1DETAILED 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 .
Continued Prosecution Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment “each of the at least some of the openings having a largest opening size of less than 1.5 inches” was not disclosed in the original disclosure and thus is rejected as new matter. Applicant cites paragraph 0021 as to where the amendment was derived from. However, the areas of para. 0021 that is most relevant recites “Further, by way of example and not limitation, netting 205 can have ½ inch or ¾ inch square openings 206. However, the size of openings 206 depends at least upon the particular classification of animal 107 (such as genus and species, for example a particular species of fish).” Para. 0021 does not recite that the openings are less than 1.5 inches and does not recite that each of the at least some of the openings having a largest opening size of less than 1.5 inches or any specific dimension in which the openings should be less than.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WaterWarden (WaterWarden - Above Ground Pool Safety Net Cover Amazon https://a.co/d/7s3shQT) in view of Cunningham et al. (US 20040111978), hereinafter Cunningham.
Regarding claim 1, WaterWarden teaches of (p. 3) an aquaculture tank system (a swimming pool can be used as an aquaculture tank system), comprising:
an aquaculture tank configured for holding a liquid and at least one first animal therein (the pool is filled with a liquid and at least one animal can be placed therein); and
a cover (netting) coupled with the aquaculture tank for covering the liquid (seen on p. 3), the cover including a sheet-like central portion with a plurality of openings (netting is sheet-like and has a central portion with a plurality of openings), at least some of the openings being sized and configured for providing a dual functionality of:
(a) allowing an animal feed to pass therethrough in order to feed the at least one first animal - which is a fish, a mollusk, or a crustacean (the tank is capable of having a fish, mollusk, or a crustacean inside the tank) - in the aquaculture tank (openings in the netting are large enough to allow animal feed, such as fish food, liquid fish food, and pellets); and
(b) preventing at least one second animal - which is a bird - located exterior to the aquaculture tank from removing the at least one first animal from the aquaculture tank (netting can prevent dogs, cats, birds, and other animals from removing the animal inside the aquaculture tank. For example, a bird bigger than the openings would be prevented from removing at least one first animal from the aquaculture tank because they would not be able to go past the net).
WaterWarden does not appear to teach of each of the at least some of the openings having a largest opening size of less than 1.5 inches.
Cunningham teaches of each of the at least some of the openings having a largest opening size of less than 1.5 inches (¶0028, square openings of the grate 10 are about 3.5 cm, which Examiner notes is less than 1.5 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Cunningham of each of the at least some of the openings having a largest opening size of less than 1.5 inches in order to have an opening size that is small enough to prevent the foot of a person or animal from falling through the openings but permit at least smaller fish to pass through if fish are present as motivated by Cunningham in para. 0028.
It should be noted that the opening size as claimed does not show criticality as disclosed in the specifications or the drawings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the openings less than a specific size in order to have the size satisfactory to the user’s purposes as motivated by Cunningham in para. 0028, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WaterWarden, as modified by Cunningham and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahowski (US 4457119).
Regarding claim 2, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the aquaculture tank includes an upper perimeter (p. 3, upper perimeter of the tank).
WaterWarden does not appear to teach of a first bead slot extending at least substantially around the upper perimeter, and the cover includes a perimeter bead body received within the first bead slot.
Dahowski teaches of (fig. 1) wherein the aquaculture tank (abstract, for use with a swimming pool, which can be an aquaculture tank) includes an upper perimeter (top 16) and a first bead slot (fig. 2, upper channel 30) extending at least substantially around the upper perimeter (extends across the top 16; abstract, coping is readily flexed around small radii in either direction for various pool profiles; col. 4 lines 59-68, coping permits it to be used with all desired swimming pool contours), and the cover (fig. 3, cover 33) includes a perimeter bead body (bead 32) received within the first bead slot (seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Dahowski of a first bead slot extending at least substantially around the upper perimeter, and the cover includes a perimeter bead body received within the first bead slot in order to use a secure coping mechanism that is flexible, easily installed, and low maintenance as motivated by Dahowski in the abstract and to use a coping mechanism that does not need additional fastening means such as screws, bolts, clamps, etc. to secure the coping in position on the pool as motivated by Dahowski in col. 2 lines 14-16.
Regarding claim 3, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 2, but does not appear to teach of wherein the perimeter bead body is removably received within the first bead slot.
Dahowski teaches of wherein (fig. 3) the perimeter bead body (32) is removably received within the first bead slot (30) (col. 3 lines 35-43, a variety of inserts may be retained by inserting and removing the bead from the channels. For the coping 10 to be used at pools, it would have to allow inserts to be removably received, such as allowing a pool cover to be inserted and removed to close and open the pool for use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Dahowski of wherein the perimeter bead body is removably received within the first bead slot in order to use a variety of inserts and interchange them when needed.
Regarding claim 5, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 3, and wherein the central portion includes a grid-like configuration (p. 1, central portion has a grid-like configuration).
Regarding claim 6, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 2, but does not appear to teach of wherein the aquaculture tank includes a second bead slot, and the aquaculture tank system further includes a tank liner that includes a bead body which is received within the second bead slot.
Dahowski teaches of (fig. 3) wherein the aquaculture tank (the swimming pool can be used as an aquaculture tank) includes a second bead slot (lower channel 26), and the aquaculture tank system further includes a tank liner (liner 29) that includes a bead body (bead 28) which is received within the second bead slot (26) (seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Dahowski of wherein the aquaculture tank includes a second bead slot, and the aquaculture tank system further includes a tank liner that includes a bead body which is received within the second bead slot in order to attach a pool liner that will protect the pool’s structure and prevent leaks.
Regarding claim 20, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 1, and but wherein the aquaculture tank includes an inside portion (p. 1, interior of the swimming tank can be used an aquaculture tank).
WaterWarden does not appear to teach of the cover being coupled with the inside portion of the aquaculture tank.
Dahowski teaches of (fig. 3) wherein the aquaculture tank (the swimming pool can be used as an aquaculture tank) includes an inside portion (fig. 1, inside of the swimming tank 11), the cover (liner 29) being coupled with the inside portion of the aquaculture tank (liner 29 is coupled with the coupling 16 located on the inside portion of the swimming pool 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Dahowski of wherein the aquaculture tank includes an inside portion, the cover being coupled with the inside portion of the aquaculture tank in order to have the fastener be in a convenient, safe, and obscure place as motivated by Dahowski in col. 1 lines 14-30.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WaterWarden, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Weir et al. (US 4429425), hereinafter Weir.
Regarding claim 4, WaterWarden as modified teaches of claim 3, but does not appear to teach of wherein the perimeter bead body is continuous.
Weir teaches of wherein the perimeter bead body is continuous (fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-68, hook-like bead 20 is designed to abut against the vertical extension or lip 22 formed along the lower end of, and contiguous to, the opening of the channel 14 to secure the cover bead 20 in place; col. 4 lines 1-13, the bead, which is preferably elongated in a horizontal direction, is sized so that, while readily insertable into the channel member when disposed horizontally,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WaterWarden to incorporate the teachings of Weir of wherein the perimeter bead body is continuous in order to secure the cover in the channel all throughout the perimeter of the cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 20 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.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647