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 Objections
Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-14 recite “The estimation program…”. However amended claim 1, in which claims 2-14 are dependent upon, recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium…”. Claims 2-14 should be amended to recite the same non-transitory computer readable storage medium as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an obtaining unit and an estimating unit in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5, 9-12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasin et al (WO2015/176637A1) in view of Davidson et al. ("Abnormal swimming behavior and increased deformities in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss cultured in low exchange water recirculating aquaculture systems." Aquacultural engineering 45.3 (2011): pages 109-117, retrieved from the Internet on 1/20/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Kasin teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein an output control program executed by an estimation program (page 6 lines 11-12) that causes a computer to execute:
obtaining behavior information which indicates behavior exhibited by a specific fish species (page 5 lines 24-26, behavior data comparing engine would require obtaining behavior data for the comparison; page 18 lines and lines 14-24, the animals are fish, which are given an unique identification and linked to behavior data collecting system); and
estimating, based on the behavior information obtained at the obtaining (page 18 lines and lines 14-24, data from the behavior data collecting system) and based on state information indicating state of a target fish for processing (page 18 lines 5-12, the biometric data is interpreted to be an indicator of a fishes’ state), behavioral feature of the target fish for processing (page 19 lines 12-15).
Kasin fails to teach obtaining information indicating behavior exhibited by a specific fish species having a predetermined physical abnormality; and
estimating a behavioral feature of a fish for processing that is attributable to the predetermined physical abnormality seen in the target fish for processing.
However Davidson teaches obtaining information indicating behavior exhibited by a specific fish species having a predetermined physical abnormality (page 114 left side second paragraph, Additionally, Kitajima et al. (1994) associated lordotic deformation of the skeleton in hatchery-bred physoclistous fish with an abnormal swimming behavior in which fish swam at an oblique angle to the water surface to compensate for deflated swim bladders.); and
estimating a behavioral feature of a target fish that is attributable to a predetermined physical abnormality seen in the target fish (page 114 left side second paragraph, During Study 3, rainbow trout were noticed swimming at an oblique angle to the water surface in the near-zero exchange. Based on Kitajima et al.’s findings, this behavior could have been related to the increase in skeletal deformities observed within these systems, particularly for deformed trout with heads that appeared to curve upward, causing a V-shape of the spine).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kasin and Davidson as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Davidson into the system of Kasin. The motivation to combine Davidson and Kasin would be to determine a cause of fish deformities (abstract of Davidson, During the second study, when the WRAS were operated at near-zero water exchange, an increased percentage of rainbow trout deformities, as well as increased mortality and a variety of unusual swimming behaviors were observed within WRAS with the highest feed loading rates and least water exchange) which have negative consequences (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson, Deformed fish are often culled from the population or have reduced market value).
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein estimating, based on the behavior information (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson) and based on the state information indicated by a video in which behavior exhibited by the target fish for processing is captured (page 12 lines 3-6 and page 20 lines 11-12 of Kasin, cameras are capable of recording video; page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson, Side swimming behavior was assessed during Study 1 by positioning a video camera directly above the center of each tank. Video footage was collected for the first time approximately 4 months into the study), behavioral feature attributable to the predetermined physical abnormality (page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson, Side swimming behavior was assessed during Study 1 by positioning a video camera directly above the center of each tank; page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson, During Study 3, rainbow trout were noticed swimming at an oblique angle to the water surface in the near-zero exchange. Based on Kitajima et al.’s findings, this behavior could have been related to the increase in skeletal deformities observed within these systems).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program further causing the computer to execute:
generating, based on the behavior information corresponding to the specific fish species having the predetermined physical abnormality (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson), a model trained in relationship between the predetermined physical abnormality and behavior exhibited by the specific fish species having the predetermined physical abnormality (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, storing the unique identification and behavior data for future analysis is interpreted to be training a model. Furthermore, it would be obvious to store the behavior information taught by Davidson as part of the model), wherein estimating, based on the model and the state information, behavioral feature attributable to the predetermined physical abnormality (page 21 lines 1-6 of Kasin).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein when the state information is input (page 20 lines 1-10 of Kasin, comparing requires inputting information to be compared), generating, as the model, a model that outputs information related to the predetermined physical abnormality seen in the target fish for processing (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, storing the unique identification and behavior data for future analysis is interpreted to be generating a model. Furthermore, it would be obvious to store the deformities taught by Davidson as part of the model), and estimating, based on the information output from the model, behavioral feature attributable to the predetermined physical abnormality (page 21 lines 1-6 of Kasin).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining, as the behavior information, behavior information obtained from a video in which behavior pattern of the specific fish species is captured (page 12 lines 3-6 and page 20 lines 11-12 of Kasin; page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson), and generating, based on the behavior information obtained from the video, a model trained in relationship between the predetermined physical abnormality and the behavior (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, storing the unique identification and behavior data for future analysis is interpreted to be training a model. Furthermore, it would be obvious to store the behavior information taught by Davidson as part of the model).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining, as the video, the behavior information obtained from a video in which behavior exhibited by the specific fish species in water is captured (page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining, as the video, a video in which behavior exhibited by fish of known gender is captured from among the specific fish species (page 110 right side first paragraph of Davidson).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein using, as learning data, information that is indicated by the behavior information and that is related to swimming of the specific fish species (page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, the unique identification and behavior data), and
generating a model trained in relationship between the predetermined physical abnormality and the behavior (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, storing the unique identification and behavior data for future analysis is interpreted to be generating a model. Furthermore, it would be obvious to store the deformities taught by Davidson as part of the model).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein
generating a model that is trained in relationship between behavior information indicating behavior (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin) extracted based on similarity, from among behavior of the specific fish species (col. 19 lines 26-29 of Kasin), between behavior having relationship with the predetermined physical abnormality (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson) and behavior of fish of known gender (page 110 right side first paragraph of Davidson), and the predetermined physical abnormality (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasin et al (WO2015/176637A1) and Davidson et al. ("Abnormal swimming behavior and increased deformities in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss cultured in low exchange water recirculating aquaculture systems." Aquacultural engineering 45.3 (2011): pages 109-117, retrieved from the Internet on 1/20/2026) in view of Young et al (US20210209351).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining the behavior information obtained from a video in which the behavior pattern is captured (page 12 lines 3-6 and page 20 lines 11-12 of Kasin; page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson).
Kasin fails to teach capturing video in response to implementation of a three-dimensional model, in which body of the specific fish species is reproduced according to actual musculoskeletal status of the specific fish species and in which the predetermined physical abnormality is reflected.
However Young teaches capturing video (para. [0034], [0063]) in response to implementation of a three-dimensional model, in which body of the specific fish species is reproduced according to actual musculoskeletal status of the specific fish species (322A in fig. 3B; para. [0049]-[0050]) and in which the predetermined physical abnormality is reflected (para. [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0058]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kasin and Davidson with Young as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Young into the system of Kasin and Davidson. The motivation to combine Davidson, Young and Kasin would be to provide results with a greater degree of reliability (para. [0007] of Young).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining, as the behavior information, behavior information obtained from each video in which the behavior pattern is captured (page 110 right side last paragraph of Davidson; para. [0063] of Young) in response to implementation of each three-dimensional model in which the predetermined physical abnormality is individually reflected (322A in fig. 3B and para. [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0058] of Young), and generating, based on the behavior information, a plurality of models (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin, each stored unique ID and corresponding behavior is interpreted to be a model) corresponding to each of the predetermined physical abnormality (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Kasin teaches an estimation program wherein obtaining, as the behavior information, behavior information based on fluid simulation (para. [0033] of Young, the current is interpreted to be fluid simulation) performed with respect to the three-dimensional model in the video obtained in response to implementation of the three-dimensional model (para. [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0058] of Young), and
using, as learning data, information that is indicated by behavior information based on the fluid simulation and that is related to swimming of the specific fish species (para. [0033] of Young), and
generating a model (208-218 in fig. 2 of Kasin, page 12 lines 11-15 of Kasin) trained in relationship between the predetermined physical abnormality and the behavior (page 114 left side second paragraph of Davidson).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasin et al (WO2015/176637A1) and Davidson et al. ("Abnormal swimming behavior and increased deformities in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss cultured in low exchange water recirculating aquaculture systems." Aquacultural engineering 45.3 (2011): pages 109-117, retrieved from the Internet on 1/20/2026) in view of Singh (US20190259384).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Kasin fails to teach an estimation program wherein
generating, as the model, a model that, when the state information is input, further outputs information related to gender of the target fish for processing, and
estimating gender of the target fish for processing based on the information related to gender as output from the model.
However Singh teaches generating a model that, when state information is input, further outputs information related to gender of animals (para. [0012], The universal representation may be computed by using deep neural networks; para. [0013], The task specific representations may be computed for animals, and the tasks may be selected from the group consisting of dog and cat breed recognition, bark and call recognition of the animals, age and gender estimation of the animals. It would be obvious to apply the steps to fish), and
estimating gender of the animal for processing based on the information related to gender as output from the model (para. [0013], The task specific representations may be computed for animals, and the tasks may be selected from the group consisting of dog and cat breed recognition, bark and call recognition of the animals, age and gender estimation of the animals. It would be obvious to apply the steps to fish).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kasin and Davidson with Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Singh into the system of Kasin and Davidson. The motivation to combine Davidson, Singh and Kasin would be to require much less additional data to train (para. [0057] of Singh).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasin et al (WO2015/176637A1) and Davidson et al. ("Abnormal swimming behavior and increased deformities in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss cultured in low exchange water recirculating aquaculture systems." Aquacultural engineering 45.3 (2011): pages 109-117, retrieved from the Internet on 1/20/2026) in view of Herbst et al (US20160227746).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Kasin fails to teach an estimation program wherein estimating further gender of the target fish for processing based on estimated behavioral feature.
However Herbst teaches estimating the gender of a fish based on estimated behavioral feature (para. [0063], Typical zebrafish mating behavior includes for the male fish to chase or drive female fish into shallow water. It would be obvious to estimate the gender based on observed behavior).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kasin and Davidson with Herbst as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Herbst into the system of Kasin and Davidson. The motivation to combine Davidson, Herbst and Kasin would be to increase incidences of successful spawning (para. [0063] of Herbst).
Related Art
Rishi et al (US20200113158) – see fig. 3, para. [0168]-[0169], [0199]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663