of MgO and P. sub.2 O .sub.5 and a
binder, from Google translation), wherein the biodegradable cloth, fabric, or netting is selected from the group consisting of burlap, jute, sisal, hemp (plant fiber of cotton or hemp formed into a netting matrix, Fig. 1), bamboo, and palm leaf, wherein the biodegradable cloth, fabric, or netting is impregnated with the binder (When an appropriate amount of vegetable fiber is added to cement- based mortar or concrete, a hardened body with water retention function and strength can be obtained in the hardened state. The body can be deformed while maintaining a linear shape. In other words, by blending plant fibers, a hardened body structure in which water can be impregnated into the cement matrix can be obtained, and a viscous kneaded material that can be extruded into a linear body in a fresh state can be obtained. (from Google translation), but does not expressly disclose fabric, cloth or netting being impregnated with the binder in a range of 1:10 to 3:4 weight ratio of cloth, fabric or netting to dried, hardened binder and the fabric, cloth or netting being woven.
However, Ortega discloses a similar material to attract and grow oysters (abstract) using organic biodegradable plant material ([0015]) impregnated with a binder ([0018] cement) in a range of 1:10 to 3:4 ([0031] 1 part binder to .001 - 1 part organic biodegradable plant material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Sakuse, by making the material in the range of 1:10 to 3:4 plant material to dried hardened binder, as taught by Ortega, for the purpose of providing a material that stimulates and facilitates the setting and growth of oysters.
Munz discloses a similar structure for sea farming (Abstract) having a material being impregnated with cement and being woven to form a finished fabric (Column 4 lines 7-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Sakuse, by making the material woven, as taught by Munz, for the purpose of providing a woven material that increases the surface area for the oysters to spawn and grow.
Regarding claim 6, Sakuse discloses wherein the cement/water mixture is in the range of about a 1:2 to about a 3:1 ratio by weight of cement to water (25% to 35% water to cement, from Google translation).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuse discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the structure degrades within about 2-24 months.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the structure degrade within about 2-24 months in order to promote natural growth of the oysters one the device is degraded fully, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Sakuse uses the same materials as disclosed by applicant and it is understood that depending on the location and conditions the device would degrade in the same timeframe as disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure is composed of one or more distinct architectural elements of the ephemeral structural material (The three-dimensional shape is not limited to this example, and any shape is possible as long as the linear bodies are partially bound and a predetermined gap 7 is formed between the linear bodies. is there. For example, it is possible to create three-dimensional blocks having various shapes such as a polygonal solid block whose side faces are trihedral, tetrahedron, pentahedron, hexahedron, and other polyhedrons, or a cylindrical shape whose side faces are cylinders or elliptic cylinders. From Google translation).
Regarding claim 10, Sakuse in view of Munz discloses wherein the structure includes posts, rods or other linear-type architectural elements comprising twisted and/or rolled lengths of binder impregnated biodegradable cloth, fabric, or netting (The three-dimensional shape is not limited to this example, and any shape is possible as long as the linear bodies are partially bound and a predetermined gap 7 is formed between the linear bodies is there. For example, it is possible to create three-dimensional blocks having various shapes such as a polygonal solid block whose side faces are trihedral, tetrahedron, pentahedron, hexahedron, and other polyhedrons, or a cylindrical shape whose side faces are cylinders or elliptic cylinders. From Google translation).
Regarding claim 11, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure includes panels, sheets or other two dimensional architectural elements (Fig. 1) comprising the ephemeral substrate material (1).
Regarding claim 12, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure includes corrugated panels or sheets (Fig. 1), mounds or other three dimensional architectural elements (The three-dimensional shape is not limited to this example, and any shape is possible as long as the linear bodies are partially bound and a predetermined gap 7 is formed between the linear bodies. is there. For example, it is possible to create three-dimensional blocks having various shapes such as a polygonal solid block whose side faces are trihedral, tetrahedron, pentahedron, hexahedron, and other polyhedrons, or a cylindrical shape whose side faces are cylinders or elliptic cylinders. From Google translation) comprising the ephemeral substrate material (1).
Regarding claim 14, Sakuse discloses wherein at least a portion of the structure is secured directly on a surface on which the artificial oyster growing structure is provided (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure is disposed in a coastal or estuarine water body (it can be applied to any tidal flat or shallow place, from Google translation).
Regarding claim 16, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure is disposed in an intertidal zone of the coastal or estuarine water body (it can be applied to any tidal flat or shallow place, from Google translation).
Regarding claim 17, Sakuse discloses wherein the structure is disposed in a location such that at least a portion of the structure (Fig. 1) or the entire structure is adapted be exposed to air on each normal tide cycle (depending on the location and placement of the device, exposure to air would be naturally occurring based on normal tidal cycles).
Regarding claim 18, Sakuse discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the structure is adapted to be exposed to air about 10% to about 50% of the time on each normal tide cycle.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to make a portion of the structure be exposed to air about 10% to about 50% of the time on each normal tide cycle in order to promote optimal growth of the oysters on the structure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that based on location and placement of the device and the naturally occurring tidal cycles the device would be exposed to air fora percentage of each day.
Regarding claim 19, Sakuse discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the structure adapted for in estuarine waters with an average salt content of about 35 practical salinity units or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to position the structure in estuarine waters with an average salt content of about 35 practical salinity units or less in order to maintain the desired growth of the oysters on the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that placing the device in a water source with the desired salt content would be an obvious condition based on finding the optimal results of cultivation as the device can be placed in any location.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuse (JP 2007185149), Ortega (US 2007/0107663) and Munz (US 3017857) in view of Targotay (US 6712023).
Regarding claim 13, Sakuse discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose at least a portion of the artificial oyster growing structure is supported at an elevation off of a surface on which the artificial oyster growing structure is provided.
However, Targotay discloses a similar device for marine life cultivation having a mesh like structure (Fig. 4) with a portion that is elevated off the surface (the device is mounted between two supports that are weighted to the ground and the upper portion has flotation devices mounted thereto in order to make the mesh like structure have a vertical orientation, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Sakuse, by making at least a portion of the artificial oyster growing structure supported at an elevation off of a surface on which the artificial oyster growing structure is provided, as taught by Targotay, for the purpose of making the attachment surface larger for the marine organisms to attach thereto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights