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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 06/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-28 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2024, 07/17/2024, 10/09/2024, 01/13/2025 and 06/13/2025 are being considered in part by the examiner. The Examiner did not find corresponding copies of the references that are struck through on the IDSs in the file wrapper, and therefore did not consider them (37 CFR 1.98(2)). Further, the examiner notes that patent AU-B-19345/92, NPL ref titled “sufficient conditions for stability of the Bernard problem in arbitrary geometries,” and NPL ref which is an International search report for CA2010/001012 have been found attached in the file wrapper, but do not appear to be listed on the IDS, and are therefore not considered.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, or considered on a submitted IDS, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 3 is not executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colorings, which makes the features difficult to discern. See PCT rule 11.13(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “the second growth medium comprises a greater salinity” should read –the second growth medium has a greater salinity—or something similar. ‘comprises’ implies that the salinity is a component of the medium, rather than a property.
Claim 5, line 3: “the filling the drained aquaculture pond” should read –the filling of the drained aquaculture pond--.
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 1-11 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 salinity of the first growth medium” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the salinity” will be read as –a salinity--. Claims 2-11 are rejected on the basis of dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites a step of “re-introducing an amount of additional first growth medium in the aquaculture pond”, however it does not appear as if there is a previous introduction of the amount of additional first growth medium, so ‘re-introducing’ does not appear to be an appropriate term. For examination purposes, “re-introducing” will be understood as –introducing--.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" 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).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the additional amount of the first growth medium” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the additional amount” will be read as –an additional amount--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicated allowability is the provision that the aquatic animals and algae are grown in the same tank, in different grow mediums, the second grow medium (for algae) being provided after harvesting of the aquatic animals, having at least a 7 wt-% salinity, and a salinity greater than that of the medium in which the aquatic animals were grown.
The closest prior art of record is Yuvaraj (NPL: “Crop Rotation as a Better Sanitary Practice for the Sustainable Management of Litopenaeus Vannamei Culture”, as cited on IDS dated 06/26/2024).
Yuvaraj details a study where milkfishes (Mugil Cephalus and Chanos Chanos) and shrimp (litopenaeus vannamei) were cultured in a rotational manner (one after the other) in a pond (abstract), each respective culture type involving media with distinct salinities (Pg 223: 2.6-4.2 wt-% and 1.0-1.9 wt-%), and including growth of distinct algae types (Pg 221, ¶3: plankton development in shrimp culture; Pg 221, ¶5: bottom algae allowed to grow during fish culture). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of the applicant' s claimed invention. Specifically, Yuvaraj fails to disclose that one of the culture mediums, that being the second growth medium, has a salinity of at least 7 wt-%. Nowhere in the prior art was there found motivation to modify the salinity of either the shrimp or milkfish culture to be at least 7 wt-%; in fact, the examiner found consistently in the prior art that such a high salinity would likely not be tolerated by the shrimp species (see Gao NPL: “Effect of salinity on the growth performance, osmolarity and metabolism-related gene expression in white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei”; Discussion), and that, although milkfish may be able to tolerate salinity above 7 wt-%, increasing the salinity would only result in decreased growth of the milkfish (Alava NPL: “Effect of salinity, dietary lipid source and level on growth of milkfish Chanos chanos fry”; Pg 234, ¶2; abstract). As such, the modification of the salinity in Yuvaraj to that as claimed would not result in obvious improvements to the culture method, and would perhaps even make the medium of Yuvaraj inoperable for its intended purpose.
In regard to the proposed rejection with Yuvaraj in the written opinion for similar copending PCT application PCT/FI2022/050878 (as cited on IDS dated 06/26/2024), wherein the international searching authority found claim 1 non-obvious:
The authority relied on the disclosure of Yuvaraj, which teaches that the culture of the shrimp in rotation with milkfish helps reduce the incidence of shrimp diseases, in particular those due to Vibrio strains; and the authority remarks that the use of halophilic algae, such as D. Salina in controlling shrimp diseases in aquaculture is already known, seemingly referring to Qu (CN 107018945, as cited on IDS dated 06/26/2024). The authority drew the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rotate the culture of shrimp with the culture of an algae, rather than milkfish, and to grow that algae in an appropriate salinity for the species being grown (> 7% for D. Salina). The examiner disagrees with this obviousness analysis. In particular, the examiner notes that the remarked upon benefit of crop rotation in Yuvaraj is specifically proven and discussed in relation to white shrimp and milk fish, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably draw a conclusion, without hindsight, that such beneficial results would persist when the milk fishes were replaced with an entirely different class of organism (algae) which has a remarkably different metabolic mechanism. Further, the contemplated disease control by algae in the prior art is found when the algae is used for processing shrimp effluents/wastewater, whilst the shrimp is growing, in a recirculating manner, the prior art does not suggest that rotating culture of algae with shrimp, where the algae is cultured before and after the shrimp, would also provide such disease control. Overall, it is the position of the examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not contemplate rotating algae, rather than milkfish, nor would they be confident that such a modification would have a reasonable expectation of success, and exhibit the same disease inhibiting result as the milkfish.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642