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 .
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 9 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably tomatoes" 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 10 is rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/057818.
Regarding claim 1, WO 2019/057818 teaches a decoupled aquaponics system (facility 1) comprising an aquaculture portion (container 2, fish tank 3, mechanical filtration 4, filter unit 6, sump unit 7, pg. 26, para. 4) and an agriculture portion (hydroponic units 13, 12 and 14, pg. 26, para. 4), the aquaculture portion comprising a farming pond (fish tank 3, pg. 26, para. 9 fig. 1), and an aquaculture loop for circulating water between a water outlet of the farming pond (fig. 1) and a water inlet of the farming pond (container 2, fish tank 3, fig. 1), the system further comprising a device for collecting water allowing the extraction of water from the aquaculture portion (water inlets and outlets attached to container 2, fish tank 3, mechanical filtration 4, filter unit 6, and sump unit 7), characterized in that the agriculture portion comprises a device for the soil-less cultivation of plants (hydroponic part 13) and an irrigation system containing a nutrient solution that is supplied to the device for the soil-less cultivation of plants (pg. 29, para. 2-7), and in that the system comprises a buffer tank (sump unit 7), the device for collecting water being configured to discharge the water collected from the aquaculture portion into the buffer tank (container 2, fish tank 3, mechanical filtration 4, filter unit 6, sump unit 7 is configured to discharge water collected from the aquaculture portion into sump unit 7, fig. 1), the system further comprising a tank for preparing the nutrient solution, said tank for preparing the nutrient solution being at least partially supplied with water from the buffer tank (sump unit 12, pg. 29, para. 2). Regarding “adapted for cultivating aquatic animals filled with water that has a salinity greater than 2 g/L” it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 2, WO 2019/057818 teaches including means for measuring the salinity of the water in the aquaculture portion and the nitrates in the water of the aquaculture portion (there are additional quality parameters and devices necessary to control the environmental parameters, pg. 14, para. 5).
Regarding claim 3, WO 2019/057818 teaches wherein the aquaculture loop includes a mechanical filter (filter 4, pg. 26, para. 10).
Regarding claim 4, WO 2019/057818 teaches wherein the aquaculture loop includes a denitrator (denitrification unit, pg. 16, para. 4).
Regarding claim 5, WO 2019/057818 teaches wherein the aquaculture loop includes a degassing device and/or an aerobic biological filter (aerobic biofilter 5, pg. 27, para. 5).
Regarding claim 8, WO 2019/057818 teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the agriculture portion includes at least two irrigation systems, namely a first irrigation system supplying a first soil-less cultivation system and a second irrigation system supplying a second soil-less cultivation system, and wherein the first irrigation system contains a first nutrient solution containing water directly from the buffer tank, and wherein the second irrigation system contains a second nutrient solution containing water directly from the buffer tank and optionally containing drainage from the first irrigation system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple irrigation systems since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, WO 2019/057818 teaches including first plants cultivated in the first soil-less cultivation system, namely fruit plants, preferably tomatoes, and including second plants cultivated in the second soil-less cultivation system, namely leafy plants (plants are grown in container 14, pg. 29, para. 2-3).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/057818 in view of Nien (US 2010/0269761).
Regarding claim 6, WO 2019/057818 teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the farming pond contains shrimp. However, Nien teaches a farming pond containing shrimp (shrimp are contained in cultivation tank, para. 0013). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify WO 2019/057818 system with shrimp as taught by Nien to allow an owner to produce a variety of farmed animals.
Regarding claim 7, WO 2019/057818 as modified by Nien teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Nien further teaches a cultivation tank 10 being constructed according to the sizes and quantities of farmed shrimp (para. 0013) but fails to teach wherein the farming pond contains more than 6kg of shrimp per cubic meter of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a farming pond contain more than 6kg of shrimp per cubic meter of water, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/057818 in view of CN 217446147.
Regarding claim 10, WO 2019/057818 teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the fruit plants and the leafy plants are respectively cultivated on a fibrous substrate or on an impermeable floating medium including through orifices adapted to receive roots of said leafy plants. However, CN 217446147 teaches a fibrous substrate (Abstract, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify WO 2019/057818 system with a floating substrate as taught by CN 217446147 to help stabilize plant roots during growth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11- 16 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647