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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles et al., International Publication No., WO 2005/092089 A2; herein Gil in view of Sanders, U.S. Patent No. 3,661,119 A; herein Sand.
Re claim 1, Gil discloses a facility for the aquaculture of a first animal species that consumes protein and produces waste containing urea and nitrogenous sludge (para 1), comprising:
a hatchery (1; the tilapia rearing facility, fig. 1-2) comprising a plurality of clean-water (fig. 1-2 and para 10, 12, & 37, the water being fresh water) larva tanks (2; the plurality of tanks for the maturing alevins);
at least one clean-water (fig. 1-2 and para 10, 12, & 37, the water being fresh water) pre-maturation tank (2; the plurality of tanks for the maturing alevins) and at least one maturation tank (3; the plurality of tanks for the adult fish, fig. 1-2);
at least one first rearing tank for the first animal species (6; the digester tank, fig. 1-2), the at least one first rearing tank comprising water (para 38, the water of the tilapia rearing facility) and biofloc (para 51, the formed of effluents and granules) including nitrifying bacteria (para 13 & 53, wherein the bacteria within the digester tank begin the reduction of the ammonia, nitrate and nitrite concentrations);
at least one other rearing tank (8; the third tank, fig. 1-2) for a second animal species (para 40, the zooplankton), the second animal species acting as a biofilter for nitrogenous products (para 79-81, the zooplankton acting the neutralize the waste of the fish being grown);
a processing loop (5; the lagoon assembly, fig. 1-2) fluidly coupled to the at least one first rearing tank (fig. 1-2, via the pipe; 9) and comprising:
a decanter (8; the third tank, fig. 1-2);
a nitrifying biofilter (para 40 & 81, the phytoplankton the continue the process to reduce the ammonia, nitrate and nitrite concentrations); and
a denitration device (8; the third tank, fig. 1-2 & para 79-81),
wherein sludge from the decanter serves as food for the second animal species (para 74 & 81, the phytoplankton from the second tank is consumed by the zooplankton); and
wherein animals of the second animal species are used as food for breeding animals of the first animal species (abstract).
Gil fails to disclose the hatchery comprising at least one clean-water laying tank and at least one clean-water hatching tank. However, Sand discloses a hatchery comprising at least one laying tank, at least one hatching tank, and at least one larva tank (col 1; 13-20, wherein the breeding assembly has a tank for each phase of a young aquatic organism).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the hatchery comprising at least one clean-water laying tank and at least one clean-water hatching tank however, Sand discloses such a production process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the sorting of the growing fish as taught by Sand to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilizing the plurality of rearing tanks to have favorable conditions for each stage while supplying clean water there to with the pumps. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil in view of Sand as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Herena et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0087699 A1; herein Rena.
Re claim 2, the combination of Gil and Sand discloses the invention of claim 1, Gil as modified by Sand further discloses wherein the decanter is configured to receive liquid waste from the at least one first rearing tank and the at least one other rearing tank (para 52-54 & 79-81, the waste is of both tanks are contained within the third tank).
The combination of Gil and Sand fails to disclose wherein the decanter is configured to separate: a supernatant; and the sludge. However, Rena discloses a decanter (para 46, the reactor) configured to receive liquid waste (para 43 & 46, the aqueous sludge and solids that are collected into the reactor) and separate: a supernatant (para 43 & 46, the aqueous medium containing the microorganisms); and the sludge (para 46, that is collected for decomposition).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the decanter is configured to separate: a supernatant; and the sludge however, Rena discloses such a decanter mechanism. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the reactor as taught by Rena to the third tank of the prior art to yield the predictable result of further recycling the zooplankton’s leftover waste. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 3, the combination of Gil and Sand discloses the invention of claim 1, Gil further discloses a sedimentation tank (8; the third tank, fig. 1-2) for receiving liquid effluents from the laying, hatching, and larva tanks (para 9 & 79-81, the waste of the young fish is transferred to the third tank for the zooplankton production), the sedimentation tank comprising a sedimentation zone (fig. 1-2, within the tank), wherein the sedimentation tank is configured to transfer the liquid phase for reinjection into at least one of the at least one first rearing tank (para 48-49, the pumps draw water from the third tank to the fish raising tanks).
The combination of Gil and Sand fails to disclose the sedimentation zone separating a solid phase from a liquid phase. However, Rena discloses a sedimentation tank (para 46, the reactor) comprising a sedimentation zone separating a solid phase from a liquid phase (para 43 & 46, the aqueous sludge and solids that are collected into the reactor and are separated such that the sludge and solids are decomposed).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the sedimentation zone separating a solid phase from a liquid phase however, Rena discloses such a separation area. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the reactor as taught by Rena to the third tank of the prior art to yield the predictable result of further recycling the zooplankton’s leftover waste. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil in view of Sand as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Brauman, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0145368 A1; herein Bra.
Re claim 4, the combination of Gil and Sand discloses the invention of claim 1, Gil further discloses a mechanical filter (10 & 12; the filters, fig. 1-2) and a biological filter (para 40 & 79-81, the phytoplankton and zooplankton the continue the process to reduce the ammonia, nitrate and nitrite concentrations).
The combination of Gil and Sand fails to disclose a UV filter. However, Bra discloses a UV filter (para 30 & 34, the UV devices acting to sterilize the water).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a UV filter however, Bra discloses such a filter. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the UV devices as taught by Bra to the aquaculture system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of sterilizing the water as needed. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642