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 Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 14 read “determining from the image data when and in which one or more
future regions the identified one more crustaceans are expected to mold and assigning the one or more future regions as the one or more molting regions” which should read “determining from the image data when and in which one or more future regions the identified one more crustaceans are expected to molt and assigning the one or more future regions as the one or more molting regions”
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.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10 and 14-15 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.
Claims 3, 6 and 10 are rejected are rejected under 112(b) for lack of clarity due to the term “preferably" which render the claims indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” are specifically required as part of the invention. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 6 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “based on this determination, and based on the first resp. second pixel cluster's position within the first resp. second image.” It is unclear what “resp” stands for, whether that be “respective” or “represent” or otherwise. Further, the earlier portion of the claim introduces only a first pixel cluster in the first image and a second pixel cluster in the second image so the “first resp. second pixel cluster's position within the first resp. second image” is further confusing and unclear. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "one or more parameters" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 already introduces “measurement data of water parameters.” It is unclear based on the claims if the “one or more parameters” are the same as the water parameters of claim 1 or a separate set of parameters. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "one or more " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 already introduces “one or more cameras.” It is unclear based on the claims if the “one or more cameras” are the same as the cameras of claim 11 or a separate set of cameras. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "one or more " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 already introduces “one or more sensors.” It is unclear based on the claims if the “one or more sensors” are the same as the sensors of claim 11 or a separate set of sensors. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10 and 14-15 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While the prior art of record discloses systems and methods for detecting whether or not crustaceans are molting, and therefore determining molting regions, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for supporting molting of crustaceans in a volume of water at least partially enclosed by one or more barriers for keeping crustaceans in the volume, the method comprising: (i) detecting one or more molting regions in the volume of water, the molting regions being regions where crustaceans are molting and/or expected to be molting at a future time, and (ii) based on the detected one or more molting regions, controlling a distribution of irradiance of light throughout the volume of water such that each of the detected one or more molting regions receives, and/or will receive at the future time, an irradiance that is lower than an irradiance that is received, and/or that will be received at the future time respectively, by regions outside of the detected molting regions, wherein detecting the one or more molting regions is based on image acquisition and analysis of images of crustaceans in at least part of the volume of water and/or based on measurement data of water parameters in at least part of the volume of water.
The closest prior art of record, Nimitkul et al, discloses an automated molting detection system for crustaceans, specifically crabs, using analysis of pixels from images taken by multiple IP cameras. However, Nimitkul fails to disclose using the results of the molting detection to then control irradiance in the volume of water that holds the crustaceans as claimed in both independent claims 1 and 11. Further, it would not be obvious to modify Nimitkul with lighting adjusted based on the molting detection as Nimitkul does not contemplate light changes or influencing the behavior of the crustaceans, merely monitoring their current state.
Another close prior art of record is Hsiao (US 7000567 B1) which discloses a tank for crustaceans having a predetermined place with contrasting bright and dark lighting. Hsiao discusses this predetermined place being for crustaceans to hide or stay, and also that the non-molted crustaceans are directed to this predetermined area. However, Hsiao fails to disclose detecting molting regions, and based on the detected one or more molting regions, controlling a distribution of irradiance of light throughout the volume of water such that each of the detected one or more molting regions receives, and/or will receive at the future time, an irradiance that is lower than an irradiance that is received, and/or that will be received at the future time respectively, by regions outside of the detected molting regions, wherein detecting the one or more molting regions is based on image acquisition and analysis of images of crustaceans in at least part of the volume of water and/or based on measurement data of water parameters in at least part of the volume of water. Further, it would not be obvious to modify Hsiao with molting detection or controlling light based on the molting regions, as Hsiao does not contemplate adjusting lighting based on the crustaceans, or determining if the crustaceans are in a stage of molting, merely a predetermined place with contrasting lighting.
Other relevant prior art of record include Garland (US-10111411-B2), which discloses image analysis to determine if a crustacean has molted; Delabbio (US 9016240 B2), which discloses a growth enhancement system, including underwater lights and cameras for rearing crustaceans; and Huang (US 11399520 B2), which disclose a smart aquaculture system including an underwater camera and feed level analysis.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights