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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 100-122 as discussed in specification paragraphs 0040-0048 are not shown or labeled in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference characters 1500, 1502, 1054 and 1506 seen in figure 15 are not mentioned in the specification.
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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 reads “The method of claim 2, determining volumes for the one or more biofilters
based on the feed regimen calculated to support plant and fish population within the coupled aquaponics system; and determining the flow rates to the one or more biofilters based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for each of the one or more biofilters within the coupled aquaponics system.” which should read “The method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: determining volumes for the one or more biofilters based on the feed regimen calculated to support plant and fish population within the coupled aquaponics system; and determining the flow rates to the one or more biofilters based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for each of the one or more biofilters within the coupled aquaponics system.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for lack of enablement in regards to the determination of flow rate based on the target retention time. Firstly, it is unclear what the target retention time is, for each of the plant beds, fish rearing tanks and biofilters. In regards to the plant beds, is it the time the plants are planted until harvest or until the end of their lifespan? Similarly, in regards to the fish rearing tanks, is the target retention time till the end of the fish’s lifespan or until harvest? In regards to the biofilters, is the target retention time related to the bio filter’s longevity or another measure? Further, there is no method or equation provided that demonstrates how to calculate or determine the flow rate based on this target retention time. While the drawings provide various tables with example numbers, there are no details or methodology as to how one arrives at these numbers, and therefore it is not sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the same conclusion. Claim 2 is likewise rejected in regards to the step of determining the flow rates to the fish tank based on the retention time. Claim 5 is likewise rejected in regards to determining the flow rate based on a change in the target retention time. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 6 is rejected for lack of enablement in regards to the determination of the volumes and flow rates for the biofilters. Firstly, it is unclear if the volume is of the structure of the biofilter itself, or the amount of fluid that can flow through the biofilter at a given time. Further, the specification discloses both a biofilter and a bioreactor and it is unclear if these are one and the same or separate elements. Additionally, as stated above, the target retention time is not enabled in the specification, and therefore one of ordinary skill would not be able to use the target retention time to determine the volume of the biofilter. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 11-14 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.
Claim 11 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to determining the fish production value. Claim 1 recites “determining a fish production value for the aquaculture production system based on the feed regimen and a number of fish.” However, claim 11 appears to first determine an average daily feed rate and then use that feed rate to determine a number of fish, which is contradictory to claim 1. Claims 12-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 12 is rejected for lack of clarity. Firstly, the claim includes a “depth to diameter ratio,” which appears to be a typographical error, as in the art, it is generally referred to as a diameter to depth ratio. Secondly, the volume determination step is unclear. The specification does provide an equation for fish tank volume on page 22, however it requires knowledge of the average weight of the fish at harvest. It is unclear, as this is a method of designing a system, how one would already have average harvest data, and therefore be able to use that for tank design? Claim 14 is likewise rejected. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovich (US 8677942 B2) in view of Gordon (US 11185057 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bodlovich discloses a method of designing a coupled aquaponics system comprising
(i) a hydroponic production system comprising one or more plant beds (plant beds 18, see fig 7),
(ii) an aquaculture production system comprising one or more fish rearing tanks (10, see fig 7), and
(iii) one or more biofilters (biofilter module 12, 14, see fig 7) each coupled in parallel to a water pump system for scalable yield and management (water pump 74), the method comprising:
determining a plant production value for the hydroponic production system (based on plants in fig 7, 6 boards, see also col 5, lines 27-37, fish and plant production based on space/number of fish, as per Applicant’s specification, the plant production value is the yield of plants, based on the boards in a given grow area, see spec paras 0053 and 0058);
determining a required nitrogen production level to meet the plant production level (Nitrogen levels and ratios for different species, see col 8, lines 13-29);
determining a fish production value for the aquaculture production system based on the feed regimen and a number of fish (see col 5, lines 27-37, fish and plant production based on space/number of fish);
determining, based on a target retention time for each of the one or more plant beds, the one or more fish rearing tanks, and the one or more biofilters, a flow rate to each of the one or more plant beds, one or more fish rearing tanks, and the one or more biofilters (see col 13, lines 7-17, valves for flow rate, volumes of plants, see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7, see also 112(a) rejection above); and
operating the coupled aquaponics system based on the determined flow rates for each of the one or more plant beds, the one or more fish rearing tanks, and the one or more biofilters to provide the plant production value and the fish production value biofilters (see col 13, lines 7-17, valves for flow rate, volumes of plants, see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7, see also 112(a) rejection above).
Bodlovich fails to disclose determining a feed regimen required in the aquaculture production system to provide the required nitrogen production level.
Gordon teaches determining a feed regimen required in the aquaculture production system to provide the required nitrogen production level (software for feed regimen, see col 12, lines 46-63).
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 method of Bodlovich with the feed regimen determination of Gordon with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide more precise estimation of required food and therefore allow for accurate system design for both fish and plant needs.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1, and Bodlovich further discloses further comprising: determining a hydroponics production system area and an aquaculture production system area based on a grow facility area and a usage area ratio for the hydroponic production system and the aquaculture production system (see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7); determining volumes for the one or more plant beds based on the hydroponics production system area (see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7, size of planting area and fish tanks are co-dependent, see col 5, lines 17-27); determining volumes for the one or more fish tanks based on the aquaculture production system area (see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7, size of planting area and fish tanks are co-dependent, see col 5, lines 17-27); determining the flow rates to the one or more plant beds based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for the one or more plant beds (valves for flow rate, volumes of plants, see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7); and determining the flow rates to the one or more fish tanks based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for each of the one or more fish tanks (see 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1, and Bodlovich further discloses further wherein operating the aquaponics system further comprises determining an adjusted flow rate based on change in the target retention time for any one of the one or more plant beds, the one or more fish rearing tanks, and the one or more biofilters (change in flow, see col 8, lines 13-29, see also 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1, and Bodlovich further discloses wherein determining the plant production value comprises: determining an active grow area for the one or more plant beds in the hydroponics production system (see active grow area in fig 7, beds 18); determining a maximum number of deep water culture (DWC) boards that can be contained within the active grow area (see active grow area in fig 7, beds 18, see also col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7); determining the plant production value based on the number of DWC boards within the active grow area (see active grow area in fig 7, beds 18, see also col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the fish production value is determined based on a three-phase fish production model.
Gordon teaches wherein the fish production value is determined based on a three-phase fish production model (breeding, hatchery and grow-out, see col 8, lines 39-55).
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 method with the three-phase fish production model of Gordon with a reasonable expectation of success as this will account for changes in feeding requirements, size and weight, and therefore provide a more accurate estimation and ensure a precise system design.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 9, and Gordon further teaches wherein each of the three phases has a different feed conversion ratio (fish of different growth phases will have different feed conversion ratios due to their weight and feed requirements for growth, see col 8, lines 39-55 and col 12, lines 46-63).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovich (US 8677942 B2) in view of Gordon (US 11185057 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilmore (US 11297809 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1, and Bodlovich further discloses valves for controlling flow (see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7).
Bodlovich fails to disclose wherein operating the aquaponics system comprises manually adjusting valves coupled to the one or more plant beds and the one or more fish tanks to provide the determined flow rates.
Gilmore teaches wherein operating the aquaponics system comprises manually adjusting valves coupled to the one or more plant beds and the one or more fish tanks to provide the determined flow rates (manual control of valves, see col 7, lines 38-41).
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 valves with manual control as taught by Gilmore with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for precise control by the user.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 1, and Bodlovich further discloses valves for controlling flow (see col 5, lines 17-37 and fig 7).
Bodlovich fails to disclose wherein operating the aquaponics system comprises autonomously adjusting valves coupled to the one or more plant beds and the one or more fishtanks to provide the determined flow rates.
Gilmore teaches wherein operating the aquaponics system comprises autonomously adjusting valves coupled to the one or more plant beds and the one or more fishtanks to provide the determined flow rates (automatic control of valves, see col 7, lines 38-41).
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 valves with automatic control as taught by Gilmore with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for a more efficient system that does not require user intervention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovich (US 8677942 B2) in view of Gordon (US 11185057 B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Allen (US 20230192520 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 2.
The modified reference fails to teach determining volumes for the one or more biofilters based on the feed regimen calculated to support plant and fish population within the coupled aquaponics system; and determining the flow rates to the one or more biofilters based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for each of the one or more biofilters within the coupled aquaponics system.
Allen teaches determining volumes for the one or more biofilters based on the feed regimen calculated to support plant and fish population within the coupled aquaponics system (see 112(a) rejection above); and determining the flow rates to the one or more biofilters based on the determined volumes and the target retention time for each of the one or more biofilters within the coupled aquaponics system (biofilter rates and timing, see para 0060).
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 method with the biofilter flow rate determination based on the time as taught by Allen with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the optimal solids removal is achieved (see para 00600, nitrogen and phosphorous removal).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovich (US 8677942 B2) in view of Gordon (US 11185057 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Belmonte (US 10034440 B2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the method of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plant production value is determined based on a three-phased staggered production system model.
Belmonte teaches wherein the plant production value is determined based on a three-phased staggered production system model (staggered production model, see col 1, lines 22-27).
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 plant production value to be determined with a staggered model as taught by Belmonte with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide continuous production and therefore overall more efficient crop yield.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar aquaponics systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Michaels and Dickerson disclose details regarding stocking density and diameter to depth ratios.
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