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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the characters in the figures are hard to read and it is unclear if the numbers in fig. 4 are reference characters or dimensions. If they are reference characters, they are not referenced in the specification. The drawings are lacking reference characters and the specification do not use reference characters to explain the invention.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(a), drawings should be in india ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered second claim 8 and claims 9-15 been renumbered to 9-16.
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.
Claims 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the top of each post" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-11 recite the limitation "the pool", “the base”, and “the base plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miclea (US 6761132) in view of Gearhart (US 6761133), Kemp et al. (US 11206817), hereinafter Kemp, and Christensen et al. (US 3842804), hereinafter Christensen.
Regarding claim 1, Miclea teaches of (fig. 1) an aquaculture platform (abstract, aquarium) comprising
two side rails (sidewalls 13A, 13B);
two end sills (grids 22, 23);
wall plates (resin panels 19, 20) attached to the side rails (13A, 13B) and end sills (22, 23) (seen in fig. 1);
transparent windows disposed within the wall plates (wall plates are comprised of transparent panels 19, 20);
one or more cross beams (bottom members 15A, 15B) connecting the side rails (13A, 13B) (bottom members 15A, 15B connect the side rails 13A, 13B);
a floor plate disposed on the cross beams (15A, 15B) (top inner member 15B above member 15A); and
a drain pipe (fig. 12, drain fitting 34 with outlet assembly 36 and outlet fitting 37) disposed at one end of the platform (drain pipe is at an end of the platform).
Miclea does not appear to teach of secured to the wall plates to form a watertight seal, wherein the floor plate forms a "W" shape in cross-section and a central beam disposed on the floor plate to create a longitudinal aisle.
Gearhart teaches of (fig. 4) floor plates (base 12) to form a watertight seal against the walls (col. 4 lines 26-32, walls of housing 50 seals into slot 34 of the base 12).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Gearhart of secured to the wall plates to form a watertight seal in order to seal the floor to the walls to ensure no water leakage from the aquarium.
Kemp teaches of (fig. 8A-8B) wherein the floor plate forms a "W" shape in cross-section (base 804 has a general W shape with brackets 801 and 802 symmetrical about a peak in the center).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the floor plate forms a "W" shape in cross-section in order to use the slope of the W shape to direct movement of debris towards the drain and keep the environment clean.
Christensen teaches of (figs. 1-2) a central beam (central wall surrounded by the vanes 2 and vents 3) disposed on the floor plate (fig. 1, central beam is disposed on the floor) to create a longitudinal aisle (the central beam divides the tank to create a longitudinal aisle).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Christensen of a central beam disposed on the floor plate to create a longitudinal aisle in order to have a divider to control water flow and growth in the aquarium and to reduce any turbulence that may be created in the aquarium.
Regarding claim 2, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the platform is fabricated from steel.
Kemp teaches of wherein the platform is fabricated from steel (col. 6 lines 7-17, the sub-components are designed to be out of reusable steel or similar types of structures).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the platform is fabricated from steel in order to use a material that is strong and sturdy for extended use.
Regarding claim 5, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the platform comprises high strength steel.
Kemp teaches of wherein the platform comprises high strength steel (col. 6 lines 7-17, the sub-components are designed to be out of reusable steel or similar types of structures).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the platform comprises high strength steel in order to use a material that is strong and sturdy for extended use.
Regarding claim 9, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the floor plate comprises epoxy coated steel, fiberglass, composite materials, or a combination thereof.
Kemp teaches of wherein the floor plate comprises epoxy coated steel, fiberglass, composite materials, or a combination thereof (col. 6 lines 7-17, the sub-components are designed to be out of reusable steel or similar types of structures; col. 11 lines 30-43, Prior to installation of the tanks all surfaces on the interior of the intermodal container are completely sealed with a chemical resistant material, example epoxy, to prevent salt water corrosion.).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the floor plate comprises epoxy coated steel, fiberglass, composite materials, or a combination thereof in order to use material that is strong and sturdy for extended use and to prevent salt water corrosion as motivated by Kemp in col. 611 lines 30-43.
Regarding claim 12, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising a corrosion-resistant coating.
Kemp teaches of further comprising a corrosion-resistant coating (col. 11 lines 30-43, Prior to installation of the tanks all surfaces on the interior of the intermodal container are completely sealed with a chemical resistant material, example epoxy, to prevent salt water corrosion.).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of further comprising a corrosion-resistant coating in order to prevent salt water corrosion as motivated by Kemp in col. 11 lines 30-43 and to protect the device in wet conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the coating comprises epoxy resin.
Kemp further teaches of wherein the coating comprises epoxy resin (col. 11 lines 30-43, coating is epoxy resin).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the coating comprises epoxy resin in order to prevent salt water corrosion as motivated by Kemp in col. 11 lines 30-43 and to protect the device in wet conditions.
Regarding claim 15, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising one or more sensors.
Kemp teaches of further comprising one or more sensors (col. 9 line 48-col. 10 line 39, plurality of sensors is used, such as pH detector, water temperature sensor, salinity sensor, turbidity sensor, etc.).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of further comprising one or more sensors in order to monitor various parameters of the system and environment.
Regarding claim 16, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the sensors detect water temperature, pH, salinity, and/or turbidity.
Kemp teaches of wherein the sensors detect water temperature, pH, salinity, and/or turbidity (col. 9 line 48-col. 10 line 39, sensors include detecting water temperature, pH, salinity, and turbidity).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Kemp of wherein the sensors detect water temperature, pH, salinity, and/or turbidity in order to monitor various parameters of the system and environment and increase the survivability and growth of creatures in the aquarium.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miclea as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goh (US 20210227800).
Regarding claim 3, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising at least four ISO casting corner fittings.
Goh teaches of at least four ISO casting corner fittings (fig. 1, ¶0031, eight corner castings 108 for the ISO container of aquatic farming modules 100).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Goh of at least four ISO casting corner fittings in order to provide lifting and securing points for transportation of the aquarium as motivated by Goh in para. 0031.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miclea as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grajcar (US 20150237890).
Regarding claim 4, Miclea as modified teaches of claim 1, and windows (fig. 1, transparent panels 19, 20 are windows).
Grajcar teaches of wherein the windows are plexiglass (fig. 4, ¶0033, sidewall 146 are made of transparent material such as plexiglass).
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 Miclea to incorporate the teachings of Grajcar of wherein the windows are plexiglass in order to use a material that makes strong windows that can withstand the forces of a large amount of water in the aquarium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10-11, and 14 are 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.
Claims 6, and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647