DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS filed on 05/14/2024, the foreign patent CN 1101152239 is improper because it has a typographical error. The IDS filed on 08/29/2025 consists of the proper foreign patent, which is CN 110115239.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1: the preliminary amendments filed in the claims are not consistently marked as required by MPEP 714(II)(C)(B), specifically requiring strike-throughs for language removed from the claims. See starting claim 1, line 2: - one of more
For claim 16: “a upwardly” should be changed to --an upwardly-- in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, line 7, the limitation “connecting means for connecting to an adjacent buoyant body” has been interpreted under 112f as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language “for connecting to an adjacent buoyant body” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification discloses that the connecting means comprises of welding, bolts or the like (page 9, lines 1-3).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cleaning means” in claim 5, line 3. The specification discloses that the cleaning means comprises of “scrapes, brushes or the like” (page 15, line 34).
“cleaning means” in claim 6, line 3. The specification discloses that the cleaning means comprises of “scrapes, brushes or the like” (page 15, line 34).
“cleaning means” in claim 7, line 2. The specification discloses that the cleaning means comprises of “scrapes, brushes or the like” (page 15, line 34).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-16 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.
For claim 1:
the limitation “each net cage” in line 4 and “each closed net cage” in line 10 and throughout the claims are unclear if more than one net cage is required as line 2 states “one or more net cages”.
the limitation “each buoyant body” in line 7 is unclear if more than one buoyant body is required as line 4 states “a buoyant body”.
For claim 3:
the limitation “two adjacent ribs” in line 3 is unclear because is it referring to a different “two adjacent ribs” than what was stated in claim 2, line 4? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as referencing “two adjacent ribs of said number of ribs” --. Applicant should amend the claim 3 as such to clarify the reference to the previously recited “number of ribs” in claim 2 line 4.
the phrase “or the like” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the specific metes and bounds that such term is referencing since the other recited features e.g. rope or wire are not necessarily structurally equivalent per se.
For claim 7, the phrase “or the like” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the specific metes and bounds that such term is referencing since the other recited features e.g. scrapers or brushes are not necessarily structurally equivalent per se.
For claim 9, the phrase “or the like” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the specific metes and bounds that such term is referencing since the other recited features e.g. pipes or hoses are not necessarily structurally equivalent per se.
For claim 10, the limitations “the inner center ring” and “the outer center ring” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 11, the phrase “or the like” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claim 12, the limitation “each closed net cage” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different “each closed net cage” than what was stated in claim 1, line 10? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same “each closed net cage” and it is recommended that “said” be inserted before “each closed net cage” in claim 3.
For claim 13, the limitation “buoyant elements” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different “buoyant body” than what was stated in claim 1, line 4. For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same “buoyant body” and it is recommended that “buoyant elements” be amended to “buoyant body”.
For claim 15:
the limitation “buoyant body” in lines 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different “buoyant body” than what was stated in claim 1, line 4? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same “buoyant body” and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “buoyant body” in claim 15.
the limitation “the desired position” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 16, the limitation “the uppermost position” in lines 3-4, “the upper edge” in line 4, and “the lowest position” in lines 5-6 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai (CN 108157254 A as cited in IDS and see machine translation) in view of Hammernes (WO 2015099540 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Zhai teaches a modular offshore fish farm (title and abstract) comprising one or more net cages (inner cage 16 having an inner net 23) and a service unit (6), wherein each net cage (16 and fig. 1 and see 112b above) is supported by a buoyant body (outer frame 1 comprising buoyancy riser 2) which is configured for floating in a body of water (see machine translation “outer frame 1 can dive and can float to float relative to the seabed, an outer frame 1 by surrounding multiple buoyancy pipe 2 and centre buoyancy to riser 5”), wherein each buoyant body comprises connecting means for connecting to an adjacent buoyant body (fig. 2 as the buoyant riser 2 is connected to an adjacent buoyant body via 3), the net cages are closed net cages (figs. 2-3 as the inner net 23 of the inner frame 16 forms a closed enclosure for fish); each closed net cage is configured for moving vertically in a body of water relative to the buoyant body by changing the buoyancy of the closed net cage (see machine translation “the inner frame 16 'has balance lifting the sinking-floating mechanism relative to outer frame 1,” and “in the net cage for cultivation, can move up and down relative to the outer frame”), each closed net cage comprises a center column (5) arranged vertically within the closed net cage (fig. 1).
However, Zhai is silent about each closed net cage comprises a suppressing device for suppressing fish inside the net cage; wherein the suppressing device is arranged moveably along the vertically arranged center column.
Hammernes teaches an offshore fish farm (title and abstract) wherein each closed net cage (1 and see 112b above) comprises a suppressing device (9, 10, 11 and 14) for suppressing fish inside the net cage (figs. 2-3 and Page 12, lines 20-22); wherein the suppressing device is arranged moveably along the vertically arranged center column (figs. 2-6 as 14 is elevated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a suppressing device for suppressing fish inside the net cage; wherein the suppressing device is arranged moveably along the vertically arranged center column as taught by Hammernes into each closed net cage as taught by Zhai in order to easily gather the fish contained in the net cage (Page 11, lines 27-Page 12, line 2 of Hammernes).
Regarding claim 8, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, and Hammernes further teaches wherein the suppressing device is arranged to be rotated about the center column provided in the closed net cage, through a rotating system (Figs. 1-6 and Page 11, line 29-Page 12, line 1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, and Zhai further teaches wherein the center column is provided with a plurality of adjustable openings and/or air nozzles (9 and fig. 4 and see machine translation “the peripheral multiple buoyancy pipe 2 in which a branch pipe is connected with an air inlet nozzle 9, around multiple buoyancy riser 2 and centre buoyancy standpipe 5 in the cavity are respectively equipped with intake and exhaust valve”) provided along a longitudinal length of the center column (fig. 4), the plurality of adjustable openings and/or air nozzles being connected to an oxygenation system through one or more pipes, hoses or the like (fig. 4 and see machine translation “the peripheral multiple buoyancy pipe 2 in which a branch pipe is connected with an air inlet nozzle 9, around multiple buoyancy riser 2 and centre buoyancy standpipe 5 in the cavity are respectively equipped with intake and exhaust valve, ” as the air inlet nozzle 9 will be connected to an oxygenation system).
Regarding claim 11, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, Zhai teaches wherein the service unit comprises a building, different equipment, or the like (fig. 1 discloses a working platform 6).
Regarding claim 12, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein each closed net cage is made from a metal or a composite material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each closed net cage of Zhai as modified by Hammernes to be made from a metal or a composite material in order to make the net stronger to endure the various amounts and types of fish without damaging the net as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, but is silent wherein the modular offshore fish farm comprises at least one chute, duct or channel for transporting fish, wherein the closed net cage is arranged with a closeable opening adapted, when the closeable opening is in the opened position, to guide fish from the closed net cage via the chute to a vessel or another closed net cage.
Hammernes teaches wherein the modular offshore fish farm comprises at least one chute, duct or channel for transporting fish (figs. 1-5 as the bottom of 14 in a lifted position forms, with the first and second barriers 35 and 36, a chute over a section of 16), wherein the closed net cage is arranged with a closeable opening (figs. 8-9 and Page 13, lines 9-13) adapted, when the closeable opening is in the opened position, to guide fish from the closed net cage via the chute to a vessel or another closed net cage (Hammernes is capable to guide fish from the closed net cage via the chute to a vessel or another closed net cage as shown in figs. 1-9 and Page 13, lines 9-13 as the opened position will guide the fish to the chute over a section of 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include wherein the modular offshore fish farm comprises at least one chute, duct or channel for transporting fish, wherein the closed net cage is arranged with a closeable opening adapted, when the closeable opening is in the opened position, to guide fish from the closed net cage via the chute to a vessel or another closed net cage as taught by Hammernes into the suppressing device of Zhai as modified by Hammernes in order to provide an opening to prevent injury to the fish (Page 13, lines 14-16 of Hammernes).
Regarding claim 15, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, Zhai further teaches wherein each closed net cage and buoyant body comprises a guiding (22) and locking system (17 as 17 will lift the closed net cage, and so comprises a locking system to prevent the closed net cage from falling as it rises), wherein the guiding and locking system allows each closed net cage to be moved relative the buoyant body and thereafter to be locked in the desired position (see machine translation “the inner frame 16 'has balance lifting the sinking-floating mechanism relative to outer frame 1,” and “in the net cage for cultivation, can move up and down relative to the outer frame so as to change the water layer stream position good for cultivating the biological health to grow quickly”).
Regarding claim 16, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, and Hammernes further teaches the wherein the suppressing device assumes a downwardly facing position when in the uppermost position near the upper edge of the closed net cage (fig. 2), and the suppressing device assumes a upwardly facing position when in the lowest position in the closed net cage (fig. 3).
Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai as modified by Hammernes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stein (US 20210400927 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the suppressing device comprises a number of ribs extending between an inner center ring and an outer ring, a net extending between two adjacent ribs, wherein the net is configured to be moveable radially inwards to provide an opening, wherein the inner center ring is configured to move along the vertically arranged center column.
Hammernes teaches wherein the suppressing device comprises a number of ribs (18 and 19) extending between the vertically arranged center column (6) and an outer ring (15 and 16), a net (34) extending between two adjacent ribs (figs. 1-3), wherein the net is configured to be moveable radially inwards to provide an opening (figs. 8-9 and Page 13, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a number of ribs extending between the vertically arranged center column and an outer ring, a net extending between two adjacent ribs, wherein the net is configured to be moveable radially inwards to provide an opening as taught by Hammernes into the suppressing device of Zhai as modified by Hammernes in order to support the suppressing device as it moves vertically and provide an opening to prevent injury to the fish (Page 13, lines 14-16 of Hammernes).
Stein teaches an inner center ring (311), the inner center ring is configured to move along the vertically arranged center column (200 and figs. 9A-9B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inner center ring that is configured to move along the vertically arranged center column as taught by Stein into the apparatus of Zhai as modified by Hammernes in order to provide a sliding surface to easily move the cage in the longitudinal direction of the vertically arranged center column ([0091] and Stein).
Regarding claim 3, Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 2, and Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein further teaches wherein each of the ribs is provided with at least one rope, wire or the like (figs. 5-9 and 32, 43 and 44 of Hammernes), where two adjacent ribs forms an adjustment system for the net (figs. 7-9 and Page 13, lines 9-13 of Hammernes), to move the net between the inner center ring (311 of Stein ) and the outer ring (figs. 7-9 and Page 13, lines 9-13 of Hammernes).
Regarding claim 5, Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 2, and Hammernes further teaches wherein an outer periphery of the outer ring is provided with cleaning means (Page 10, lines 22-24 and figs. 1-6 as 9 contains brushes, and is located on the outer periphery of the outer ring).
Regarding claim 6, Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 2, and Hammernes further teaches wherein an inner periphery of the inner center ring and/or an underside of the ribs is/are provided with cleaning means (Page 10, lines 22-24 and figs. 1-6 as 9 contains brushes, and is located underside of the ribs).
Regarding claim 7, Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 5, and Hammernes further teaches wherein the cleaning means comprises scrapers, brushes (Page 10, lines 22-24 and figs. 1-6 as 9 contains brushes) or the like.
Regarding claim 10, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein a winch system is connected to each of the inner center ring and the outer center ring.
Hammernes teaches wherein a winch system (40) is connected to each of the vertically arranged center column (6) ring and the outer center ring (15 and 16 and figs. 2-3 and 8-15 as the winch system is connected to each of the vertically arranged center column ring and the outer center ring via rib 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a winch system into the apparatus of Zhai as modified by Hammernes in order to tighten the guide wires (Page 13, lines 9-10 of Hammernes).
Stein teaches an inner center ring (311).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inner center ring as taught by Stein into the apparatus of Zhai as modified by Hammernes in order to provide a sliding surface to easily move the cage in the longitudinal direction of the vertically arranged center column ([0091] and Stein).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pequegnat (US 4164199 A).
Regarding claim 4, Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 2, but is silent wherein the net is water and air impermeable over at least a part of its longitudinal length.
Pequegnat teaches wherein the net (142, 144, 146, 148 and 150) is water and air impermeable over at least a part of its longitudinal length (fig. 9 and Col. 7, lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the net of Zhai as modified by Hammernes and Stein to be water and air impermeable over at least a part of its longitudinal length as taught by Pequegnat in order to further provide support and based on the user’s preference, allow the user to collect sediment-dwelling organisms (Col. 7, lines 29-31 of Pequegnat).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai as modified by Hammernes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAESS (CN 108712861 A).
Regarding claim 13, Zhai as modified by Hammernes teaches the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, Zhai teaches each of the buoyant elements (outer frame 1 comprising buoyancy riser 2).
However, Zhai as modified by Hammernes is silent about wherein the buoyant element is made from concrete or a metal.
NAESS teaches wherein the buoyant element (4) is made from concrete or a metal (see machine translation “buoyancy body 4 can be made of a rigid material (such as concrete or metal)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buoyant elements of Zhai as modified by Hammernes to be made from concrete or a metal as taught by NAESS in order to make the buoyant element rigid and durable (see machine translation “buoyancy body 4 can be made of a rigid material (such as concrete or metal)” of NAESS).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brosh (US 9980469 B2) teaches an offshore fish farm comprising a suppressing device.
Knott (US 5967086 A) teaches a suppressing device.
Fitzgerald (US 12041914 B2) teaches a submersible offshore fish farm with an inner central ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643