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 1-14 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 05/16/2024 and 10/07/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/07/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests changing “configurated” in line 7 to --configured--.
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 1-14 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 phrase "the buoyancy" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the buoyancy” to --a buoyancy--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "the amount" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the amount” to --an amount --.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "at least one buoyant element of a buoyant body" in line 12. This is a double inclusion of “buoyant elements” in line 10. Also, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “a buoyant body” in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “at least one buoyant element” to --at least one buoyant element of the number of buoyant elements of the buoyant body--.
Similarly, "at least one buoyant element” in line 14 of claim 1 is also a double inclusion of “buoyant elements” in line 10.
Claim 1 recites the phrase " ballastable/deballastable " in line 13. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the buoyant body is both “ballastable” and “deballastable” or whether the buoyant body is “ballastable” or “deballastable”. The Examiner suggests changing “ballastable/deballastable” to --ballastable and deballastable--.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "claim 1 or 2" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the claim depends from claim 1 or claim 2. The Examiner suggests changing “claim 1 or 2” to --claim 2--. Further clarification is needed.
Similarly, "one or more of the preceding claims” in lines 1-2 of claim 4 is vague and indefinite, since it is unclear which claim that claim 4 depends from.
Claim 5 recites the phrase "pumping and cleaning system" in line 2. This is a double inclusion of “a pumping and cleaning system” in line 16. The Examiner suggests changing “pumping and cleaning system” to --the pumping and cleaning system--.
Claim 8 recites the phrase "a buoyant element" in lines 4-5. This is a double inclusion of “buoyant elements” in line 10 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “a buoyant element” to --the buoyant element--.
Claim 9 recites the phrase "claim 7 or 8" in line 2. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the claim depends from claim 7 or claim 8. The Examiner suggests changing “claim 7 or 8” to --claim 8--. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "the vacuum tank" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the vacuum tank” to --the at least one vacuum tank--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "and/or" in line 4. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the claim is limited to having “a milling device” and “a grinding device” or whether the claim is limited to having “a milling device” or “a grinding device”. The Examiner suggests changing “and/or” to --or--. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 13 recites the phrase "the like" in line 3. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear what the term “the like” is referencing. The term is vague and does not limit the claim in an understandable manner. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "the water level" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the water level” to --water level--.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "the surrounding sea" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the surrounding sea” to --a surrounding sea--.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "at least one pump, at least one filter and a hose" in lines 7-8. This is a double inclusion of “at least one pump, at least one filter and a hose” in lines 5-6. The Examiner suggests changing “at least one pump, at least one filter and a hose” to --the at least one pump, the at least one filter and the hose--.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Gustavsen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200015460).
In regard to claim 1, Gustavsen et al. discloses a modular offshore fish farm comprising one or more closed net cages and a service unit (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where there is a modular fish farm with one or more closed net cages 1’ and a service unit 14), wherein each closed net cage is supported by a buoyant body which is configured for floating in a body of water (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where each closed net cage 1’ is supported by a buoyant body 2’ which is configured for floating in a body of water), wherein each closed net cage is configurated for moving vertically in a body of water relative to the buoyant body by changing the buoyancy of the closed net cage by changing the amount of water inside the closed net cage (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where each closed net cage 1’ is configurated for moving vertically in a body of water relative to the buoyant body 2’ by changing the buoyancy of the closed net cage 1’ by changing the amount of water (“container 1′ is filled with water and is in a fully lowered position”) inside the closed net cage 1’), each buoyant body further comprising a number of buoyant elements and connecting means for connecting to an adjacent buoyant body (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where each buoyant body 2’ includes a number of buoyant elements 16 and connecting means (see Fig. 20) for connecting to an adjacent buoyant body 2’), at least one buoyant element of a buoyant body being arranged to be ballastable/deballastable (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraph [0073], where at least one buoyant element of a buoyant body is arranged to be ballastable and deballastable (“buoyancy elements which are selectively ballastable via valves and pump systems… buoyancy, raising and lowering of the container (cage) may be performed by the active ballast system and buoyancy is provided by structures comprising ballastable, buoyant members”)), and at least one buoyant element comprises one or more pipes for supply of sea water and drainage of sea water from the closed net cage, and a pumping and cleaning system connected to the one or more pipes (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where at least one buoyant element comprises one or more pipes 70/6 for supply of sea water and drainage of sea water from the closed net cage 1’ and a pumping and cleaning system (“hose 6 is connected to a hole in the funnel-shaped bottom (for evacuating fish and waste material)”) connected to the one or more pipes 70/6).
In regard to claim 2, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein each closed net cage comprises an annular shaped upper portion with vertical walls and a conical bottom portion (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where each closed net cage 1’ comprises an annular shaped upper portion 41 with vertical walls 4 and a conical bottom portion 5).
In regard to claim 4, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according one or more of the preceding claims, wherein the pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more pumps (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where the pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more pumps (“intake pump system”)).
In regard to claim 6, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein the modular offshore fish farm comprises at least one chute, duct or channel for transporting fish (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where there is at least a chute, duct or channel (such as that connected to hose 6) for “evacuating fish” via the hole in the bottom 5).
In regard to claim 7, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein the modular offshore fish farm further comprises a guiding and locking system for the closed net cage and the buoyant body (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where there is a guiding and locking system 10/12/13 for the closed net cage 1’ and the buoyant body 2’), wherein the amount of water and water level inside the closed net cage can be changed after locking the closed net cage and the buoyant body (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where the amount of water and water level (“filled with water”) inside the closed net cage 1’ can be changed after locking the closed net cage 1’ and the buoyant body 2’ (as transition shown in Figs. 11-12)).
In regard to claim 8, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 7, wherein the locking system comprises a number of spaced apart beams or rails arranged around an outer circumference of the closed net cage and a locking unit arranged in a vertically extending groove in a buoyant element (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where the locking system comprises a number of spaced apart beams or rails 10 arranged around an outer circumference of the closed net cage 1’ and a locking unit (at least prevents rotation of 1’ relative to 2’) arranged in a vertically extending groove 13’ in at least a buoyant element of the buoyant body 2’).
In regard to claim 10, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein an additional pipe is connected between the closed net cage and the pumping and cleaning system for drainage of sea water from the closed net cage (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraphs [0047-0073], where there is an additional pipe (70/6 includes more than one pipe) connected between the closed net cage 1’ and the pumping and cleaning system for at least draining sea water from the closed net cage 1’).
In regard to claim 13, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein the service unit comprises a building, different equipment, or the like (Figs. 11-20 and Paragraph [0051], where the service unit comprises equipment such as gangways 14).
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 3, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200015460) in view of Yang et al. (CN 104705238).
In regard to claim 3, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 2, wherein a pipe through one end is connected to the conical bottom portion of the closed net cage (Figs. 11-20, pipe 6 and bottom portion 5). Gustavsen et al. is silent on a pipe on an opposite end is connected to a settling tank. Yang et al. discloses a pipe through one end is connected to the conical bottom portion of the closed net cage and through an opposite end is connected to a settling tank (Figs. 1-3 and Translated Specification Paragraphs [0019] and [0031], where there is a pipe 5 through one end is connected to the conical bottom portion 51 of the closed net cage 1 and through an opposite end is connected to a settling tank 2). Gustavsen et al. and Yang et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture. 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 Gustavsen et al. such that a pipe on an opposite end is connected to a settling tank in view of Yang et al. The motivation would have been to process and separate waste from water collected from the cage.
In regard to claim 5, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1. Gustavsen et al. is silent on pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more filtering units. Yang et al. discloses pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more filtering units (Figs. 1-3 and Translated Specification Paragraphs [0037-0043], where the pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more filtering units 3). Gustavsen et al. and Yang et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture. 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 Gustavsen et al. such that pumping and cleaning system comprises one or more filtering units in view of Yang et al. The motivation would have been to filter the waste water and remove bacteria present in the water.
In regard to claim 14, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1, wherein the water level in the closed net cage is controlled by: supplying sea water to the closed net cage from the surrounding sea around the modular offshore fish farm through pipes, at least one pump, and a hose, draining sea water from the closed net cage through pipes, at least one pump, and a hose (Figs. 11-20, pipes/hose 70/6 and pumps for 70/6 are at least used to fill and drain the cage 1’). Gustavsen et al. is silent on supplying sea water to the closed net cage from the surrounding sea around the modular offshore fish farm through at least one filter, draining sea water from the closed net cage through at least one filter. Yang et al. discloses at least one filter (Figs. 1-3 and Translated Specification Paragraphs [0037-0043], where the device includes at least one filter 3). Gustavsen et al. and Yang et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture. 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 Gustavsen et al. such that supplying sea water to the closed net cage from the surrounding sea around the modular offshore fish farm through at least one filter, draining sea water from the closed net cage through at least one filter in view of Yang et al., since the filter of Yang et al. could be used with the water supplying and draining system of Gustavsen et al. The motivation would have been to filter water and remove bacteria present in the water.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200015460).
In regard to claim 9, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 8. Gustavsen et al. is silent on each beam or rails is provided with a number of throughgoing holes along a length of the beam or rail, and that the locking unit comprises a number of extendable and retractable bolts. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Gustavsen et al. to have each beam or rails is provided with a number of throughgoing holes along a length of the beam or rail, and that the locking unit comprises a number of extendable and retractable bolts in view of, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the locking unit of Gustavsen et al. The motivation would have been to secure the device in a variety of positions, including a fully lowered position, a fully raised position, and all intermediate positions.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200015460) in view of Liam (GB 2543924) and Vassbotten (WO 2012102621).
In regard to claim 11, Gustavsen et al. discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 1. Gustavsen et al. is silent on a pipe for dead fish is connected to the conical bottom portion of the closed net cage and at least one vacuum tank. Liam discloses a pipe for dead fish is connected to the conical bottom portion of the closed net cage and at least one vacuum tank (Figs. 1-2 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 3-42, where there is a pipe 4 for dead fish is connected to the conical bottom portion 2 of the closed net cage and at least one vacuum tank (at least connected to “vacuum hose 4”)). Gustavsen et al. and Liam are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture. 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 Gustavsen et al. such that a pipe for dead fish is connected to the conical bottom portion of the closed net cage and at least one vacuum tank in view of Liam. The motivation would have been to remove dead fish and waste from the cage.
Gustavsen et al. as modified by Liam is silent on the vacuum tank further being connected to a milling or grinding device which in turn is connected to an ensiling unit. Vassbotten discloses the tank further being connected to a milling or grinding device which in turn is connected to an ensiling unit (Figs. 2-4 and Translated Specification Page 4 line 26 – Page 6 line 17, where the tank is further connected to a grinding device 5 which in turn is connected to an ensiling unit 3). Gustavsen et al. and Vassbotten are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include aquaculture. 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 Gustavsen et al. as modified by Liam such that the vacuum tank further being connected to a milling or grinding device which in turn is connected to an ensiling unit in view of Vassbotten, since the grinding device and ensiling unit of Vassbotten could be used with the device of Gustavsen et al. as modified by Liam. The motivation would have been to utilize the dead fish as raw material for silage, which can be further used for other applications.
In regard to claim 12, Gustavsen et al. as modified by Liam and Vassbotten discloses the modular offshore fish farm according to claim 11 wherein a valve is connected to the pipe for dead fish and a control unit (Liam, Figs. 1-2 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 3-42, where there is a valve (“valves must be arranged so that one may control whether the air flows into the collector to bring dead fish and waste to the surface”) connected to the pipe 4 for dead fish and a control unit (control for valve)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. 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 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647