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, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent JP 4907736 (JP’36).
Regarding Claim 1, JP’36 teaches a substrate for growing coral fragments, comprising:
a flexible polymeric film (JP’36 Fig. 5 #2, English Translation Best-Mode section teaches “biodegradable plastic” Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) #2 is the polymeric film; Fig. 4 shows element #2 bent so it is flexible), wherein said film is made with one or more openings (J’36 Fig. 1 #2 “net” has openings) and is configured to inhibit the growth of at least a first type of algae, while allowing growth of at least a second type of algae (JP’36 English Translation green and brown algae is inhibited and red algae “Rhodophyta Coralida” growth is allowed).
Regarding Claim 2, JP’36 teaches the substrate (JP’26 Fig. 1(a) #2) is detachably connectable to a support (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #7, the substrate #2 is “capable of” being detached from support #7).
Regarding Claim 10, JP’36 teaches wherein the second type of algae is Coralline algae (JP’36 English Translation teaches red algae “Rhodophyta Coralida” is Coralline).
Regarding Claim 11, JP’36 teaches a base comprising a frame portion (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #7 base and perimeter edge of the base is the frame), and a support portion (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) legs between #7 and #2); and a substrate (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #2) comprising a flexible polymeric film (JP’36 English Translation Best-Mode section teaches “biodegradable plastic” Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) #2 is the polymeric film; Fig. 4 shows element #2 bent so it is flexible), detachably connectable to the base (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #7, the substrate #2 is “capable of” being detached from support #7), wherein the frame portion is configured to accommodate the substrate, and wherein the support portion comprises a plurality of legs, for supporting the frame and the accommodated substrate.
Regarding Claim 12, JP’36 teaches said film is configured to inhibit the growth of at least a first type of algae, while allowing growth of at least a second type of algae (JP’36 English Translation green and brown algae is inhibited and red algae “Rhodophyta Coralida” growth is allowed).
Regarding Claim 13, JP’36 teaches the film is made with one or more openings (J’36 Fig. 1 #2 “net” has openings).
Regarding Claim 23, JP’36 teaches at least one connector for connecting the device to at least one other coral growing device (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #7 acts as a connector for connecting a plurality of #2 and its respective support legs to other units of #2 and their respective support legs).
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) 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 9, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 4907736 (JP’36).
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, JP’36 teaches a film that is a net configuration with a grid pattern of openings (JP’36 Fig. 1(b) #2) and it appears that JP’36 satisfies the limitations of wherein the film comprises at least 5% open area; wherein the film comprises 5-50% open area; wherein the film comprises 10-40% open area, but is silent on explicitly teaching the claimed ranges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of JP’36 before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize efficient coral growth per surface area and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant teaches in the specification that the size and shape and location of the openings can change to be any desired size, shape, location.
Regarding Claim 9, JP’36 teaches the first type of algae is green and brown algae (JP’36 English Translation), but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the first type of algae is at least one of Bryopsis plumosa and Bacillariophyta. However, the examiner takes official notice that Bryopsis plumosa and Bacillariophyta are known green and brown algae. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known green and brown algae for another to obtain predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to address different aquatic regional diversities.
Regarding Claim 7, JP’36 appears to teach the thickness of the film (JP’36 #2) is between 0.01 to 10 mm but is silent on explicitly teaching the claimed range. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce material costs. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize performance and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to address
Regarding Claim 8, JP’36 is silent on the film has a surface roughness of between 0.0015 to 0.007 mm. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to meet different coral species needs. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize performance and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 4907736 (JP’36) in view of China Patent CN 106916724 to Hu et al.
Regarding Claim 6, JP’36 English Translation teaches the use of plastic, but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the film is made of a polymer selected from a list consisting of: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS); polystyrene (PS); polypropylene (PP); polyethylene (PE); polyethylene terephthalate (PET); polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G); polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA); and silicon. However, Hu teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to select acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS); polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA); or polystyrene (Hu English Translation and claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 with the teachings of Hu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the known physical properties and/or manufacturing parameters of availability/cost. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known plastic for another to obtain predictable results. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 4907736 (JP’36) in view of Japanese Patent JP H09271281 to Miyata.
Regarding Claim 24, JP’36 is silent on teaching a weight element connected to the base, wherein said weight element has weight sufficient to prevent buoyancy of the coral growing device when immersed in a seawater. However, Miyata teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a weight that wherein said weight element has weight sufficient to prevent buoyancy of a device when immersed in a seawater (Miyata English Translation teaches to weight an object to prevent displacement by seawater). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 with the teachings of Miyata before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent undesired displacement in seawater as taught by Miyata. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, JP’36 as modified teaches the weight element is connected to the base so as to allow passage of fluids from one side of the film to another side of the film, through the one or more openings in the film (J’36 Fig. 1 #2 “net” has openings).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 4907736 (JP’36) in view PCT WO 2021070081 to Schmidt-Roach et al.
Regarding Claim 26, JP’36 teaches a method of growing corals, comprising: growing coral on a flexible polymeric film configured to inhibit the growth of at least a first type of algae, while allowing growth of at least a second type of algae(JP’36 English Translation green and brown algae is inhibited and red algae “Rhodophyta Coralida” growth is allowed; English Translation Best-Mode section teaches “biodegradable plastic” Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) #2 is the polymeric film; Fig. 4 shows element #2 bent so it is flexible).
JP’36 teaches placement in water but is silent on teaching inhabiting at least one coral fragment; inserting the film into a growth container; and providing a controlled water flow to circulate the water in the growth container, to allow growth of the at least one coral fragment. However, Schmidt-Roach teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide coral fragment; inserting the film into a growth container; and providing a controlled water flow to circulate the water in the growth container, to allow growth of the at least one coral fragment (Schmidt-Roach page 8 line 14 and line 21; Fig. 11 #122 container and controlled water flow; abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of JP’36 with the teachings of Schmidt-Roach before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to maintain a constant temperature as taught by Schmidt-Roach. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to coral growing devices and methods: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0194217; US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0119006; U.S. Patent No. 7,144,196; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0060586; U.S. Patent No. 11,678,648; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0192352; China Patent CN 114731977; China Patent CN 110269005; PCT WO 2018/178873; German Patent DE 202005012158; Australia Patent AU 2014101432; Japan Patent JP 2014212702.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
21 September 2026
Prosecution Insights