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 § 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 1-16 and 21-24 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 12, the term “feeding time” renders the claims indefinite since it doesn’t establish and upper or lower limit to the time period. A feeding time could be once all fish in the tank are feed for a first time, it could be for a day, it could be for an hour, or it could be when one species of fish in the tank are fed. Clarification and correction is requested.
Regarding Claims 22, 23, 24, the terms adult and young aquatic organisms is indefinite since it does not explicitly identify a defined developmental stage. It could merely be based on the size of the organism. The specification does not establish when an organism begins being an adult versus a young organism. The specification does not define what is an adult and what is a young organism. Also, the term young could merely be a day younger or a year younger. The term young also does not provide an explicit developmental stage. Clarification and correction is requested.
Claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not does not establish when an organism begins being an adult versus a young organism. The specification does not define what is the difference between an adult and a young organism, what developmental stages indicate becoming and adult or a young organism.
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) 1-6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang
and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al.
Regarding Claim 1 and 12, Aljapur teaches a method and apparatus for adaptive feeding
of aquatic organisms in an aquaculture environment, comprising: receiving, by one or more
computing devices, sensor data from one or more aquaculture environment sensors (Aljapur
#103, #105, and Fig. 6), the sensor data reflecting environmental conditions in the aquaculture
environment, the aquaculture environment comprising an open water aquatic organism farming
enclosure containing aquatic organisms (Aljapur #104; paragraph [0024]); determining, by the
one or more computing devices, feed selection data based on the sensor data; and sending, by
the one or more computing devices, the feed selection data to a feed controller (Aljapur #106
and paragraph [0026], claim 1) to cause the feed controller to dispense one or more feed
materials into the aquaculture environment.
Aljapur teaches the feed selection data represents feed selection information comprising
a first amount of a feed material to dispense at a first time and a second amount of a feed
material to dispense at a second time; and the instructions which when executed cause the
adaptive feeding computer system to send the feed selection data to the feed controller to
cause the feed controller to dispense the first amount of the first feed material at the first time during a feeding time and to dispense the second amount of the second material at the second time during the feeding time (Aljapur paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0028] teaches feed bins, plurality of bins). However, Aljapur is silent on explicitly teaching the first and second amounts are first and second different feed materials.
However, Shang teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it
is known to have a first and a different second feed material in an autonomous fish rearing
system (Shang Fig. 2 three silos; paragraph [0058], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Shang before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for
feed optimization as taught by Shang. The modification is merely the application of a known
technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Aljapur as modified teaches an autonomous system with the desire for optimization of
fish growth and feed efficiency to prevent waste.
Aljapur teaches adjusting or controlling feed parameters including rate over a period of time and/or frequency of feeds based on sensor data (Aljapur paragraph [0031], [0009], [0012], and [0028]). Since Aljapur teaches controlling the frequency it is the examiner's position that this would cover both an increase or decrease in frequency. A decrease in frequency is a "delay". Alternatively, Aljapur as modified is silent on explicitly teaching a delay between the first time and the second time based on the sensor data, wherein the first time, the second time, and the delay occur during the feeding time.
However, Yao teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to program a delay between a first and second feeding, i.e. Yao teaches a delay between the first time and the second time based on the sensor data (Yao paragraph [0028], [0007], [0033]) decrease in rate is a delay and the sensor data determines if there is to be a delay), wherein the first time, the second time, and the delay occur during the feeding time (the amended language of during the feeding time does not demark a specific span or period of time, it is interpreted that anytime the feeding system of Aljapur as modified is on, collecting sensor data, and dispensing all fits into the feeding time, a feeding time could be once all fish are feed for a first time, it could be a day, it could be an hour….Aljapur as modified by Yao satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teaching of Aljapur with the teachings of Yao before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent waste as taught by Yao. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Aljapur as modified teaches sensor data comprises images
of aquatic organisms (Aljapur #103 and paragraph [0027]; Yao #102) in the enclosure captured
by a camera immersed underwater in the enclosure; and determining the feed selection data
based on the sensor data comprises: using a trained convolutional neural network (Aljapur
paragraph [0030], [0031] and [0034]) to detect aquatic organisms or dispensed feed in the
images captured by the camera, estimating biomass (Aljapur abstract; Fig. 5) of the aquatic
organisms, growth of the aquatic organisms, or conversion of the dispensed feed detected in
the images, and determining the feed selection data based on the biomass estimate, the growth
estimate, or the feed conversion estimate.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Aljapur as modified teaches the feed selection data
represents feed selection information comprising an amount of a feed material, and sending the
feed selection data to the feed controller causes the feed controller to dispense the amount of
the feed material (Aljapur Fig. 5 and paragraph [0027)).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Aljapur as modified teaches the feed selection data
represents feed selection information comprising a dispense time for a feed material, and
sending the feed selection data to the feed controller causes the feed controller to dispense an
amount of the feed material at the dispense time (Aljapur paragraph [0027] "feed frequency").
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Aljapur as modified teaches a plurality of feed bins and
dispensers and sending the feed selection data to the feed controller cause the feed controller
to mix a plurality of feed materials into an overall feed mixture that is dispensed into the
aquaculture environment (Shang paragraph [0054], [0058)]). It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Shang
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
to ensure proper nutrition and optimal formulation as taught by Shang. The modification is
merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Aljapur as modified teaches the sensor date reflects
underwater sensor information comprising temperature and dissolved oxygen (Shang paragraph
[0056]-[0057]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S.
Patent Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang and
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and
further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,532,153 to Kozachero.
Regarding Claim 8, Aljapur as modified is silent on receiving external feed data
from one or more external data sources, the external feed data comprising weather forecast
feed data or market price feed data; and determining the feed selection data based on the
external feed data. However, Kozacheno teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art that it is known to provide external feed data from one or more external data sources,
the external feed data comprising weather forecast feed data or market price feed data; and
determining the feed selection data based on the external feed data (Kozacheno Col. 4 line 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of
Aljapur with the teachings of Kozacheno before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
with a reasonable expectation of success for comprehensive aquatic date collection as taught
by Kozacheno. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known
device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one
known data for another to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang
and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and
further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0284600 to Nguyen et al.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Aljapur as modified is silent on sending the feed selection
data to an electronic feed ordering system to cause an aquaculture feed provider to ship a feed
material in accordance with the feed selection data. However, Nguyen teaches the general
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to send the feed selection data to an
electronic feed ordering system to cause an aquaculture feed provider to ship a feed material in
accordance with the feed selection data (Nguyen paragraph [0149] and Fig. 7). It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the
teachings of Nguyen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable
expectation of success to have a aquafeed identifier as taught by Nguyen. The modification is
merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, Aljapur as modified teaches the sensor data reflects above-
water sensor information comprising at least one of: one or more air temperature
measurements, one or more wind speed measurements, one or more wind direction
measurements, one or more barometric pressure measurements, or one or more relative
humidity measurements (Nguyen paragraph [0023], [0080]). It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Nguyen
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
to train the algorithm as taught by Nguyen. The modification is merely the application of a
known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Aljapur as modified is silent on selection data reflects feed
selection information comprising a percentage amount of protein, oil, moisture, fiber, ash, or
digestible energy for a feed pellet. However, Shang teaches the general knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide selection data reflects feed selection
information comprising a percentage amount of protein, oil, moisture, fiber, ash, or digestible
energy for a feed pellet (Shang paragraph [0054], [0058)]). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Shang
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
to ensure proper nutrition and optimal formulation as taught by Shang. The modification is
merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang and U.S.
Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Understanding Fish Nutrition, Feeds, and Feeding, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia
Tech, 2017 by, Steven Craig et al [retrieved from internet 26 August 2025
https://techworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/24c04f50-8d2f-4b2d-9f8a-
9ec3684537a1/content] 6 pages.
Regarding Claim 21, Aljapur as modified teaches monitoring the size of the fish to
optimize proper feed amounts and rates, but is silent on explicitly teaching the first amount of
the first feed material to dispense at the first time feeds an aquatic organism at a first life stage,
and wherein the second amount of the different, second feed material to dispense at the
different, second time feeds the aquatic organism at a second life stage. However, Craig
teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the
first amount of the first feed material (Craig page 4, first column, "high-protein diet" and/or "fine
crumbles") to dispense at the first time feeds an aquatic organism at a first life stage (Craig
page 4, first column, "small larval fish and fry"; page 1, first column "life stage"), and wherein the
second amount of the different, second feed material (Craig page 4, first column, "reduced
protein content" and/or "large pellets") to dispense at the different, second time feeds the
aquatic organism at a second life stage (Craig page 4, first column, "large fish"; page 1, first
column "life stage"). Craig teaches it is known that fry need high protein diets of fine crumbles
and are feed frequently, but as fish grow and reach a certain size, they require less protein and
less frequent feedings and eat larger pellets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Craig before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for
economical production of healthy, high-quality fish products as taught by Craig. The modification
is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
predictable results.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fishlore, Aquarium Forum, How Do You Feed A Community Tank? [retrieved from internet 2/23/26 https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/how-do-you-feed-a-community-tank.274834/] 2 pages, April 6, 2017.
Regarding Claim 22, Aljapur as modified is silent on wherein the first amount of the first feed material to dispense at the first time during the feeding time is a feed for adult aquatic organisms, and wherein the second amount of the different, second feed material to dispense at the second time during the feeding time is a feed for young aquatic organisms. However, as best understood by the indefinite nature of the claim, Fishlore teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known practice to first amount of the first feed material to dispense at the first time during the feeding time is a feed for adult aquatic organisms, and wherein the second amount of the different, second feed material to dispense at the second time during the feeding time is a feed for young aquatic organisms (Fishlore April 6, 2917 posts starting with flakes which is feed “for adult aquatic organisms” and next/second on the other side dropping cory pellets “for young aquatic organisms). Applicant doesn’t positively claim feed adults feed first and feeding young feed second, but merely a first feed that is for adults and a second feed that is for young. The first feeds of Fishlore are “for” adults and the second feeds are “for” young, i.e. floats then flakes; flakes then cory pellets. Fishlore teaches the general knowledge that it is known to feed one group of fish first and while they are distracted feed a second group of fish a different type of feed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Fishlore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent extra food from floating in a community tank as taught by Fishlore. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 24, as best as can be understood by the indefinite nature of the claim, Aljapur as modified teaches determining, by the one or more computing devices, feed selection data based on the sensor data further comprises: determining the first amount of the first feed material for the adult aquatic organisms based on a distribution of the adult aquatic organisms of all aquatic organisms; and determining the second amount of the different, second feed material for the young aquatic organisms based on a distribution of the young aquatic organisms of all aquatic organisms (Aljapur uses sensors and cameras to determine the number of aquatic organisms; the differentiation between adult and young could merely be based on size and Aljapur uses the cameras and sensors to monitor size, provide data feed back for the machine learning tool to calculate optimal amount of feed for a first and second feed for good growth and health without wasting or providing excess food paragraph [0030] machine learning can count the number of fish in images machine learning models determine the amount of feed delivered; paragraph [0009] determines fish size or number of fish; [0030] population size; abstract; Shang Fig. 2 three silos; paragraph [0058], [0054])
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Pub. No. 2023/0301280 to Aljapur et al in view of PCT WO 2020/046523 to Shang and U.S.
Patent Pub. No. 2021/0360906 to Yao et al and Fishlore, Aquarium Forum, How Do You Feed A Community Tank? [retrieved from internet 2/23/26 https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/how-do-you-feed-a-community-tank.274834/] 2 pages, April 6, 2017 as applied to claims 1 and 22 above and further in view of Understanding Fish Nutrition, Feeds, and Feeding, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia
Tech, 2017 by, Steven Craig et al [retrieved from internet 26 August 2025
https://techworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/24c04f50-8d2f-4b2d-9f8a-
9ec3684537a1/content] 6 pages.
Regarding Claim 23, Aljapur as modified is silent on the feed for adult aquatic organisms is a high lipid feed, and wherein the feed for the young aquatic organisms is a high protein feed. However, Craig teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to feed young aquatic organisms high protein feed (Craig page 4, first column, "high-protein diet" and/or "fine crumbles; page 4, first column, "small larval fish and fry"; page 1, first column "life stage"), and as best understood by the indefinite nature of the claim that adult aquatic organism are feed a high lipid feed (Craig page 4, first column, "reduced protein content" and/or "large pellets", "large fish"; page 1, first column "life stage"). Craig teaches it is known that fry need high protein diets of fine crumbles, but as fish grow and reach a certain size, they require less protein and the importance of lipid in adult feed (Craig page 1, first column lipids 10-25%, page 2 lipid section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Aljapur with the teachings of Craig before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for economical production of healthy, high-quality fish products as taught by Craig. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior art of record, Aljapur as modified, teaches it is known to provide a community tank of different age aquatic organisms living together and that it is known that different stages or ages require different feed formulas. Also, it is known to provide more than one type of feed into the tank. Automated systems are known to uses cameras and sensors along with computers and machine learning to monitor and calculate the needs of the aquatic organisms without human intervention. The new grounds of rejection teaches that it is known to feed one age of fish (i.e. adult) first to distract them and then feed a second age of fish (i.e. juvenile/fry) second and that juvenile fish require a higher protein diet as outlined in the above grounds of rejection. The modifications of Fishlore, Craig, Shang, and Yao are merely applications of known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In other words, Aljapur teaches automate machine learning that applies cameras and sensors to collect data which it uses to make determinations on optimal feed patterns and amounts. The supporting references establish the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to feeding two different types of feed into a tank and that life stages of the organisms have different dietary requirements such as protein and lipid levels. Also, Fishlore teaches it is known to feed a large fish before a small fish, or an adult fish before a young fish first to distract and then to feed the other fish second.
Applicant makes reference to the term feed sessions found in the prior art references and argues that these feed sessions represent something different than feed time. However, the term feed time does no define where the start and stop of the feed time occurs and nor does it exclude having more than one feed session in a feed time. The terms feed time, adult and young are indefinite in nature because they don’t establish explicit limits of time, age, or development.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
23 February 2026