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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on August 16th, 2023
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al., US PG PUB# 2020/0184206 A1 (hereinafter James) in view of Steward, et al., US PG PUB# 2017/0039744 A1 (hereinafter Steward).
As for independent claim 1:
James discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of images from at least one imaging device in an aquaculture environment; each image in the plurality of images representing livestock in the aquaculture environment (0027, 0031, James discloses fish monitoring system using various sensors including stereo cameras for capturing images of fish within a tank, where image representing livestock in the aquaculture environment);
determining, from at least the plurality of images, a statistical distribution of the livestock in the aquaculture environment (0040-0044, James discloses analyzing the captured images and estimate size and weight);
James does not disclose determining, from the statistical distribution of the livestock, a location of a thermocline in the aquaculture environment; providing, to an aquaculture management device in the aquaculture environment, a signal indicative of the location of the thermocline. Steward discloses determining, from the statistical distribution of the livestock, a location of a thermocline in the aquaculture environment; providing, to an aquaculture management device in the aquaculture environment, a signal indicative of the location of the thermocline in 0017-0020, 0028, 0029, 0032-0035. Steward discloses depth of a thermocline from sonar and temperature data, identifying boundaries in the water column. Steward further discloses providing thermocline depth ranges as signals for display and user interface. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of James to incorporate the teaching of Steward, thus allow the aquaculture management device to display depth range and location enabling an environment aware operation (Steward, 0017 and 0035).
As for dependent claim 2:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the location of the thermocline, that the thermocline is a diurnal thermocline; and
based on determining that the thermocline is a diurnal thermocline, modifying operation of the aquaculture management device (Steward, 0018, Steward discloses seasonal variability in the thermocline e depth).
As for dependent claim 3:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the aquaculture management device is a feeder and modifying operation of the feeder comprises: adjusting, according to the signal indicative of the location of the thermocline, at least one of (i) an amount of feed to disperse, or (ii) a location in the aquaculture environment to disperse the feed (James, 0043, location and aquaculture environment and 3D mapping).
As for dependent claim 4:
An Official Notice is taken for computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the aquaculture management device is a parasite remediation system, wherein operations of the parasite remediation system are adjusted based on to the signal indicative of the location of the thermocline. A parasite remediation system in an aquaculture environment is well known in the art to a skilled artisan
As for dependent claim 5:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the aquaculture management device is a camera device and modifying operation of the camera device comprises:
adjusting, based on to the signal indicative of the location of the thermocline, at least one of (i) a position, or (ii) a capture rate, of the camera device (James, 0028-0030, see adjustments and parameters).
As for dependent claim 6:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, from at least one sensor in the aquaculture environment, one or more sensor readings comprising at least one measurement of the aquaculture environment (Steward, 0017-0019).
As for dependent claim 7:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the location of a thermocline is determined, at least in part, using the one or more sensor readings (Steward, 0018-0020).
As for dependent claim 8:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining, from at least one sensor reading among the one or more sensor readings, at least one environment descriptor for the aquaculture environment; and estimating the location of a thermocline according to the at least one environmental descriptor; wherein the at least one environmental descriptor indicates a predicted measure of the aquaculture environment (Steward, 0017-0019).
As for dependent claim 9:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location of a thermocline is determined by a machine learning model (James, 0016, 0040-0041, 0063).
As for dependent claim 10:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location of a thermocline is determined by a model configured to perform one or more statistical techniques (James, 0045-0049).
As for dependent claim 11:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the statistical distribution comprises one or more measurements of estimated number of livestock in the aquaculture pen, each measurement representing a number of livestock in the aquaculture environment at a corresponding depth of the aquaculture environment (James, 0040-0045, fish counter per depth layers from stereo camera systems).
As for dependent claim 12:
James – Steward suggests the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the statistical distribution comprises one or more measurements of estimated biomass in the aquaculture pen, each measurement representing biomass of the aquaculture environment at a corresponding depth of the aquaculture environment (James, 0046-0049).
As for independents 13 and 20:Claims 13, 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 14-19:Claims 14-19 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-10 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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 Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172