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 Amendment
In the amendment filed 12/23/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-24 have been amended; claims 25 and 26 have been added; claims 1-26 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the screw piles must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 26 – “pounds per square inch (psig)” should be amended to “pounds per square inch gauge (psig)”.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites “wherein the DGI system is configured to maintain target dissolved oxygen (DO) levels” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered target levels of DO. The target values do not appear to be disclosed by Applicant’s specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites “wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure of up to 300 psig”, while claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig)” which is narrower in scope. Claim 6 broadens the lower boundary of the pressure range. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 6-8, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiuru (US 20230210095 A1), in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau.
Regarding Claim 1
Kiuru teaches a system for land-based aquaculture (Abstract), comprising: a dissolved gas infusion (DGI) system configured to infuse gas into water (airlift pump (13)); and at least one raceway (cells (20A-C), Para. [0065] “The facility 100 may be generally described as a mixed cell raceway”) comprising: one or more injectors coupled to the DGI system and configured to introduce oxygen into the at least one raceway (manifolds (11A, 11B) with exhaust ports (12), Para. [0082] “In order to supply aerated, oxygen-enriched and essentially void of carbon dioxide water into the reservoir 20 (via distribution piping 11A, 11B), the system 10 comprises at least one airlift pump 13 also referred to as “airlift””), but does not teach:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water;
wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig).
Lau teaches:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water (Col. 5 Lines 51-60 “This is achieved by taking a slip stream of liquid from a source location, pretreating the liquid as needed and pressurizing the liquid in a pressure vessel to increase the amount of gas that can be dissolved therein. In the present invention the liquid is injected as a jet and directed at the surface of the liquid held in the pressure vessel which is pressurized with the gas to be solubilized in the liquid. In the embodiments described, the liquid is aqueous and the gas is either oxygen or air”, Examiner notes that oxygen gas has an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air as claimed);
wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig) (Col. 12 Lines 30-36 “the pressurized liquid discharged from nozzle 16, which forms the liquid into a jet 24, is introduced at a pressure greater than that of the headspace, e.g., in some embodiments, a pressure of from about 100 to 400 psi, with 200 to 300 psi being nominal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture system of Kiuru with the teachings of Lau with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of reducing inefficiencies caused by direct gas transfer (Col. 2 Lines 4-20).
Regarding Claim 3
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a drain in the at least one raceway (Kiuru: drains (14) and/or wastewater drain system (41)); and a water reprocessing system coupled to the drain and configured to receive water from the at least one raceway (Kiuru: Para. [0023] “the facility is configured as a recirculation aquaculture facility, such as a Recirculation Aquaculture System (RAS)”, Examiner notes that although the reprocessing system itself is not explicitly disclosed, an RAS is a closed system that recirculates waste water back into the aquaculture environment, which requires a water reprocessing system), the water reprocessing system comprising: at least one filter configured to remove solids and nitrogenous byproducts from water (Kiuru: Para. [0033] “removal of settleable solids through bottom drains”, Para. [0105] “Wastewater is typically withdrawn from a MCR facility through drains arranged in the middle of each rotating flow cell. This water carries settling solids, such as uneaten food, fish faeces, bacterial biomass etc. Some water is further removed with the foam formed upon flotation”, Examiner notes that Para. [0002] describes organic solids as an example of nitrogenous waste products, which is encompassed by Kiuru’s disclosure cited above); and at least one pump configured to circulate water through the system (Para. [0104] “wastewater flow can be aided by conventional water pumps”).
Regarding Claim 6
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure of up to 300 psig (Lau: Col. 12 Lines 30-36 “the pressurized liquid discharged from nozzle 16, which forms the liquid into a jet 24, is introduced at a pressure greater than that of the headspace, e.g., in some embodiments, a pressure of from about 100 to 400 psi, with 200 to 300 psi being nominal”, see related §112(d) rejection).
Regarding Claim 7
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the DGI system further comprises: one or more oxygen tanks connected to the pressurized saturator (Kiuru: Para. [0007] “the facility must include additional aeration and oxygenation appliances, such as trickling towers and/or diffuser aerators, oxygen generator(s) and devises like oxygen cones to dissolve oxygen into water”, Examiner notes that when modified to include the saturator of Lau, the oxygen tanks would be connected to the saturator, Lau: Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one raceway further comprises: at least one load-bearing support beam arranged laterally along sides of the at least one raceway (Kiuru: Para. [0067] “A reservoir housing formed by a container made of aluminum, steel, such as COR-TEN® steel or stainless steel, or plywood, for example, can be further provided with a supporting structure implemented as a metal framework with reinforcement”, Examiner notes that a supporting structure with a metal framework would require support beams in multiple directions, including laterally, to house the reservoir).
Regarding Claim 16
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more injectors are configured to introduce oxygen-infused water into the raceways at multiple locations along the length of the raceway (Kiuru: Fig. 2, for example, shows multiple exhausts (12) along the length of the raceway).
Regarding Claim 22
Kiuru, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the DGI system is configured to infuse oxygen directly into the water as dissolved oxygen (DO) without creation of visible bubbles in the at least on raceway (Examiner notes that when the aquaculture system of Kiuru is modified with the saturator of Lau, bubbles are minimized due to oxygen gas not being directly added to the water, Lau: Abstract).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau.
Regarding Claim 1
Budd teaches a system for land-based aquaculture (Abstract), comprising: a dissolved gas infusion (DGI) system configured to infuse gas into water (Para. [0114] “a plurality of pumps for water circulation and to oxygenate the water”); and at least one raceways (raceway (10) shown in Fig. 1, for example), but does not teach:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water;
one or more injectors coupled to the DGI system and configured to introduce the oxygen-infused water into the at least one raceway;
wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig).
Lau teaches:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water (Col. 5 Lines 51-60 “This is achieved by taking a slip stream of liquid from a source location, pretreating the liquid as needed and pressurizing the liquid in a pressure vessel to increase the amount of gas that can be dissolved therein. In the present invention the liquid is injected as a jet and directed at the surface of the liquid held in the pressure vessel which is pressurized with the gas to be solubilized in the liquid. In the embodiments described, the liquid is aqueous and the gas is either oxygen or air”, Examiner notes that oxygen gas has an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air as claimed);
one or more injectors coupled to the DGI system and configured to introduce the oxygen-infused water into the at least one raceway (line (32), Fig. 3);
wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig) (Col. 12 Lines 30-36 “the pressurized liquid discharged from nozzle 16, which forms the liquid into a jet 24, is introduced at a pressure greater than that of the headspace, e.g., in some embodiments, a pressure of from about 100 to 400 psi, with 200 to 300 psi being nominal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture system of Budd with the teachings of Lau with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of reducing inefficiencies caused by direct gas transfer (Col. 2 Lines 4-20).
Regarding Claim 2
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one raceway comprises a plurality of raceways arranged in a vertical stack (Budd: raceways (58a-g) shown in Fig. 5, for example), each raceway further comprising: a rectangular structure (Budd: rectangular main body (15), Fig. 1) with an upper portion (Budd: Examiner notes upper portion can be considered the top of walls (18)) and a lower portion (Budd: bottom (12)); and a basin structure formed in the lower portion of the at least one raceway (Budd: Fig. 1), the basin structure configured with a central vertical barrier (Budd: centre wall (14)) and configured to circulate water around the central vertical barrier (Budd: Para. [0112] “The centre wall 14 separates the mass of water within the section 10 allowing for a controlled and directional water flow”).
Regarding Claim 4
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the DGI system and the water reprocessing system are configured to maintain a dissolved oxygen level from 9.5 mg/L to 11.5 mg/L for shrimp production.
Budd teaches the “ability to independently maintain water quality and growth conditions” (Para. [0032]), but does not disclose the specific dissolved oxygen levels needed to achieve this. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the dissolved oxygen level between 9.5 mg/L and 11.5 mg/L, in order to ensure proper growth conditions for shrimp production, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this range of values.
Regarding Claim 5
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising: a cover for a topmost raceway in the vertical stack (Budd: removeable coverings (250)), but is silent on:
the cover comprising multiple overlapping sections configured to provide closure to the topmost raceway and to prevent external contamination.
However, Examiner takes official notice that using covers in an overlapping manner to provide closure and prevent external contamination is well-known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the covers of Budd to be a cover with multiple overlapping sections with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing an extra barrier to the raceway. Examiner notes that covers comprising multiple overlapping sections are especially well-known when the cover(s) is made of a malleable/flexible material, such as a tarp.
Regarding Claim 10
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one raceway further comprises: a harvest pit located at one end of the basin structure (Budd: harvesting end (66) of raceway (58)).
Regarding Claim 19
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the injectors are positioned to cause the water to circulate around the central vertical barrier (Budd: Para. [0113] “each section of a raceway is configured to allow the shrimp to swim and the water to circulate in one direction with the centre wall 14 ending at the start of each end cap 16a, 16b allowing either a clockwise or counter-clockwise flow”, Examiner notes that, as such, the injectors of Lau would be positioned to cause the water to flow around the central barrier as claimed).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Kemp et al. (US 20180116184 A1), hereinafter Kemp.
Regarding Claim 9
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the at least one raceway further comprises: at least one twist lock disposed at a top and bottom of each load-bearing support beam to secure the at least one raceway to an adjacent raceway.
Kemp teaches:
wherein the at least one raceway further comprises: at least one twist lock disposed at a top and bottom of each load-bearing support beam to secure the at least one raceway to an adjacent raceway (Para. [0087] “Each HC can be stacked and have castings with openings for twist lock fasteners located at each corner”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the twist locks of Kemp with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to removably fix the raceways to one another in a vertical stack. This provides stability while also allowing the raceways to be removed if a change in configuration is desired.
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Perslow et al. (US 20190141964 A1), hereinafter Perslow.
Regarding Claim 11
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one raceway further comprises: a drain hole in the basin structure (Budd: Para. [0129] “a harvest/waste removal drain, for example, located at the periphery of the tank or in a corner of the tank”), but does not teach:
a first valve coupled to the drain hole and configured to control a screen sized to retain animals in the basin structure, wherein, when the first valve is open, the screen is adapted to divert waste and detritus to a water reprocessing system;
and a second valve coupled to the drain hole and configured to allow water and animals to drain from the at least one raceway when the second valve is opened.
Perslow teaches:
a first valve coupled to the drain hole and configured to control a screen sized to retain animals in the basin structure (outer valve sheath of drain valve system (300)), wherein, when the first valve is open, the screen is adapted to divert waste and detritus to a water reprocessing system (Para. [0013] “The side walls of the outer valve sheath can have openings configured to allow water to pass through and to impede the animals (e.g., shrimp) from passing through.”, Para. [0094] “in the drain configuration, a grating, screen, sieve, etc. can have openings that are sized to facilitate draining of the water (e.g., and biofloc) from the tray while impeding the aquaculture (e.g., shrimp) from passing through the openings”)
and a second valve coupled to the drain hole (inner valve sheath of drain valve system (300)) and configured to allow water and animals to drain from the at least one raceway when the second valve is opened (Para. [0013] “When the drain valve is in the open position, the drain valve can be configured to permit the water and the animals (e.g., shrimp) to flow under the drain valve and out the outlet. The outer sheath can include a rigid portion having a plurality of openings and a liner positioned over the openings”).
Budd discloses a “harvest/waste removal drain” but does not specify a means to change between removing waste and harvesting configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, to include the valves of Perslow with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing separate configurations for removing waste and wastewater (which, in a closed system, gets recirculated into the raceways) and for harvesting animals (which do not get recirculated into the system).
Regarding Claim 12
Budd, in view of Lau and Perslow, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the animals comprise shrimp or fin fish (Budd: “indoor shrimp aquaculture”, Kiuru: “The facility can be utilized for harvesting fish and/or crustaceans (e.g. shrimps, crabs, lobsters, etc)”, Perslow: “Animals, such as shrimp”).
Regarding Claim 18
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the one or more injectors are configured to operate at variable pressures to optimize infusion of oxygen into the water based on biomass and oxygen demand of animals in the water.
Perslow teaches:
wherein the injectors are configured to operate at variable pressures (Para. [0106] “The water can be pressurized (e.g., by the one or more pumps 202), which can facilitate the increasing of the dissolved oxygen level. The water at the oxygenator can be pressurized to 10 pounds per square inch (psi), 15 psi, 20 psi, 25 psi, 30 psi, 35 psi, 40 psi, 45 psi, 50 psi, 55 psi, 60 psi, or any values therebetween, or any ranges bounded by any combination of these values, although other pressures can be used in some instances. The oxygen can be pressurized when introduced to the water. The oxygenator (e.g., oxygen injector) can include a pressurized oxygen”).
Budd discloses the system’s ability to independently maintain water quality and growth conditions and Lau teaches that it is known to adjust oxygen levels. Perslow simply discloses a means for changing the level of oxygen infusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the teachings of Perslow with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of adapting to the needs of the aquaculture system. Although the prior art does not explicitly say that this pressure change is to optimize based on biomass and oxygen demands, Budd discloses that it was known to maintain growth conditions for growing shrimp from the initial nauplii or larval stages through to post-larval stages and harvest (Para. [0061]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any change in oxygen infusion operation would be to optimize growing conditions for the shrimp at each phase of life. As such, Budd, in view of Lau and Perslow, teaches wherein the one or more injectors are configured to operate at variable pressures to optimize infusion of oxygen into the water based on biomass and oxygen demand of animals in the water.
Regarding Claim 20
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the basin structure has a racetrack shape centered around the central vertical barrier (Budd: Fig. 1), and wherein the basin structure has a floor (Budd: flat bottom (12)), the floor comprising: a central flat portion (Budd: flat bottom (12)), but does not teach:
an inner sloped portion that rises from the central flat portion to meet the central vertical barrier; and an outer sloped portion that rises from the central flat portion to meet an outer wall of the rectangular structure.
Perslow teaches:
an outer sloped portion that rises from the central flat portion to meet an outer wall of the rectangular structure (Para. [0231] “The second preliminary growth tray 806b can have a slope (e.g., as shown in FIG. 19). The discussion regarding slope for tray 806a can be applied to the tray 806b. The tray 806b can have a slope downward generally towards the outlet 824 and/or valve 300”, Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the sloped portion of Perslow with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means for water to be directed generally towards the outlet. This could be beneficial specifically when trying to drain the raceways. Examiner notes that the trays of Perslow do not have a central barrier, but when applying the teaching of sloped walls to the system of Budd, in view of Lau, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this can be applied to all walls of the raceway. As such, Budd, in view of Lau and Perslow, also teaches an inner sloped portion that rises from the central flat portion to meet the central barrier.
Claims 13-15, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Mathur et al. (US 20040149234 A1), hereinafter Mathur.
Regarding Claim 13
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, but is silent on:
further comprising: one or more oxygen sensors configured to monitor oxygen levels in water in the at least one raceway.
Mathur teaches:
further comprising: one or more oxygen sensors configured to monitor oxygen levels in water in the at least one raceway (sensors (702), Para. [0051] “The sensors may measure dissolved oxygen levels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the oxygen sensors of Mathur with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of ensuring the oxygen level in the aquaculture system is at an acceptable or desired value. Budd teaches the “ability to independently maintain water quality and growth conditions” (Para. [0032]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oxygen monitor would be beneficial in maintaining desired oxygen concentrations in a system.
Regarding Claim 14
Budd, in view of Lau and Muthur, teaches the system of claim 13, but does not teach:
wherein each oxygen sensor is positioned upstream of one of the one or more injectors located on a same side of the central vertical barrier.
Examiner notes that, broadly interpreted, the oxygen sensor can be positioned anywhere in the raceway and can be considered “upstream” of an injector since the raceway is a closed loop. However, the claim requires the oxygen sensor be positioned on a same side of the barrier and Examiner notes that, in light of Applicant’s specification and figures, the sensors are intended to be placed just upstream of an injector, which is not explicitly disclosed by the prior art. However, Examiner notes that the oxygen sensors of Mathur are shown to be placed far from the injectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the oxygen sensor of Mathur just upstream of the injector of modified Budd with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of testing the oxygen levels far from the injector, which ensures the oxygen is fully infused and integrated with the rest of the water in the raceway.
Regarding Claim 15
Budd, in view of Lau and Mathur, teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the one or more injectors are configured to be controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to adjust a rate of oxygen infusion based on real-time oxygen levels detected by the one or more oxygen sensors (Mathur: Para. [0051] “the sensor 702 can be a sensor that measures the dissolved oxygen in the aqueous medium and the central processing unit 701 may compare the measured oxygen content C.sub.o of the aqueous medium within the containment vessel against a pre-programmed set point value C.sub.set and may activate the oxygen generator when the oxygen content C.sub.o of the aqueous medium is below set point value C.sub.set. Additionally, the central processing unit 701 may compare the measured oxygen content C.sub.o of the aqueous medium within the containment vessel against a second pre-programmed set point value C.sub.max and may deactivate the oxygen generator when the oxygen content C.sub.o of the aqueous medium is above set point value C.sub.max”).
Regarding Claim 21
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the DGI system is configured to maintain target dissolved oxygen (DO) levels for shrimp growth from a post-larvae stage to harvest (see related §112(b) rejection, Budd: Para. [0125] “For optimum shrimp growth, water in the raceways is maintained between about 30° C. and about 31° C”, Para. [0132] “ability to independently maintain water quality and growth conditions”, Para. [0061] “the production module can be adapted to be a fully self-contained system for growing shrimp from the initial nauplii or larval stages through to post-larval stages and harvest”, Kiuru: Para. [0030] “aeration, defined as a process of transfer / addition of oxygen into water, is a crucial process in successful cultivation of aquatic species”), but is silent on:
based on adjustment of a DO set point in accordance with biomass of shrimp retained by the at least one raceway.
Mathur teaches:
based on adjustment of a DO set point in accordance with biomass of shrimp retained by the at least one raceway (Para. [0051] “The set point values C.sub.set and C.sub.max may vary within each containment vessel due to a variety of factors such as, but not limited to, time of day, size or growth of the marine animals, time of growth cycle, time of year, size of the containment vessel, water quality, etc.”).
Budd discloses the system’s ability to independently maintain water quality and growth conditions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dissolved oxygen is a parameter included in these growth conditions. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the adjusting DO set point of Mathur with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing an adjustable oxygen level based on the needs of the shrimp at each stage of life.
Regarding Claim 23
Budd, in view of Lau and Mathur, teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the PLC is configured to control the DGI system to maintain an oxygen infusion level at 2.0 to 20 mg/L (Mathur: Para. [0035] “the dissolved oxygen content for a given containment vessel may be kept and managed within a range of from about 2 mg/l to about 15 mg/l”, Examiner notes that 2-15 mg/L is fully enveloped within the claimed range and further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this range of values).
Regarding Claim 24
Budd, in view of Lau and Mathur, teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the PLC is configured to control the DGI system to maintain an oxygen infusion level at 6.5 to 11.5 mg/L (Mathur: Para. [0035] “the dissolved oxygen content for a given containment vessel may be kept and managed within a range of from about 2 mg/l to about 15 mg/l, or more preferably from 4 mg/l to about 12 mg/l”).
Examiner notes that the range of 4 mg/L to 12 mg/L disclosed by Mathur fully encompasses, but is broader than, the claimed range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained an oxygen infusion level as claimed, since 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. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this specific range of values. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims… In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Maxwell (US 20200047109 A1).
Regarding Claim 17
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the one or more injectors are designed to produce nanobubbles to maximize surface area for oxygen transfer and enhance efficiency of oxygenation.
Maxwell teaches:
wherein the one or more injectors are designed to produce nanobubbles to maximize surface area for oxygen transfer and enhance efficiency of oxygenation (Para. [0008] “with the additional benefit of the oxygen being comprised of very small microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen as it is introduced in an aqueous medium. The bubbles and oxygen stream delivered into the aqueous medium are small enough not to quickly break the surface tension of the water in the tank or reservoir resulting in an aqueous medium that is supersaturated with oxygen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the injectors of Maxwell with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a more efficient oxygen infuser to the aquaculture system.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Barrable et al. (US 20150266616 A1), hereinafter Barrable, and Szekely (US 11891803 B1).
Regarding Claim 25
Budd, in view of Lau, teaches the system of claim 2, but does not teach:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted on a caisson structure with twist locks and stacking cones configured with a breaking load of 420 KN (shear) to secure the vertical stack to the caisson structure such that lateral movement of the stacked plurality of raceways is reduced to zero, and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water in which animals are maintained.
Barrable teaches:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted with twist locks and stacking cones (stacking cones (22), Para. [0082] “although the figures illustrate two variations of stacking cones, it is understood that there are numerous various stacking cones currently on the market and still more in development that include the medial region and with which a flange/weld plate as described herein would interoperate if shaped and sized appropriately, even including stacking cones that include more complicated features, such as locking/latching mechanism”, Examiner notes that an example of known locks are disclosed in Para. [0012], which discusses rotating locks) configured with a breaking load of 420 KN (shear) to secure the vertical stack such that lateral movement of the stacked plurality of raceways is reduced to zero (Para. [0047] “the flange works in conjunction with a stacking cone, such as but not limited to model number BC-A3/C provided by Pacific Marine and Industrial, which includes a shear strength of 420 KN thus providing an added function of time tested vertical stability that complies with the specifications for earthquake tremors using multi-level container construction”).
Budd teaches a plurality of vertically stacked raceways, but doesn’t disclose the structure that allows the raceways to attach to one another in a stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the teachings of Barrable with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing structural stability to the stack.
However, none of the references teach:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted on a caisson structure
and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water in which animals are maintained.
Szekely teaches:
a plurality of units mounted on a caisson structure (Fig. 17)
and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of units are supported to hold full weight of the system (Col. 6 Lines 39-52, Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 4, Fig. 11, Fig. 17).
Budd, in view of Lau and Barrable teaches the claimed invention except for the caisson structure on which the raceways are attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture of modified Budd to include the caisson structure of Szekely with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a strong and secure base on which to vertically attach the plurality of raceways. Szekely teaches that securing a base with a plurality of screw piles bored into the ground produces a deep foundation and effective load dispersal (Col. 6 Lines 39-52) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore been motivated to use a structure with the aforementioned benefits of Szekely. Examiner notes that when applying the teachings of Szekely, the combination of references produce a structure on which vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water as claimed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd et al. (US 20170354128 A1), hereinafter Budd, in view of Lau et al. (US 11642634 B2), hereinafter Lau, Barrable et al. (US 20150266616 A1), hereinafter Barrable, and Szekely (US 11891803 B1).
Regarding Claim 26
An apparatus (Abstract), comprising: a dissolved gas infusion (DGI) system configured to infuse gas into water (Para. [0114] “a plurality of pumps for water circulation and to oxygenate the water”); a plurality of raceways arranged in a vertical stack (raceways (58a-g) shown in Fig. 5, for example), wherein each raceway of the plurality of raceways comprises: a rectangular structure (rectangular main body (15), Fig. 1) with an upper portion (Examiner notes upper portion can be considered the top of walls (18)) and a lower portion (bottom (12)); a basin structure formed in the lower portion of each raceway of the plurality of raceways (Fig. 1), the basin structure configured with a central vertical barrier (centre wall (14)) and configured to circulate water around the central vertical barrier (Para. [0112] “The centre wall 14 separates the mass of water within the section 10 allowing for a controlled and directional water flow”), but does not teach:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water;
and one or more injectors coupled to the DGI system and configured to introduce the oxygen-infused water into each raceway of the plurality of raceways, wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig);
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted on a caisson structure with twist locks and stacking cones each configured with a breaking load of at least 420 KN (shear) to secure the vertical stack to the caisson structure such that lateral movement of the stacked plurality of raceways is reduced to zero, and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water.
Lau teaches:
the DGI system configured to withdraw a slipstream of water and infuse gas with an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air from a pressurized saturator into the slipstream to create oxygen-infused water (Col. 5 Lines 51-60 “This is achieved by taking a slip stream of liquid from a source location, pretreating the liquid as needed and pressurizing the liquid in a pressure vessel to increase the amount of gas that can be dissolved therein. In the present invention the liquid is injected as a jet and directed at the surface of the liquid held in the pressure vessel which is pressurized with the gas to be solubilized in the liquid. In the embodiments described, the liquid is aqueous and the gas is either oxygen or air”, Examiner notes that oxygen gas has an oxygen concentration greater than atmospheric air as claimed);
one or more injectors coupled to the DGI system and configured to introduce the oxygen-infused water into the at least one raceway (line (32), Fig. 3), wherein the DGI system is configured to pressurize the slipstream to a pressure from 200 to 300 pounds per square inch (psig) (Col. 12 Lines 30-36 “the pressurized liquid discharged from nozzle 16, which forms the liquid into a jet 24, is introduced at a pressure greater than that of the headspace, e.g., in some embodiments, a pressure of from about 100 to 400 psi, with 200 to 300 psi being nominal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture system of Budd with the teachings of Lau with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of reducing inefficiencies caused by direct gas transfer (Col. 2 Lines 4-20).
Neither references teaches:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted on a caisson structure with twist locks and stacking cones each configured with a breaking load of at least 420 KN (shear) to secure the vertical stack to the caisson structure such that lateral movement of the stacked plurality of raceways is reduced to zero, and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water.
Barrable teaches:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted with twist locks and stacking cones (stacking cones (22), Para. [0082] “although the figures illustrate two variations of stacking cones, it is understood that there are numerous various stacking cones currently on the market and still more in development that include the medial region and with which a flange/weld plate as described herein would interoperate if shaped and sized appropriately, even including stacking cones that include more complicated features, such as locking/latching mechanism”, Examiner notes that an example of known locks are disclosed in Para. [0012], which discusses rotating locks) configured with a breaking load of 420 KN (shear) to secure the vertical stack such that lateral movement of the stacked plurality of raceways is reduced to zero (Para. [0047] “the flange works in conjunction with a stacking cone, such as but not limited to model number BC-A3/C provided by Pacific Marine and Industrial, which includes a shear strength of 420 KN thus providing an added function of time tested vertical stability that complies with the specifications for earthquake tremors using multi-level container construction”).
Budd teaches a plurality of vertically stacked raceways, but doesn’t disclose the structure that allows the raceways to attach to one another in a stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture system of Budd, in view of Lau, with the teachings of Barrable with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing structural stability to the stack.
However, none of the references teach:
wherein the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are mounted on a caisson structure
and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water in which animals are maintained.
Szekely teaches:
a plurality of units mounted on a caisson structure (Fig. 17)
and wherein the caisson structure is secured with a plurality of screw piles bored into a sub-surface floor on which the vertically stacked plurality of units are supported to hold full weight of the system (Col. 6 Lines 39-52, Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 4, Fig. 11, Fig. 17).
Budd, in view of Lau and Barrable teaches the claimed invention except for the caisson structure on which the raceways are attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aquaculture of modified Budd to include the caisson structure of Szekely with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a strong and secure base on which to vertically attach the plurality of raceways. Szekely teaches that securing a base with a plurality of screw piles bored into the ground produces a deep foundation and effective load dispersal (Col. 6 Lines 39-52) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore been motivated to use a structure with the aforementioned benefits of Szekely. Examiner notes that when applying the teachings of Szekely, the combination of references produce a structure on which vertically stacked plurality of raceways are supported to hold full weight of the system, including water as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20190274289 A1 – “System And Method For Off-Shore & In-Shore Aquaculture Using Floating Closed Containment Farming And Amalgamated Facility”
US 6665990 B1 – “High-tension High-compression Foundation For Tower Structures”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
