Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8-29-25 has been entered.
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 § 112
2. 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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 22-23, 25, 27-30 and 32-34is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,455,115 to Watts et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,243,608 to Knight et al.
Referring to claim 1, Watts et al. discloses a modular floatation collar comprising, a first segment — at 169 between items 170,173, including a frame — at 170,172,173, and decking — at 169, mounted on the frame thereof — see figures 22 and 24 (itis noted that figure 22 does not show the same floatation unit structure as figure 24 but has hinge structures — at 167, 168 commensurate with figure 24 which shows similar hinge structures for attaching decking — at 165 and 166 and therefore figure 22 is used to disclose the hinged attachment of items 165,166 to the first segment — at 169), a second segment — at 169 between items 173 and 175, or alternatively — at 165,167 or alternatively — at 166,168, including a frame — at 175 or— at 167 and structure to which 165 is mounted on, or— at 168 and structure to which 166 is mounted on, and decking — at 169 or 165 or 166, mounted on the frame thereof — see figures 22 and 24, a pivotal connection — at 167 and/or 168, between the first and second segments — see figures 22 and 24, and a floatation unit — at 176,176a, 176b,177a,177b, wherein the first segment and the second segment are both mounted on the floatation unit — see figure 24, and wherein the floatation unit both extends between the first segment and the second segment and is continuous — see figure 24 and column 10 lines 3-25 where the components of the floatation unit are all directly connected to each other to act as a single/unitary structure. Watts et al. does not disclose a pivotal connection between the first and second segments, with the first segment rotatably coupling to the second segment about a pivot axis, and the floatation unit extends along a longitudinal axis, and wherein the pivot axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Knight et al. does disclose a pivotal connection – at 24,68, between the first and second segments – at 20,26 – see multiple segments coupled in figure 1, with the first segment rotatably coupling to the second segment about a pivot axis – horizontal axis extending the width of 20,26 as seen in figure 1 and see column 4 line 52 to column 5 line 11 detailing items 24 as rubber and therefore pivoting/rotating between the segments is provided given the elastic properties of the rubber material used for item 24, and the floatation unit – at 22, extends along a longitudinal axis – see figure 1, and wherein the pivot axis – through 24,68, is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis – length axis of 22 – see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. and add the rotatable connection between segments with pivoting axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device as disclosed by Knight et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use in that a flexing of connected materials and damping of forces is provided at the rotatable/pivotable coupling of the first and second segments.
Referring to claim 3, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses each the frame includes a plurality of rigging hard points — at 23, 150,151, 171,174 and equivalent structure for items 165,166, being disposed along a centerline thereof of the frame — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 4, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the first segment is connected to the second segment linearly along a common axis — see at 169 in figure 24 and see figure 22 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 6, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the floatation unit has flexible properties — see functions as a torsion means in column 10 lines 3-25 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 7, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the floatation unit has flexible and rigid properties — see functions as s torsion means in column 10 lines 3-25 and see column 9 lines 7-12 of Watts et al. detailing floatation units can be made of a rigid material such as metallic materials.
Referring to claim 8, Watts et al. further discloses the floatation unit comprises one or more parallel lengths of pipe, having rigid and flexible properties – see figures 22 and 24 and column 10 lines 3-25 and column 8 lines 7-12 of Watts e al. detailing torsion means and rigid materials and – see column 4 line 52 to column 5 line 11 of Knight et al. detailing flexible/elastic material connections between floating units.
Referring to claim 9, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. does not disclose the floatation unit/pipe is made of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and/or medium density polyethylene (MDPE) pipe. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and use any suitable material for the flotation unit including the claimed materials, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use.
Referring to claim 10, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses one or more universal connectors via which the first and second segments connect — see at 167,168, the one or more universal connectors comprising one or more hinged the connections — at 167,168 — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 11, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses one or more universal connectors — at 167,168, via which the first and second segments are connectable — see figures 22 and 24, wherein at least one end of each of the first and second segments is provided with a respective one of the universal connectors — see at 167,168 in figures 22 and 24, and wherein at least one side of each of the first and second segments is provided with a respective one of the universal connectors — see at 167,168 in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 13, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the first segment is connectable to the second segment linearly along a common axis — see at 169 in figure 24 of Watts et al., or orthogonally at a right angle — see at 169 in figure 24 of Watts et al., and — at 148,149,165,166 in figure 22 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 22, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the floatation unit comprises a pipe — at 176a, continuously extending from a proximal end of the first segment — at 169, to a distal end of the second segment — at 165 or 166 — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al. (it is noted that applicant has not identified what the proximal end is proximal to and what the distal end is distal to in the claim).
Referring to claim 23, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the floatation unit is configured to decrease the amplitude of impact from wave action and dampen the movement across connections between the segments — see column 10 lines 3-25 of Watts et al. where the floatation unit acts as a torsion means.
Referring to claim 25, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses each the segment slidably couples to the floatation unit — see at 23, 170-175 and 167-168 in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 27, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the device of claim | as detailed earlier in this paragraph of this office action and further discloses the device is capable of being used for aquaculture in that the device of Watts et al. is deployed in a body of water.
Referring to claim 28, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the modular floatation collar comprises a first plurality of pivotally coupled together the segments — see at portion of 169, 165, and a first the floatation unit — at 176,176a, to which are mounted the first plurality of the segments — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al., the first the floatation unit continuously extending along and between the first plurality of the segments — see at 176,176a in figure 24 of Watts et al., the modular floatation collar comprises a second plurality of pivotally coupled together the segments — at other portion of 169 and 166, and a second the floatation unit to which are mounted the second plurality of the segments — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al., the second the floatation unit continuously extending along and between the second plurality of the segments — see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al., and the modular floatation collar comprises a third plurality of pivotally coupled together segments — not shown but can be connected at items 150,151 as detailed in column 9 lines 39-46 of Watts et al., and a third the floatation unit to which are mounted the third plurality of the segments — not shown but the third segments would have a floatation unit similar to the other segments as seen in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al., the third the floatation unit continuously extending along the third plurality of the segments — the third segments can be in similar configuration to the segments detailed in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 29, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the floatation unit – at 176,176a, 176b,177a,177b, extends between the first segment – between 170,173, and the second segment – between 173,175, below the pivotal connection – at 167,168 – see figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 30, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the pivotal connection – at 167,168, couples the first segment – between 170,173, to the second segment – between 173,175 – see proximate 155,173 in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al.
Referring to claim 32, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses the pivot axis of the first and second segments extends laterally relative to the longitudinal axis of the floatation unit – see axis through items 24 and 68 in relation to the length axis of 22 as seen in figure 1 of Knight et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. and add the rotatable connection between segments with pivoting axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device as disclosed by Knight et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use in that a flexing of connected materials and damping of forces is provided at the rotatable/pivotable coupling of the first and second segments.
Referring to claim 33, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. the first and second segments – at 26, have longitudinal axes which extend generally or substantially parallel the longitudinal axis of the floatation unit – at 22 – see figure 1 of Knight et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. and add the rotatable connection between segments with pivoting axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device as disclosed by Knight et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use in that a flexing of connected materials and damping of forces is provided at the rotatable/pivotable coupling of the first and second segments.
Referring to claim 34, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. the modular floatation collar comprises a fourth plurality of pivotally coupled together said segments and a fourth the floatation unit to which are mounted the fourth plurality of the segments, the fourth the floatation unit continuously extending along the fourth plurality of the segments, wherein the first and third plurality of pivotally coupled together the segments extend in parallel and couple together via the second and fourth plurality of pivotally coupled together the segments, and wherein the first and third the floatation units extends in parallel and couple together via the second and fourth the floatation units – see figure 1, column 2 lines 40-50 and column 6 lines 50-60 of Knight et al. detailing multiple flotation units and plurality of segments and therefore can be made into the number of flotation units and plurality of segments in the orientation claimed given the connection of flotation units via items 24,68 as seen in figure 1 of Knight et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. and add the rotatable connection between segments with pivoting axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device as disclosed by Knight et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use in that a flexing of connected materials and damping of forces is provided at the rotatable/pivotable coupling of the first and second segments.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IE No. 59339 to Nolan.
Regarding claim 12, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. further discloses one or more universal connectors via which the first and second segments are connectable – see at 167,168 in figures 22 and 24 of Watts et al., but does not disclose each the universal connector comprising at least one clevis coupled to one of the first and second segments, at least one tang coupled to the other of the first and second segments, and at least one corresponding pin which extends through the at least one clevis and the at least one tang. Nolan does disclose an aquaculture enclosure (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a universal connector – see pivot joint in fig. 4b, comprising a clevis – at 35, coupled to one of said first and second segments – see frame member 7; Fig. 2; Page 1a, last para through Page 2, para 1, a tang – see at 30 and/or 36 in figs. 4a thru 6b, coupled to the other of the first and second segments – see at frame member 7; Fig. 2, Page 1a, last para through Page 2, para 1, and a corresponding pin – at 27, which extends through the clevis and the tang see Figs 2-6b. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and add a universal connector comprising a clevis, a tang, and a corresponding pin, as taught by Nolan, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for relative angular movement between the frame member to take account of movement of the waterway, as recognized by Nolan (Page 6, para 3).
Claim(s) 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. in view of Knight et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,534,227 to Coffin et al.
Referring to claim 35, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. discloses an aquaculture pen system comprising, a modular floatation collar as claimed in claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier, but does not disclose one or more nets to which the modular flotation collar is coupled. Coffin et al. does disclose one or more nets – at 30, to which the modular flotation collar – at 26, is coupled – see figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and add the one or more nets of Coffin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of keeping the animals used in the aquaculture system contained as desired.
Referring to claim 36, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and Coffin et al. further discloses the floatation unit – at 26, secures an edge-barrier barrier – at 22, to the net – at 30 – see figure 3 of Coffin et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and add the one or more nets of Coffin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of keeping the animals used in the aquaculture system contained as desired.
Referring to claim 37, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. as modified by Coffin et al. further discloses the floatation collar – at 22, supports a netted enclosure – at 30, that is rectangular in top, front, rear and side profile – see figures 1 and 3 of Coffin et al.
Referring to claim 38, Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. discloses an aquaculture pen system comprising, a modular floatation collar as claimed in claim 3 – see rejection of claim 3 detailed earlier, but does not disclose a net coupled to the plurality of rigging hardpoints so as to facilitate weight directed deployment of the net, adjustment of the net from the surface, and access to the net for easier cleaning and maintenance thereof in the field. Coffin et al. does disclose a net – at 30, coupled to the plurality of rigging hardpoints – connection of 30 to 26 as seen in figure 3, so as to facilitate weight directed deployment of the net adjustment of the net from the surface – see figures 1 and 3 with the connection of items 22 and 26 providing for the device to be deployed during use, and access to the net for easier cleaning and maintenance thereof in the field – see figures 1 and 3 where the net is locate proximate at top of a surface of water to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Watts et al. as modified by Knight et al. and add the one or more nets of Coffin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of keeping the animals used in the aquaculture system contained as desired.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 8-29-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15 and 22-31 detailed in the last office action dated 7-14-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 8-29-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643