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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3 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. It is unclear whether the language after preferably “an amount set to increase with the growth of the fish in the aquaculture system, wherein this basic daily quantity of feed is adjusted in accordance with the calculation of the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system based on the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during the feeding” is intended to be included. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as not required. Examiner recommends either removing the limitation or modifying the language to be required.
Claim 4 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. It is unclear whether the language after preferably “the first and second threshold rate are determined separately for all fish species in the aquaculture system” is intended to be included. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as not required. Examiner recommends either removing the limitation or modifying the language to be required.
Claim 7 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. It is unclear whether the language after preferably “the estimated water quality is used in combination with the analyzed breathing rates for calculating the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system” is intended to be included. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as not required. Examiner recommends either removing the limitation or modifying the language to be required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the water quality" in ln 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not disclose “a water quality”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as “a water quality”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 16 falls into the category of software per se (see MPEP 2106.03(I) "Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;"). Claim 16 recites instructions that do not have any tangible form and are not patent eligible.
Claims 17 and 18 fall into the category of signals per se (see MPEP 2106(I) Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave;) The BRI of computer readable storage medium in claim 17 contains signals that could either be transitory or non-transitory and are not patent eligible. Claim 18 is “a data carrier signal” which recited signal which is not patent eligible.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 20220000079 A1 2022-01-06 as applied to claim Melberg US 20130206078 A1 2013-08-15 above, and further in view of BAO CN 111275269 A 2020-06-12.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses A process for delivering quantity-adjusted feed to fish in an aquaculture system, characterized by the steps of:
capturing image data of the aquaculture system, wherein the image data are continuously captured digital photos or video sequences(Chen discloses ¶9 The monocular depth model is trained to generate, based on the received plurality of monocular images and the acoustic data, a distance-from-feeder estimate of a vertical biomass center of fish within the marine enclosure.);
analyzing the behavior of the fish before and during feeding based on the captured image data of the aquaculture system, wherein analyzing the behavior of the fish comprises at least one of counting the number of fish (6, 7) in a feeding region of the aquaculture systevelocity of the fish, and determining a mean distance between all fish (Chen discloses ¶17 object parameter with respect to an individual fish 106 encompasses various individualized data including but not limited to: an identification (ID) associated with an individual fish 106, movement pattern of that individual fish 106, swim speed of that individual fish 106, health status of that individual fish 106, distance of that individual fish 106 from a particular underwater location, and the like. In some embodiments, an underwater object parameter with respect to two or more fish 106 encompasses various group descriptive data including but not limited to: schooling behavior of the fish 106, average swim speed of the fish 106, swimming pattern of the fish 106, physical distribution of the fish 106 within the marine enclosure 108, and the like. ¶47 “the feeding instruction 304 includes the distance-from-feeder estimate 302a based at least in part on DistS corresponding to whether a sufficient number of fish are positioned within the feeding area”);
calculating the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system based on the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during the feeding (Chen discloses ¶49 “When feeding such a group of fish with a wide appetite variation, a feeder should consider reducing the rate or quantity of pellets administered so as to be less likely to waste the feed. Conversely, when the feeding instruction 304 is indicative of a small VertR and large DistS, a large portion of total fish 206 biomass is gathered close to the feed source. When feeding such a group of fish with a narrow appetite variation (e.g., a large number of the fish 206 have a high appetite), a feeder should consider increasing the feeding rate or quantity of pellets administered.”);
and delivering the calculated quantity of feed to the aquaculture system (Chen discloses ¶49 “The feed controller system 314 determines, in various embodiments, an amount, rate, frequency, timing and/or volume of feed to provide to the fish 206 in marine enclosure 208 based at least in part on the depth estimation output(s) 302 and the feeding instruction 304.”).
Chen does not disclose expressly the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system.
Melberg discloses using the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system to determine feeding, ¶106 monitoring the dissolved oxygen prior and during feeding and ¶119, using dDO to adjust feeding rates, reducing based on low oxygen and eventually stopping the feeding.
Chen and Melberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of automatically feeding fish based on behavior and environmental conditions.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Chen to use dissolved oxygen in its behavioral feeding calculation to determine the correct amount of food using the Oxygen sensors and calculations of Melberg.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been negative environmental factors alter how fish eat and affect growth and profit (see Melberg ¶121 “Underfeeding will lead to reduced growth and feed conversion ratio (FCR), while overfeeding will result in feed wastage and negative environmental effects. Both under-and overfeeding will then result in reduced profitability and less sustainable production. It is therefore important to be able to feed correct amount of feed, served at the right time, to ensure optimal growth and resource usage.”).
Chen and Melberg does not disclose expressly the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during feeding based on the captured image data of the aquaculture system,
BAO discloses the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during feeding based on the captured image data of the aquaculture system (pg. 5 step 4 “it adopts the camera collecting image according to 30fps, by the 300 image within 10 seconds to move fish gill part counting so as to obtain fish average gill of the respiration frequency.”).
Chen, Melberg and BAO are analogous art because they are from using cameras to determine fish conditions in an aquaculture system.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Chen and Melberg to also observe the average respiration frequency disclosed by BAO to further predict the feeding needs of fish.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the cost of dissolved oxygen sensors and breeding costs (BAO pg. 2-3 ln 41-45, 1-2, “the final combined intelligent control technology is water dissolved oxygen content in the aquaculture process abnormal change scientific and reliable early warning, which provides a precise scientific basis for efficient aquaculture. so as to avoid the aquaculture water quality sensor, using a lot more expensive in cultivation risk is reduced and the breeding cost, is suitable for factory high density aquaculture.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Chen, Melberg and BAO for the benefit of using cameras to determine the oxygen content of the water and determine the breathing rate of the fish using a camera to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that the calculated quantity of feed is delivered by adjusting a variable feed delivery rate per time unit or by adjusting a variable delivery period or an interval between delivery periods at a constant feed delivery rate (Chen discloses ¶49 where the feed rate is determined based on an amount, rate, frequency, timing and volume. This reads as, based on the needs of the fish the delivery rate of the food is adjusted whether it be by the amount of fish present or based on a time unit.).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that a basic daily quantity of feed delivered to the aquaculture system is set, which daily amount of feed is a constant amount or, preferably, an amount set to increase with the growth of the fish in the aquaculture system, wherein this basic daily quantity of feed is adjusted in accordance with the calculation of the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system based on the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during the feeding (Chen discloses ¶49 the quantity of food is increased based on the appetite calculation which is adjusted based on behavior of the fish. Melberg discloses ¶119 “The oxygen consumption and predicted hunger inputs are used together to control the feeding according to the fish appetite. The values for dDO are used to adjust the feeding rate and eventually stop the feeding.”).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that if the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system increases above a first threshold breathing rate the quantity of feed will be reduced, and if the breathing rate of the fish falls below a second threshold breathing rate which is lower than the first threshold feeding will be suspended, (Melberg discloses ¶106 “The DO level is continuously monitored, and the initial DO level is recorded prior to feeding. During the meal the parameter for oxygen consumption is calculated by using the function:”, ¶119 “The oxygen consumption and predicted hunger inputs are used together to control the feeding according to the fish appetite. The values for dDO are used to adjust the feeding rate and eventually stop the feeding. If the predicted hunger is high or very high, low oxygen consumption will result in reduction of the feeding rate. But if the predicted hunger is medium low, the same low level of oxygen consumption will result of termination of the feeding.” This is read as taking an initial threshold reading on the oxygen and determining a reduction is needed on the feeding. Followed by the oxygen still being low at a second time resulting in the feeding being stopped).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 are discussed above. Characterized in that the quantity of feed will be reduced if the breathing rate of the fish first threshold breathing rate for a first time period, and feeding will be suspended if the breathing rate of the fish below the second threshold breathing rate for a second time period (Melberg discloses ¶106 “The DO level is continuously monitored, and the initial DO level is recorded prior to feeding. During the meal the parameter for oxygen consumption is calculated by using the function:”, ¶119 “The oxygen consumption and predicted hunger inputs are used together to control the feeding according to the fish appetite. The values for dDO are used to adjust the feeding rate and eventually stop the feeding. If the predicted hunger is high or very high, low oxygen consumption will result in reduction of the feeding rate. But if the predicted hunger is medium low, the same low level of oxygen consumption will result of termination of the feeding.” This is read as taking an initial threshold reading on the oxygen and determining a reduction is needed on the feeding. Followed by the oxygen still being low at a second time resulting in the feeding being stopped).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that at least one of the dissolved oxygen in the aquaculture system or the ammonia in the water or the pH value of the water is measured and the measuring results are used in combination with the analyzed breathing rates for calculating the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system (Melberg ¶119 “ The oxygen consumption and predicted hunger inputs are used together to control the feeding according to the fish appetite. The values for dDO are used to adjust the feeding rate and eventually stop the feeding”).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that the water quality is estimated by using computer vision, wherein preferably the estimated water quality is used in combination with the analyzed breathing rates for calculating the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system (BAO pg. 5 step 4, discloses using camera vision to determine the water quality and fish breathing. Chen ¶49 discloses calculating the quantity of food.).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that an increase of the number of fish in the feeding region and an increase in velocity of the fish and a decrease of the mean distance between all fish is considered as an indication to increase the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system, and vice versa (Chen ¶47-49 increasing or decreasing feeding based on the amount of fish clustered near the feeding area).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above. Characterized in that at least two of the counting the number of fish in a feeding region of the aquaculture system, the determining the velocity of the fish, and the determining a mean distance between all fish are used as a combined indicator for the quantity of feed to be delivered to the aquaculture system, wherein each of said parameters is monitored individually (Chen discloses ¶47-49 based on the number of fish in the region and the closer the fish are to the feeder to determine the amount of food to be delivered. ).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. Characterized in that it is a self-learning process automatically adapting to environment and setup of the aquaculture system based on previously tagged image data of the aquaculture system and/or on previous analyses and classification of the breathing rate of the fish in the aquaculture system and the behavior of the fish before and during the feeding (Chen discloses ¶33 “accordingly, in various embodiments and as described in more detail below with respect to FIGS. 2-3, the system 100 provides at least a portion of the sensor data 112 corresponding to underwater object parameters (e.g., first sensor data set 112a and second sensor data set 112b) as training data for generating a trained monocular depth estimation model 128 using machine learning techniques and neural networks. One or more components of the system 100, such as the processor 110, may be periodically trained to improve the performance of sensor system 102 measurements by training an acoustics-augmented monocular depth estimation model capable of generating depth estimation metrics as output using input of monocular images.”).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above. A feeding device for fish in an aquaculture system, comprising at least one digital camera for continuously capturing digital photos or video sequences, a feed delivery system, and a computer unit designed to receive image data of the aquaculture system captured by the camera and to control the feed delivery system to deliver quantity-adjusted feed rations, characterized in that the computer unit is adapted to carry out the steps of Claim 1 (Chen discloses Fig. 1 which shows a camera 102a, a data set being coupled to a trained model, processors, all connected to the feed controller system).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above. Characterized in that the digital camera is an underwater camera or a camera placed in a translucent water-tight housing or behind a viewing window a wall of the aquaculture system (Chen discloses Fig. 1 which shows a camera underwater.).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above. Characterized in that the feed delivery system is a pneumatic feed delivery system (Chen ¶49 discloses “of automatic feeders, feed cannons, and the like.” Feed cannons being read as a pneumatic feeder.).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above. characterized in that it comprises at least one sensor for measuring the dissolved oxygen in the aquaculture system or the ammonia in the water or the pH value of the water, wherein the sensor is configured to transmit the measured values to the computer unit (Melberg discloses ¶103 “an oxygen sensor by reference numeral 9”).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above. A tank filled with water for growing fish, wherein the aquaculture system is either a closed system, in which free gas exchange with the environment is prevented, or an open system allowing free gas exchange with the environment (Chen discloses Fig 1, which shows a closed system tank.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights