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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-5 and 20-23 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey (U.S. Pat. 4221187) in view of Jie Yin et al. (CN 201188820) and Glomset et al. (U.S. Pub. 20100200069).
In regard to claim 1, Casey discloses an aquaculture system comprising: an inlet at a headend wall of a flow-through pool for providing a fluid to the pool (Figs. 1-2, where there is an inlet 22 at a headend wall 16 for providing a fluid to the pool); a pressure filter creating an antechamber at a headend of the pool, wherein the inlet and the headend wall are in the antechamber (Figs. 1-2 and Column 4 lines 18-37, where there is a pressure filter 38 creating an antechamber 42 (at least to have laminar flow) at a headend (near 16) of the pool and where the inlet 22 and the headend wall 16 are at least in the antechamber). Casey is silent on an inlet in a headend wall; a dish positioned inside the pool and centered on a center of the inlet for distributing a current from the inlet along the headend wall. Jie Yin et al. discloses an inlet in a headend wall (Figs. 3-4, where there is an inlet 5 in a headend wall (wall near inlet 5)); a dish positioned inside the pool and centered on a center of the inlet for distributing a current from the inlet along the headend wall (Figs. 3-4, where there is a dish 3 positioned inside the pool and centered on a center of the inlet 5 for distributing a current from the inlet at least along the headend wall (wall near inlet 5)). Casey and Jie Yin et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Casey such that there is an inlet in a headend wall; a dish positioned inside the pool and centered on a center of the inlet for distributing a current from the inlet along the headend wall in view of Jie Yin et al. The motivation would have been to relatively more evenly distribute the incoming fluid, by reducing velocity of the fluid and diverting it into relatively a larger volume of space upon entry into the pool. This would relatively reduce the velocity of the fluid and further enable laminar flow to be achieved near the headend of the pool. Additionally, having the inlet positioned in the headend wall would ensure that the incoming fluid would be consistently directed at the center of the dish, thereby ensuring the even distribution of the current from the inlet.
Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. is silent on a spoiler positioned between the dish and the pressure filter. Glomset et al. discloses a spoiler positioned between a fluid diverting structure and an area encompassing a change in fluid pressure (Fig. 3A-3B and Paragraphs [0045] and [0073], where there is a spoiler 10 positioned at least between the fluid diverting structure 8 and an area of change in pressure near structures 8 and 10). Casey and Glomset et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. such that a spoiler positioned between the dish and the pressure filter in view of Glomset et al., since the spoiler of Glomset et al. could be positioned between the dish and the pressure filter of Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. The motivation would have been to relatively further reduce the fluid velocity, by providing a second diverting structure, thereby reducing disturbance to the environment or fish in the pool.
In regard to claim 2, Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. and Glomset et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dish is paraboloid in shape (Jie Yin et al., Figs. 3-4, where the dish 3 is paraboloid in shape).
In regard to claim 20, Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. and Glomset et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the spoiler surrounds the inlet with circular symmetry (Glomset et al., Figs. 3A-3B, where the spoiler 10 surrounds the inlet at least with circular symmetry).
In regard to claim 22, Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. and Glomset et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the headend wall and the pressure filter are parallel to each other (Casey, Figs. 1-2, where the headend wall 16 and the pressure filter 38 are at least parallel to each other), and the spoiler is angled relative to the headend wall and the pressure filter (Glomset et al., Figs. 3A-3B, where the spoiler 10 is at least angled relative to the inlet (which is at least positioned at a headend wall) and the pressure filter (the area of change in pressure near structures 8 and 10)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 21, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the use of Jie Yin et al. in combination with Casey to teach “an inlet in a headend wall of a flow-through pool” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the office maintains that Jie Yin et al. teaches an inlet in a headend wall in Figs. 3-4, where there is an inlet 5 in a headend wall (wall near inlet 5). The motivation to modify Casey to have an inlet in a headend wall, in light of Jie Yin et al., would have been to ensure that the incoming fluid would be consistently directed at the center of the dish, thereby ensuring the even distribution of the current from the inlet. The dish of Jie Yin et al. relied upon in the rejection, functions as a diversion structure for flow from an inlet in a headend wall which is centered on the dish. The rejection is merely taking both the inlet structure and the dish structure found in Jie Yin et al., as a joint structure which provides a specific function, and modifying the headend wall of Casey to include such a structure. The applicant’s proposed hypothetical of placing the dish of Jie Yin et al. in front of the openings of pipes 26-36 of Casey is a misinterpretation of the rejection, which is not properly considering the modification which has been relied upon. The motivation is found in Jie Yin et al. itself, and would serve to improve the function of Casey by providing further, even distribution of the current across the face of the headend wall.
Similarly, the applicant’s arguments, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the use of Glomset et al. in combination with Casey and Jie Yin et al. to teach “a spoiler positioned between the dish and the pressure filter” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The office maintains that Glomset et al. teaches a spoiler positioned between a fluid diverting structure and an area encompassing a change in fluid pressure in Fig. 3A-3B and Paragraphs [0045] and [0073], where there is a spoiler 10 positioned at least between the fluid diverting structure 8 and an area of change in pressure near structures 8 and 10. The area encompassing a change in fluid pressure of Glomset et al. is considered to be the area of pressure change near structures 8 and 10 of Glomset et al. The fluid diverting structure and the area encompassing a change in fluid pressure of Glomset et al. serve similar functions as the dish and pressure filter of Casey as modified by Jie Yin et al. The rejection is maintained as proper, since the use of such a spoiler with the device of Casey does not destroy the function of Casey, but rather enhances it by relatively further reducing the fluid velocity as is shown in Glomset et al. The spoiler of Glomset et al. is the structure being relied upon in the rejection of claim 1. The pressure filter and the dish are not brought in from Glomset et al. Therefore, those structures do not need to be present in Glomset et al. Equivalencies for fluid diversion and pressure change are shown in the claim mapping to provide a reference for motivation to modify, with the spoiler of Glomset et al.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of aquaculture devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights