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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on March 17, 2026. Claims 14-17 have been canceled. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant has additionally cancelled claims 14-17, drawn to non-elected Invention II.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
It includes the phrase “Disclosed is…” It is suggested to amend the first sentence of the abstract to read as --An apparatus and a method for guiding and transferring marine organisms, such as fish, from a fish tank uses a suction system coupled to the center part of a horizontally positioned guiding grid that moves upward in the water space in the fish tank.--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5 of 7, line 12, it appears the word “guid” should read as --guide--.
On page 6 of 7, line 13, it appears the word “guid” should read as --guide--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 3, “vertical guides along a center column and a tank wall”.
In claim 8, “soft flexible plastic-like lamellae against the tank wall and the center column”.
In claim 11, “a pump”.
In claim 13, “visual and acoustic methods, such as cameras, hydrophones, and/or radar”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "14" and "16" have both been used to designate “suction arrangement” (see for example, page 6 of 7, lines 9 and 11).
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: “10” and “14a” in Fig. 1-3.
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
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Applicant is suggested to provide a new line for each claim limitation. Per 37 CFR 1.75, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.
In claims 1 and 10, it appears extra spaces are included surrounding commas. Applicant is encouraged to remove excess spaces to improve formatting consistency across claims.
In claims 1, 2, 6-7, 9, and 11, Applicant is suggested to amend limitations reading as “the suction arrangement” to --the at least one suction arrangement-- in order to further clarify the claim scope.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation “the guiding grid’s central channel” to --the central channel of the guiding grid-- in order to improve readability of the claim.
In claim 6, line 2, Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation “said recess” to --said at least one recess-- in order to further clarify the claim scope.
In claim 11, lines 2-3, Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation “a pump that lifts the marine organisms out of the tank” to --a pump configured to lift the marine organisms out of the tank-- in order to further clarify the claim scope.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suction arrangement for the removal of liquid and marine organisms” in claim 1, lines 2-3.
This limitation has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “arrangement” and functional language “suction” and “for the removal of liquid and marine organisms” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The Examiner notes that the specification discloses what the “arrangement” comprises on page 6/7, lines 14-15 and page 7/7, lines 3-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Below are examples of indefiniteness issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); however, Applicant is suggested to review the claims for additional indefiniteness issues.
Claim 1, lines 4-5, recites the limitation “the horizontally perforated guiding grid”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid” or to a different element, and the scope of the claims is thus rendered indefinite. Claims 2-13 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the guiding grid is raised in the tank…”. However, this limitation appears to read as a step of a method and not as a descriptor of an apparatus. Since the limitation appears to combine elements of an apparatus with elements of a method, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “tank” is not positively recited; however, in claim 2, “the tank” appears to be included as a positive recitation. It is thus also unclear whether or not the tank of claim 2 is positively required. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Similarly, claim 3, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the guiding grid is moved vertically up and down in the tank…”. However, this limitation appears to read as a step of a method and not as a descriptor of an apparatus. Since the limitation appears to combine elements of an apparatus with elements of a method, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “tank” is not positively recited; however, in claim 3, “the tank” and a “tank wall” appear to be included as positive recitations. It is thus also unclear whether or not the tank and tank wall of claim 3 are positively required. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 4, lines 1-3, recites “wherein the guiding grid has a central channel, configured to direct the marine organisms towards this channel”. However, it is unclear how the channel itself is or would be capable of directing marine organisms towards itself. It is specifically unclear whether the central channel is or would be capable of guiding marine organisms towards itself by virtue of its shape, positioning, or relationship with other elements, and nothing recited in the claims explains how such a function is made possible. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 8, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “with soft flexible plastic-like lamellae”. The term "plastic-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "plastic-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, it is unclear whether the term “plastic-like” refers to specific materials or material properties, and it is further unclear what materials or structures would be considered as being “plastic-like”. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “tank” is not positively recited; however, in claim 8, “the tank wall” appears to be included as a positive recitation. It is thus also unclear whether or not the tank wall of claim 8 is positively required. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 10, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “with openings tailored to the size of the marine organisms in the tank”. However, the scope of this limitation appears indefinite, as it is made unclear by the phrase “tailored to” whether the size of the openings is set to a specific dimension, or whether the size of the openings is changed during use of the device. In situations wherein larger marine organisms are harvested with the device, then smaller marine organisms are later harvested with the same device, it is unclear how the openings would be capable of being “tailored to” the size of the each of the sizes of marine organisms. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “tank” is not positively recited; however, in claim 10, “the tank” appears to be included as a positive recitation. It is thus also unclear whether or not the tank of claim 10 is positively required. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a pump that lifts the marine organisms out of the tank…”. The Examiner notes that in claim 1, the “tank” is not positively recited; however, in claim 11, “the tank” and appears to be included as a positive recitation. It is thus also unclear whether or not the tank of claim 11 is positively required. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 12, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “wherein stress level and position of the marine organisms are monitored, and this information is used to control elevation of the horizontal guiding grid”. This claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: hardware capable of monitoring stress level and position of marine organisms and controlling elevation of the horizontal guiding grid. It is currently unclear how the claimed apparatus would be capable of executing such functions, and whether the functions are executed by the apparatus itself or by hand. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the horizontal guiding grid” in the claims. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 13, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “wherein visual and acoustic methods, such as cameras, hydrophones, and/or radar, are used to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms”. Regarding this limitation, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the phrase “visual and acoustic methods” (emphasis added) does not align with the listed items (i.e., “cameras, hydrophones, and/or radar), which are apparatuses/devices. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag discloses a device (arrangement 1) for the harvesting and transfer of live marine organisms from a tank (fig. 1; page 9/24, lines 5-7), wherein the device comprises at least one arrangement (“fish inlet” shown in fig. 4) for the removal of liquid and marine organisms (page 10/24, lines 9-16) and a horizontally arranged perforated guiding grid (“fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1), wherein the arrangement is centrally positioned directly above the horizontally perforated guiding grid (fig. 4), and the guiding grid is designed to be raised from an inactive position at the bottom of the tank (fig. 2) and vertically upward for the guiding of liquid and marine organisms out of the tank via the arrangement (fig. 3-4; page 9/24, line 34 – page 10/24, line 16).
Vatsvag does not appear to specifically wherein the at least one arrangement is a suction arrangement.
However, Ben-Tovim is in the field of marine organism harvest and transfer (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the at least one arrangement is a suction arrangement (first conduit 108 and second conduit 110 coupled to pump, creating flow 109 and 111; page 9/38, lines 12-25; page 11/38, lines 1-2; fig. 1a-1b).
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 device with arrangement for the removal of liquid and marine organisms of Vatsvag to have made the arrangement a suction arrangement as taught by Ben-Tovim with a reasonable expectation of success to more quickly and effectively draw marine organisms out of the tank (page 10/38, line 27 – page 11/38, line 2).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (from Ben-Tovim, piston head 104) is raised in the tank (from Ben-Tovim, reservoir 102) simultaneously with a constant water flow (from Ben-Tovim, flow 109 and 111) being introduced into and up through the suction arrangement (from Ben-Tovim, first conduit 108 and second conduit 110 coupled to pump; fig. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (from Ben-Tovim, piston head 104) has a central channel (from Ben-Tovim, channel formed by elevated walls 300a and 300b), configured to direct the marine organisms towards this channel when the guiding grid moves upward (from Ben-Tovim, fig. 6; page 15/38, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (“fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) is designed so that the center of the guiding grid and the suction arrangement (“fish inlet” shown in fig. 4) are positioned vertically lower than an outer edge of the guiding grid (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the guiding grid (“fish handling frame” shown in fig. 4, also shown as netting 12 in fig. 1) has a grid structure of mesh, grating, or lattice material (fig. 1) with openings tailored to the size of the marine organisms in the tank (fig. 1), allowing the marine organisms to pass through the openings of the guiding grid , while the liquid freely flows through the guiding grid (page 9/24, line 34 – page 10/24, line 16).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madsen et al. (US 2012/0167829 A1), hereinafter Madsen, and Osterhus et al. (US 2021/0400927 A1), hereinafter Osterhus.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the guiding grid is moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides along a center column and a tank wall.
However, Madsen is in the field of marine organism harvest and transfer (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (tension members 154) is moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides (longitudinal adjustment bars 118) along a center column (center spar buoy 110; fig. 3C; para [0040]).
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 device with guiding grid and center column of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the vertical guides along the center column as taught by Madsen with a reasonable expectation of success to better control movement of the guiding grid along the center column (para [0040]).
Additionally, Osterhus is in the field of fish harvest and transfer devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (elongated vertical support column 200 having longitudinal track 340) is moved vertically up and down in the tank movably attached to vertical guides (guiding recess 341) along a tank wall (vertical rods 313; fig. 5; para [0103]).
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 device with guiding grid and tank wall of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the vertical guides along the tank wall as taught by Osterhus with a reasonable expectation of success to better control movement of the guiding grid along the tank wall and to prevent unwanted rotation of the guiding grid relative to the tank wall (para [0103]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gjelseth et al. (NO 324024 B1), hereinafter Gjelseth.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 4, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the guiding grid's central channel comprises at least one recess.
However, Gjelseth is in the field of fish harvest and transfer devices (title; claim 1) and teaches wherein the guiding grid's central channel (channel 11) comprises at least one recess (fig. 3, downwardly recessed portion in which tubing is located).
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 device with guiding grid and central channel of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the at least one recess as taught by Gjelseth with a reasonable expectation of success to provide designated space for the suction arrangement outside of the marine organism cultivation space, such that the space for marine organism cultivation is more efficiently utilized (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the suction arrangement (from Gjelseth, fig. 3, shown as tubing) is arranged in said recess (from Gjelseth, fig. 3, downwardly recessed portion in which tubing is located).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the suction arrangement (from Gjelseth, fig. 3, shown as tubing) is located in said central channel (from Gjelseth, fig. 3, channel 11).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, Madsen et al. (US 2012/0167829 A1), hereinafter Madsen, and Osterhus et al. (US 2021/0400927 A1), hereinafter Osterhus, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hoff (NO 20201239 A1), hereinafter Hoff.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the guiding grid is constructed as a framework with an inner and outer ring with soft flexible plastic-like lamellae against the tank wall and the center column.
However, Hoff is in the field of fish harvest and transfer devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the guiding grid (collapsible material 3) is constructed as a framework (fig. 3 and 6) with an inner and outer ring (secondary hose 8a and hose 2; fig. 6) with soft flexible plastic-like lamellae (collar 6) against the tank wall (wall 10; fig. 4).
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 device with guiding grid of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the framework with inner and outer rings and lamellae as taught by Hoff with a reasonable expectation of success to allow vertical movement of the guiding grid without damage to surrounding structures.
Although Vatsvag as modified does not appear to specifically disclose soft flexible plastic-like lamellae against a center column, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided said lamellae against the center column, with the motivation of preventing damage to the center column during movement of the guiding grid, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vangen et al. (WO 2019/098847 A1), hereinafter Vangen.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the suction arrangement (from Ben-Tovim, first conduit 108, second conduit 110) is connected to a pump (from Ben-Tovim, “pump” page 11/38, lines 1-2) that lifts the marine organisms out of the tank (from Ben-Tovim, reservoir 102) through a piping (from Ben-Tovim, first conduit 108).
Vatsvag as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the piping is a flexible piping.
However, Vangen is in the field of marine organism harvest and transfer (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the piping is a flexible piping (hose 18).
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 device with suction arrangement with pump and piping of Vatsvag as modified to have made the piping a flexible piping as taught by Vangen with a reasonable expectation of success to limit injury to the marine organisms as they pass through the piping.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halachmi et al. (WO 2016/139663 A1), hereinafter Halachmi.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein stress level and position of the marine organisms are monitored, and this information is used to control elevation of the horizontal guiding grid.
However, Halachmi is in the field of fish harvest and transfer devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein stress level and position of the marine organisms are monitored (page 8/30, lines 16 – page 9/30, line 2), and this information is used to control elevation of the horizontal guiding grid (page 6/30, lines 3-6).
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 device with guiding grid of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the teaching of monitoring stress level and position of marine organisms within the device as taught by Halachmi with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the overall welfare of the marine organisms by addressing stressful environmental conditions (page 6/30, lines 3-6).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vatsvag (WO 2018/111111 A1), hereinafter Vatsvag, in view of Ben-Tovim et al. (WO 2013/108251 A2), hereinafter Ben-Tovim, and Halachmi et al. (WO 2016/139663 A1), hereinafter Halachmi, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kozachenok et al. (US 2021/0329892 A1), hereinafter Kozachenok.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Vatsvag as modified discloses the device according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein visual methods (from Halachmi, optical sensor 650), such as cameras, hydrophones, and/or radar, are used to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms (from Halachmi, page 11/30, lines 10-19, sensor 650 may include a camera).
Vatsvag as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein acoustic methods are used to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms.
However, Kozachenok is in the field of marine organism cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein acoustic methods are used to monitor the stress level and position of the marine organisms (para [0099]).
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 device of Vatsvag as modified to incorporate the teaching of using acoustic methods to monitor stress level and position of marine organisms within the device as taught by Kozachenok with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well understood mechanisms to improve overall welfare of marine organisms within the device (para [0001] and [0011]-[0012]).
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights