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 Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “Installation” in line 1 should be replaced with --An installation--.
Claim 2: “A fresh water recirculation installation” in line 1 should be replaced with --The fresh water recirculation installation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the culture tank" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main line" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrochemical oxidant generation module" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the oxidant generation module" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrochemical reactor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrogenerated oxidants" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lahav et al. (US 2019/0082661) [hereinafter Lahav].
With respect to claim 1, Lahav discloses a process, as shown in Fig. 1, including: a solids separation step (pretreatment module) for pretreating the water from a fish tank (aquaculture tank), as shown in Fig. 1, an electrolysis tank (oxidation module) for the elimination of contaminants, as shown in Fig. 1, and a recirculation of the treated fresh water to the culture tank, as shown in Fig. 1, after passing through an intermediate tank (post-treatment module), as shown in Fig. 1, characterized in that it also includes an electrolyzer (electrochemical module) for generating oxidants arranged in an auxiliary line, as shown in Fig. 1, outside the main line for recirculating the treated fresh water, which is fed by a water recirculation line from the outlet of the post-treatment module, as shown in Fig. 1, the electrochemical oxidant generation module being decoupled from the oxidation module and in fluid communication with it through an electrogenerated oxidant feed line, as shown in Fig. 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahav (US 2019/0082661) in view of van Kalken et al. (US 2016/0265123) [hereinafter van Kalken].
With respect to claim 2, Lahav lacks the oxidant generation module including a brine tank, as well as a static mixer associated to the electrochemical reactor, which provides the electrogenerated oxidants to the oxidation module.
Van Kalken discloses an electrolysis system for the preparation of a solution, as shown in Fig. 1, having a reservoir 6 (brine tank) receiving brine from a pump 5 (see paragraph 0018), and a static mixer associated to an electrolysis cell 8 (electrochemical reactor) (see paragraph 0021). Van Kalken teaches the mixers can be employed at any point where two fluids are combined (see paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the oxidant generation module disclosed by Lahav with a brine tank and a mixer, as taught by van Kalken, in order to mix the water before the next step (see paragraph 0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773