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 1-5 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 1 is an indefinite claim because it is a mix of apparatus and method limitations and a claim can merely be on or the other. The beginning of the claim is written as an apparatus claim and the second half of the claim is written as a method claim. A claim can’t be both an apparatus claim and a method claim. Correction and clarification is requested.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,871,820 to Hayden in view of European Patent EP 2153718 to Kaiser, U.S. Patent No. 4,043,299 to Birkbeck, U.S. Patent No. 5,367,985 to Wilkins, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0139456 to Lin, China Patent No. 107494394 to Shi et al, Japan Patent JP 05292852 to Uki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Hayden teaches a self-cleaning cultivation method for a burrowing shellfish, implemented by using a self- cleaning cultivation device for the burrowing shellfish, wherein the self-cleaning cultivation device comprises a cultivation box (Hayden Fig. 1 #11), wherein a bottom end inside the cultivation box is provided with a cultivation substrate (Hayden Fig. 2 #16), the cultivation substrate comprises a bottom plate (Hayden Fig. 2 #10), a second drain pipe (Hayden Fig. 2 pipe portion between #13 and #21), and a plurality of exhaust pipes (Hayden Fig. 1 #15), a gas delivery pipe (Hayden Fig. 1 #18 and #19) is installed inside the bottom plate, an end of the gas delivery pipe is provided with an inflation connection port (Hayden Fig. 1 #21), the inflation connection port is connected to an air pump (Hayden Fig. 1 #23) through an inflation pipeline (Hayden Fig. 1 #14), the second drain pipe is installed at a middle end inside the bottom plate (Hayden Fig. 1 pipe portion connected between #22 and bottom of #13), a first end of the second drain pipe is provided with an inner connection drain port (Hayden Fig. 1 #22), a blowdown pipe (Hayden Fig. 1 #13) is connected onto the inner connection drain port, first drain pipe connection port (Hayden top end of #13), a top of the first drain pipe is connected to a funnel (Hayden Fig. 1 structure between top end of #13 and below #24, it’s not numbered).
Hayden is silent on a serpentine gas delivery pipe pattern. However, Kaiser teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to have delivery pipes in a serpentine pattern under a bottom plate (Kaiser Fig.4a-4b #20/#18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Kaiser before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently fit for maximum coverage area. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Hayden as modified teaches a cultivation substrate (Hayden Fig. 2 #16), but is silent on explicitly teaching glass beads. However, Birkbeck teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to select glass beads as a cultivation substrate (Birbeck Claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Birkbeck before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ease of cleaning and recycling. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known substrate for another yielding predictable results.
Hayden as modified is silent on a top of each of the plurality of exhaust pipes is provided with a screen, and an aperture of the screen is 0.2 to 0.5 mm. However, Wilkins teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a screen over an exhaust pipe (Wilkins Fig. 5 #36, #16, #22’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Wilkins before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to regulate as taught by Wilkins. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Hayden as modified is silent on the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify he teaching of Hayden before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to supply a desired amount of air. However, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range in the specification. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hayden as modified is silent on a side of the cultivation substrate is provided with a water inlet, the water inlet is connected to a tap water pipe, and a second valve is installed on the tap water pipe at the water inlet; a first valve; and a programmable logic controller; water level sensor. However, Lin teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a water inlet connected to a tap water pipe (Lin paragraph [0029]); and a second valve (Line Fig. 2 #1561b) is installed on the tap water pipe at the water inlet; a first valve (Lin #1561a); and a programmable logic controller (Lin Fig. 1 #130; paragraph [0023]-[0024]); water level sensor (Lin #110; paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to maintain optimal operating conditions as taught by Lin. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Hayden as modified by Lin teaches valves, but is silent on explicitly teaching solenoid valves. However, the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for remote and automatic control. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known valve for another to obtain predictable results., “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hayden as modified teaches the self-cleaning cultivation method comprises steps as follows: S1: placing a bivalve burrowing shellfish in the cultivation box, and generating feces and leftover baits on the plurality of glass beads at the top of the cultivation substrate after days of a cultivation; 82: setting, by a programmable logic controller (PLC) control panel, the air pump to be started, inputting air into the serpentine gas delivery pipe when the air pump works, exhausting gas through the plurality of exhaust pipes at the top of the serpentine gas delivery pipe, blowing the feces and the leftover baits attached to the plurality of glass beads at a bottom into water, and blocking, by the screen at the top of each of the plurality of exhaust pipes, glass balls from entering the plurality of exhaust pipes in exhausting the gas.
Hayden is silent on explicitly teaching the air pump to be started once every three days, with each operation lasting 10 to 15 min; or three days of feces. However, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed time frames in the specification. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize health and efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hayden as modified teaches controlling valves and components of the cultivation box with PLC, but is silent on discharge of feces and collecting and discharging the water containing the feces and the leftover baits through the funnel with a pre-set height; and after a sewage in the cultivation box is discharged, opening the second valve on the tap water pipe and replenishing the water with tap water, when a set water level is reached, controlling, by a liquid level sensor, the second solenoid valve on the tap water pipe to be closed, thus completing a water changing and cleaning work. However, Uki teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to discharge of feces and collecting and discharging the water containing the feces and the leftover baits; and after a sewage in the cultivation box is discharged, opening the second valve on the tap water pipe and replenishing the water with tap water, when a set water level is reached, controlling, by a liquid level sensor, the second solenoid valve on the tap water pipe to be closed, thus completing a water changing and cleaning work (Uki Fig. 1 #7, #9, #10). Uki teaches the general knowledge that it is known to collect the waste and feces and remove it from the cultivation box controlled by valves and to replenish lost water with new fresh water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Uki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to eliminate dirty stagnate water as taught by Uki. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Hayden is the primary reference and modifications made to Hayden in the above paragraphs are merely the applications of known techniques in the art of aquaculture and obvious engineering design choices that yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Hayden as modified teaches the funnel (Hayden Fig. 1 structure between #24 and top of #13), but is silent on is connected to the top of the first drain pipe by first threads, and a bottom of the first drain pipe is connected to the first drain pipe connection port at the second end of the second drain pipe by second threads; the plurality of exhaust pipes are connected to the serpentine gas delivery pipe by threads. However, Wilkins teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to connect cultivation components via threaded connections (Wilkins Fig. 5c #34’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Wilkins before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ergonomic ease of assembly. The modification is merely an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Hayden as modified is silent on the first drain pipe is a telescopic pipeline. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and notoriously well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art to make items tubular members telescopic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Hayden before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for adjustability to accommodate different size cultivation boxes. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Hayden as modified teaches a particle size of each of the plurality of glass beads is 0.6 to 1 mm within the claimed ranges (Birkbeck Col. 2 lines 65-66), but is silent on the lower and upper limits of the claimed range. However, applicant does not provide criticality for the range within the specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art further modify the teachings of Hayden with the teachings of Birkbeck before the filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for proper filtration as taught by Birkbeck. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable salutation with a reasonable expectation of success and/or the simple substitution of one known size range for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to aquatic cultivation boxes and operation: U.S. Patent No. 5,269,914; U.S. Patent No. 5,690,054; U.S. Patent No. 7,631,616; U.S. Patent No. 8,246,831.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
27 October 2025