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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, & 7-23 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauman, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0145368 A1, herein Man in view of Sigurgisladottir et al. International Publication No. WO 2019/175906 A1, herein Sigur and Huntley et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,541,056 A; herein Hunt.
Re claim 1, Man discloses a process for the production of seafood in a closed-loop multitrophic aquaculture system comprising the steps of:
(A) culturing phytoplankton in a medium (30; the photosynthetic subsystem), wherein said medium is irradiated with light (para 56 & 58, using light the photosynthetic subsystem produces energy);
(B) transferring such cultured phytoplankton (abstract and para 28 & 80, the phytoplankton are consumed by the zooplankton) to a medium for culturing zooplankton (40; the food production subsystem);
(C) transferring such cultured zooplankton (para 94, the product of the food processing subsystem is harvested and fed to the production culture tank) to a medium for culturing seafood (20; the production subsystem); and
(D) transferring a part of the medium of step (C) as nutrient to the medium of step (A), thereby creating a closed loop (para 37, the carbon dioxide from the stripper4 is out put to the photosynthetic subsystem),
wherein steps (A) to (D) are carried out in a closed system, in which free gas exchange with the environment is prevented (para 106, 108 & 117, the cluster continuously recirculates water and is released to the next system and the system being designed to function indoors, thus with no gas exchange with the external environment, all gas is monitored and controlled within the space).
Man fails to disclose culturing phytoplankton in a medium, with a volume of at least 1 m3 and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1 and wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment. However, Sigur discloses culturing phytoplankton (page 2; 10-14, the photobioreactor is for mass cultivation of microalgae) in a medium (page 5; 5-6 & page 7; 11-13, the photobioreactor carries a liquid to culture to microbes), with a volume of at least 1 m3 (page 28; 32-33, 7500L is well about a cubic meter) and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1 (page 2-3; 26-19, the tubular design has a high surface to volume ratio well above 25).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose culturing phytoplankton in a medium, with a volume of at least 1 m3 and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1 and wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment however, Sigur discloses such a phytoplankton culture tank. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the phytoplankton culture tank by utilizing a simple substitution of the known shape taught by the prior art for the culture tank system from Sigur in order to obtain the predictable result of a more efficient production of phytoplankton per unit area. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
The combination of Man and Sigur fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment. However, Hunt discloses a process for the production of aquatic organisms in a closed aquaculture system wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment (col 3; 6-35, wherein the system is closed to the atmosphere).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment however, Hunt discloses such a closed aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the closed farming structure taught by Heat to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for more control over the growth environment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 3, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, Man further discloses wherein the irradiation in step (A) is controlled by culture density of the phytoplankton (para 58, depth, flow rate and agitation are used such that the phytoplankton receive enough light even if density is high).
Re claim 4, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, Man further discloses wherein the seafood is shellfish (para 27, brine shrimp).
Re claim 5, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, Man further discloses an apparatus comprising
- a phytoplankton unit (30; the photosynthetic subsystem) for culturing phytoplankton (para 80, the photosynthetic subsystem grows phytoplankton),
- a zooplankton unit (40; the food production subsystem) for culturing zooplankton (para 80, the food production system grows zooplankton),
- a seafood unit (20; the production subsystem) for culturing seafood (para 29, the production culture tank produces fin fish, mollusks, or crustations), and
- a controller (para 36 & 43, the information technology subsystem) that, controls the transfer of contents from the phytoplankton unit to the zooplankton unit (para 78, the water flows from the photosynthetic subsystem to the food production system via the controllers from the information technology subsystem), from the zooplankton unit to the seafood unit (para 36 & 94, the contents of the food processing system are transported to the production subsystem by flowing water through a screen, which is a part of the water quality parameters controlled by the information technology subsystem), and from the seafood unit to the phytoplankton unit (para 10, the trigger sensor enables the transfer of water from the production tank to the photosynthetic culture tank),
wherein said units are interconnected containers that form a closed system, in which free gas exchange with the environment is prevented (para 106, 108 & 117, the cluster continuously recirculates water and is released to the next system and the system being designed to function indoors, thus with no gas exchange with the external environment, all gas is monitored and controlled within the space).
Man fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment and wherein the phytoplankton unit has a volume of at least 1 m3 and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1. However, Sigur discloses a phytoplankton unit (page 2; 10-14, the photobioreactor is for mass cultivation of microalgae) having a volume of at least 1 m3 (page 28; 32-33, 7500L is well about a cubic meter) and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1 (page 2-3; 26-19, the tubular design has a high surface to volume ratio well above 25).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment and wherein the phytoplankton unit has a volume of at least 1 m3 and a surface-area-to-volume-ratio of at least 25 m-1 however, Sigur discloses such a phytoplankton culture tank. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the phytoplankton culture tank by utilizing a simple substitution of the known shape taught by the prior art for the culture tank system from Sigur in order to obtain the predictable result of a more efficient production of phytoplankton per unit area. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
The combination of Man and Sigur fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment. However, Heat discloses wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment (col 3; 6-35, wherein the system is closed to the atmosphere).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said system is sealed to prevent gas exchange with the environment however, Hunt discloses such a closed aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the closed farming structure taught by Heat to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for more control over the growth environment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 7, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses wherein the phytoplankton unit comprises an array of multiple connected pipes or tubes (para 117, each cluster comprise pipe fittings and attachments) and Sigur discloses the phytoplankton unit comprises an array of multiple connected pipes or tubes (page 2-3; 26-19, the tubular design).
Re claim 8, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5. the combination of Man, Sigur, and Goh discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly the combined volume of the phytoplankton unit, the zooplankton unit and the seafood unit is between 80 m3 and 90 m3, or multiples thereof. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined volume of the phytoplankton unit, the zooplankton unit and the seafood unit be between 80 m3 and 90 m3, or multiples thereof, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 9, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses an artificial light source (para 72, supplemental light), for irradiating the phytoplankton unit (para 56 & 58, using light the photosynthetic subsystem produces energy).
Re claim 12, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses pumps to provide flow within the phytoplankton unit, the zooplankton unit, and the seafood unit (para 73, the circulation pump).
Re claim 14, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses wherein the seafood unit comprises a packed media aeration column (para 30 & 32, the cylindrical biological filter with a bed of suspended media).
Re claim 16, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 9, Sigur further discloses wherein the artificial light source is a LED (page 10; 17-26, the LED panels).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the artificial light source is a LED however, Sigur discloses such a light source. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination by utilizing a simple substitution of the known light source taught by the prior art for the LED panels from Sigur in order to obtain the predictable result of improved efficiency and durability. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 17, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 7, Sigur further discloses wherein the pipes or tubes are arranged in parallel to each other (page 20; 24-26, the gas inlets are linear and parallel with each other and along the through of the floor panels).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the pipes or tubes are arranged in parallel to each other however, Sigur discloses such structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the parallel pipes taught by Sigur to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by conserving space. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 18, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses wherein the controller automatically controls the transfer of contents (para 10 and claims 9-12, the water transfer device always a trigger to remotely enable transfer based on a set of conditions).
Re claim 19, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, Men further discloses wherein the seafood is shrimp (para 27, brine shrimp).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Sigur and Heat as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pack, U.S. Patent No. 6,148,769 A.
Re claim 10, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the phytoplankton unit is situated closer to the light source than the zooplankton unit thus shading the latter, with the seafood unit being arranged below the zooplankton unit and thus farthest away from the light source. However, Pack discloses wherein the phytoplankton unit is situated closer to the light source than the zooplankton unit (col 1; 11-22, col 2; 1-6, & col 3-4; 54-1, the top-level is a microalgae reactor with lights is above the middle tier which contains zooplankton, which has no lights), thus shading the latter (again see, col 2; 1-6), with the seafood unit being arranged below the zooplankton unit and thus farthest away from the light source (fig. 3, 60, col 3-4; 54-1, the fry fish are the furthest from the lighting arrangement).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the phytoplankton unit is situated closer to the light source than the zooplankton unit thus shading the latter, with the seafood unit being arranged below the zooplankton unit and thus farthest away from the light source however, Pack discloses such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the stacked aquaculture system with a lighting arrangement at the top taught by Pack to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by minimizing costs of product recovery and water circulation (Pack, col 2; 29-34). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Sigur and Heat as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Clarke, International Publication Number WO 2009/149519 A1.
Re claim 11, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to disclose a photovoltaic panel, which provides renewable electric energy to the apparatus and is arranged in such a way that it provides adjustable shade to the phytoplankton unit. However, Clarke discloses a photovoltaic panel (page 8; 5-8, the photovoltaic band, strip or ribbons), which provides renewable electric energy to the apparatus (page 8; 5-8, the PV material uses solar radiation to generate electricity for use in the method of cultivation) and is arranged in such a way that it provides adjustable shade to the phytoplankton unit (page 16-17; 26-3, the semi flexible film extends to provide shade to the algal media).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a photovoltaic panel, which provides renewable electric energy to the apparatus and is arranged in such a way that it provides adjustable shade to the phytoplankton unit however, Clarke discloses such a photovoltaic panel. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of the photovoltaic panel taught by Clarke to the transparent facility roof of the prior art to yield the predictable result of solar power and shade for the algae. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Sigur and Heat as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zohar et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,443,097 B1, herein Zohar.
Re claim 13, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, Man further discloses heating means to control the temperature inside the phytoplankton unit, the zooplankton unit, and the seafood unit (para 106, the device that enables temperature control).
The combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat fails to disclose using heat exchangers to control the temperature inside the phytoplankton unit and/or the zooplankton unit and/or the seafood unit, wherein suitable tubing provides for temperature control in each unit by using excess heat from other unit(s). However, Zohar discloses comprising heat exchangers to control the temperature inside an aquaculture system, wherein suitable tubing provides for temperature control in each unit by using excess heat from other units (col 24; 12-24, the recirculation loop uses a heat exchanger with tubes such that an ideal temperature may be reached).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a heat exchanger to control temperature however, Zohar discloses such a temperature control arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man by utilizing a simple substitution of the known generic temperature control taught by the prior art for the structure of the heat exchanger from Zohar in order to obtain the predictable result of an ideal temperature of the liquid within the aquaculture system. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Sigur and Heat as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shoham et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250113 A1, herein Shoham.
Re claim 15, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to disclose at least one camera for monitoring the seafood unit. However, Shoham discloses at least one camera for monitoring a seafood unit (para 140 & 165, the image sensors are camera for capturing images of the aquatic organisms).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose at least one camera for monitoring the seafood unit however, Shoham discloses such a camera. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the image sensors/camera taught by Shoham to the units of the prior art to yield the predictable result of providing an image of the culture within the tank. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Claim 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man, Sigur, and Heat as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Goh, International Publication No. WO 2019/236006 A1.
Re claim 20, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system essentially correspond to those of a 40-foot ISO container. However, Goh discloses a modular aquaculture system wherein the system has dimensions that essentially correspond to those of an ISO container (page 22; 5-12, the farming module is stored within an ISO container for transporting or storage).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system essentially correspond to those of a 40-foot ISO container however, Goh discloses such a modular aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the ISO farming structure(s) taught by Goh to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for simpler transport of large farming equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 21, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height. However, Goh discloses where in the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height (page 7; 4-8).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height however, Goh discloses such a modular aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the ISO farming structure(s) taught by Goh to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for simpler transport of large farming equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Man, Sigur, Heat and Goh discloses the claimed invention except for 12.2 meters in length however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the dimensions of a proper ISO-container since such a standard value is known, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have a container with a length of 12.2 meters, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claim 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man, Sigur, and Heat as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Goh, International Publication No. WO 2019/236006 A1.
Re claim 22, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system essentially correspond to those of a 40-foot ISO container. However, Goh discloses a modular aquaculture system wherein the system has dimensions that essentially correspond to those of an ISO container (page 22; 5-12, the farming module is stored within an ISO container for transporting or storage).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system essentially correspond to those of a 40-foot ISO container however, Goh discloses such a modular aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the ISO farming structure(s) taught by Goh to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for simpler transport of large farming equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 23, the combination of Man, Sigur, and Heat discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height. However, Goh discloses where in the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height (page 7; 4-8).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the dimensions of the system are approximately 12 meters in length, 2.4 meters in width, and 2.6 meters in height however, Goh discloses such a modular aquaculture system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the ISO farming structure(s) taught by Goh to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for simpler transport of large farming equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Man, Sigur, Heat and Goh discloses the claimed invention except for 12.2 meters in length however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the dimensions of a proper ISO-container since such a standard value is known, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have a container with a length of 12.2 meters, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached on 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642