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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden. However, the restriction requirement is a lack of unity in which the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art. Thus, no search burden requirement is needed.
Claims 13-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or/and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference Character 1200, page 22, line 23 “sensor system”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is(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 3 recites “the lighting system”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. Further it is unclear if this is referring to the light generating system of claim 1 or not.
Claims 4 is rejected based on its dependency on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3,5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 20170086430 A1) in view of Falmarique (“Foraging and prey-search behavior…polarized light”-NPL cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1:
Willis discloses:
An aquaculture system for hosting an aquatic animal, (abstract and figs)
the aquaculture system comprising (i) a basin configured to host water and the aquatic animal, (14 and 34, fig 1, para0060)
and (ii) a light generating system configured to provide system light to the basin, (18A-18D, fig 1, para0060)
wherein in an operational mode of the light generating system the light generating system is configured to provide system light sequentially having M different states provided consecutively for time periods individually selected from the range of 0.005 - 10 seconds. (para0046-0049)
Willis doesn’t disclose:
characterized in that the system light has controllable polarization, having M different polarization states, wherein M > 2,
Flamarique discloses:
characterized in that the system light has controllable polarization, having M different polarization states, wherein M > 2 (“polarized and unpolarized illumination” “We found that prey location distances increased while the vertical component of prey location angle decreased under polarized compared with unpolarized (diffuse) illumination. The average frequency distribution of the horizontal component of prey location angle was more bimodal under polarized than unpolarized illumination. These results indicate that polarization sensitivity enhances prey location by juvenile rainbow trout.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light system of Wills to comprise polarization states as disclosed by Flamarique to provide the fish with improved means of locating feeding/prey (flamarique).
Regarding claim 2:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein in the operational mode the light generating system is configured to provide the system light during N sequential stages, wherein the light generating system is configured to provide during each of the N different stages the system light with one of the M different polarization states, wherein the N sequential stages have time periods individually selected from the range of 0.01 - 2 seconds. (para0031-0032, 0036-0049)
Regarding claim 3:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein in the operational mode the light generating system is configured to switch between the M different polarization states of the system light according to a frequency f, wherein f is selected from the range of 0.2 - 90 Hz. (para0036-0048)
Willis doesn’t disclose but Flamarique further discloses:
wherein the lighting system comprises a rotating polarizer, wherein the rotating polarizer is configured to control the polarization of the system light, (Illumination system “For experiments with diffuse white light illumination, the heat filters were followed by a UV-grade HNP’B linear polarizer (Polaroid) and a wax paper diffuser. The position of the polarizer and wax paper diffuser were interchanged for experiments under 100% linearly polarized white light illumination. We also performed experiments with short-wavelength light that varied in percent polarization from 52% to 97%. In these experiments, the heat filters were followed by a diffuser, a 400±10nm NB filter (Melles Griot), the polarizer and a rotatable Mica quarter-wave plate (Melles Griot).” “experiments were carried out under two white light illuminations of low intensity (one diffuse, the other 100% linearly polarized) and under low-intensity short-wavelength illumination of varying percent polarization.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis doesn’t disclose but Flamarique further discloses:
wherein the M polarization states comprise a first polarization state P1 and a second polarization state P2, wherein the first polarization state P1 and the second polarization state P2 differ in (ii) type of polarization. 2 (“polarized and unpolarized illumination” “We found that prey location distances increased while the vertical component of prey location angle decreased under polarized compared with unpolarized (diffuse) illumination. The average frequency distribution of the horizontal component of prey location angle was more bimodal under polarized than unpolarized illumination. These results indicate that polarization sensitivity enhances prey location by juvenile rainbow trout.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein the aquaculture system further comprises a feed providing system, wherein the feed providing system is configured to provide feed to the basin. (para0005+0054+0060)
Regarding claim 7:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Flamrique further discloses:
wherein the aquaculture system is configured to acquire a feed optical property of the feed, and wherein in the operational mode the light generating system is configured to control the system light based on the feed optical property. (“ First, the experimenter visually identified an attack on prey that was visible simultaneously in both camera views. Once an attack had been identified, the videotapes were rewound to determine the exact moment, within 0.01s resolution, at which the prey was first located (this was clearly identifiable by the posture that the rainbow trout exhibits prior to launching an attack) (see fig.2B in Browman et al., 1994). At this moment, the distance between predator and prey was measured to obtain prey location distance and angles.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein the feed providing system is configured to provide a modification to the feed, wherein the modification is selected from the group comprising a coating, a bulk composition. (para0015)
Regarding claim 9:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein the aquaculture system comprises a control system, wherein the control system is configured to control the light generating system, (para0013-0014)
and wherein the aquaculture system has a feeding mode, wherein the feeding mode comprises: a feed providing stage wherein the feed providing system is configured to provide the feed to the basin; (para0029)
and a feeding stage wherein the light generating system is configured to operate according to the operational mode. (para0029-0033, 0036-0049)
Regarding claim 10:
Willis as modified discloses claim 1 and Willis further discloses:
wherein the feeding stage is temporally arranged at a time delay after the feed providing stage, (para0029)
Willis as modified doesn’t disclose:
wherein the time delay is selected from the range of > 30 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the time delay of Willis as modified to be of the range of >30 seconds as claimed to ensure enough time for the feed to flow down through the basin before illumination to simulate live feed. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11:
Willis as modified discloses claim 10 and Willis further discloses:
wherein the basin is divided into a plurality of feeding zones along a height of the basin, wherein the light generating system comprises a plurality of light generating devices arranged to provide system light to the plurality of feeding zones, and wherein the time delay is selected such that the feed has reached at least two of the plurality of feeding zones. (para0066-0067, fig 7)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Falmarique, as applied to claim 1, and in view of Friesth (US 20150196002 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Willis as modified discloses claim 3 and further discloses:
wherein the aquaculture system is configured for hosting a fish, (para0061)
wherein the aquatic animal has a critical flicker frequency CFF, wherein f is <75 (critical flicker frequency is an innate feature of fish, para0036-0048)
Willis as modified doesn’t disclose:
wherein one applies of; the aquatic animal comprises a bass,
Friesth discloses:
wherein the aquatic animal has a critical flicker frequency CFF, the aquatic animal comprises a bass, (para0063+0092, critical flicker frequency is an innate feature of bass)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Willis as modified such that it comprises bass as disclosed by Friesth to raise one of the most important aquaculture species worldwide (para0063).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights