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 § 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,014,647 to Woltman in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,447,681 to Carlberg et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Woltman teaches an aquaculture system and method of
farming aquatic organisms, the system comprising: at least two farming tanks (Woltman Fig. 1
and 2 #10); at least one tank-specific water treatment unit (Woltman Fig. 2 #14, #48, and #52)
that is connected to one of the farming tanks and configured to treat water of said tank; at least
one shared water treatment unit (Woltman Fig. 1 #31) that is connected to all of the farming
tanks (Woltman Fig. 1 #34 and #32) and configured to treat water that is recirculating in the
system; and a means for recirculating water in the system (Woltman Fig. 1 #26 and Fig. 2 #62
pumps; applicant has invoked 112(f) the pumps of Woltman are an equivalent mechanical water
circulation device).
Woltman teaches administering water to the tanks wherein each tank comprises a water inlet that is connected to the recirculation (Woltman Fig. 1 #36 and #36 connected to each tank #10 and to recirculation #31 and #28), but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein at least one of the at least two farming tanks comprises a new water inlet that is connected to a new water line. However, Carlberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an aquaculture system with a new water inlet that is connected to a new water line (Carlberg Fig. 1 #15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Carlberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for replenishment as taught by Carlberg (Carlberg Col. 13 line 30-31). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Woltman as modified teaches the farming tanks are land-based tanks or floating tanks (Woltman land-based drains solids to a land-based drying pond; applicant does not provide structural features in the claim the permit specific land or floating configurations; the system of Woltman is not suspended nor in a non-gravity state so it satisfies the limitation of being land based).
Regarding Claim 4, Woltman as modified teaches wherein each tank comprises a water outlet that is connected to a common effluent water line (Woltman Fig. 1 #32 and #34), and wherein said common effluent water line is connected to an inlet of said at least one shared water treatment unit (Woltman Fig. 1 #31).
Regarding Claim 5, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said water inlets and said water outlet of the tanks are configured to be disconnectable from the system and reconnectable to the system (Woltman teaches the inlet and outlet are pipes and pipes are configured and capable of being disconnected and reconnected via valves and couplers, applicant hasn't claimed the structure of a specific coupler, joint, or valve nor does applicant specifically claim at what exact location along the system is the disconnect/connection point and the pipes of Woltman satisfy the broad nature of the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 6, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said at least one tank-specific water treatment unit comprises a tank-specific unit (Woltman Fig. 2 #14, #48, #52) for aeration of the water in the tank and/or exchange of gases in the water of the tank.
Regarding Claim 7, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said aeration and/or exchange of gases comprises supplementation of air or oxygen into the water of the tank (Woltman #14 and #48; Col. 2 lines 21-25 claim 4), or wherein said aeration or exchange of gases comprises removal of carbon dioxide from the water of the tank.
Regarding Claim 9, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said at least one tank-specific water treatment unit comprises a tank-specific unit for removal of solid matter from the water of the tank (Woltman Fig. 2 #22 and #66), and wherein the solid matter comprises settleable solid
matter or coarse solid matter (Woltman settleable solid matter Col. 4 lines 1-11).
Regarding Claim 11, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said tank-specific unit for removal of solid matter comprises a gravity-based settler (Woltman Fig. 2 gravity based down via #22 down #24 to #66 and final settlement in #72).
Regarding Claim 13, Woltman as modified teaches said at least one shared water treatment unit comprises a shared unit for removal of solid matter from the recirculating water (Woltman Fig. 1 #31 and Fig. 5), and wherein said solid matter comprises fine solid matter (Woltman Col. 4 lines 39-62; applicant doesn't claim a fine particulate size or screen size and thus Woltman satisfies the broad nature of the claim).
Regarding Claim 15, Woltman as modified teaches said shared unit for removal of solid matter comprises a filter, a drum filter, a drum screen, a belt filter, or a flotation unit (Woltman Fig. 1 #31 and Fig. 5, teaches a filter).
Regarding Claim 16, Woltman as modified teaches wherein said at least one shared
water treatment unit comprises a shared unit for biological treatment of the recirculating water
and wherein said shared unit for biological treatment comprises a moving bed bioreactor,
a fixed bed bioreactor, a fluidized bed bioreactor or a trickling tower bioreactor. Carlberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a fluidized bed bioreactor and fixed bed bioreactor in an aquaculture system (Carlberg
Fig.1 #30, fluid flows through the bed; wetlands #44is a fixed bed bioreactor). It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Carlberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to treat the water as taught by Carlberg. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Woltman as modified teaches wherein each of the at least two farming tanks is operated according to flow-thru, partial recirculation or recirculation principle, independently of each other (Woltman Fig. 1 recirculation).
Regarding Claim 21, Woltman as modified teaches wherein, at intervals, at least one of the at least two farming tanks is operated according to flow-thru principle, wherein the water inlet and the water outlet of said tank have been disconnected from the recirculation (Woltman Col. 3 lines 45-55, tanks can be isolated from other tanks).
Regarding Claim 22, Woltman as modified teaches wherein, at intervals, at least one of the at least farming tanks is operated according to partial recirculation principle, wherein either the water inlet or the water outlet of said tank has been disconnected from the recirculation (Woltman Col. 3 lines 45-55, tanks can be isolated from other tanks via valves #58).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,014,647 to Woltman in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,447,681 to Carlberg et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PCT WO 2020227831 to Holder et al.
Regarding Claim 18, Woltman as modified teaches a pump (Woltman #26 and #62), but is silent on explicitly teaching said means for recirculating water comprises an airlift pump, a centrifugal pump or an axial-flow pump. However, Holder teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a centrifugal pump (Holder paragraph [0025] and [0030]) in an aquaculture system application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Holder before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently deliver water as taught by Holder. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known pump or another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 26 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,014,647 to Woltman in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,447,681 to Carlberg et al as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Biosecurity in Aquaculture, Part 2: Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, by Roy P. E. Yanong [retrieved from internet 14 April 2026 https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20123260580] February 2012, 11 pages.
Regarding Claim 26, Woltman as modified teaches further comprising: closing valves to
isolate/disconnect the water outlet of a tank from the system, treating the fish or shrimp in the
tank with a drug, and after ending said treatment and after a determined withdrawal period has
lapsed, reconnecting the water outlet of the tank to the system (Woltman Col. 3 lines 45-55 and
Fig.2 #52, Col. 4 line 26-27), but is silent on disconnecting the water outlet of a tank from the
system, directing effluent water from the tank to outside the system. However, Yanong teaches
the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is a known method step to
disconnect a tank outlet and direct effluent water from the tank to outside the system (Yanong
page 5 and 6 "Any discharge or wastes from systems housing diseased animals should flow into a sequestered area for appropriate disinfection" and "Individual tanks or vats within a system
should be plumbed to allow them to be taken off-line and isolated, should there be a disease
outbreak. This can be achieved by plumbing in an extra set of inflow and outflow lines to allow
conversion to a flow-through or static system.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of
Woltman with the teachings of Yanong before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
with a reasonable expectation of success to control the spread of disease as taught by Yanong.
The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, Woltman as modified teaches further comprising: disconnecting the
water outlet of a tank from the system (Woltman Col. 3 lines 45-55; element #58; Yanong page
5 and 6), directing effluent water from the tank to outside the system (Yanong page 6),
disinfecting the tank (Yanong page 6 "Cleaning and disinfecting"), introducing new fish or shrimp to the tank, and after a period of time, after the health status of the fish or shrimp has been confirmed (Yanong teaches quarantining fish page 7 and 8), reconnecting the water outlet of the tank to the system (Woltman reconnect via #58 open state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Yanong before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control the spread of disease as taught by Yanong. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,014,647 to Woltman in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,447,681 to Carlberg et al as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0225366 to Feinberg et al.
Regarding Claim 27, Woltman as modified is silent on purging step. However, Feinberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known upon reaching the slaughter time of the fish or shrimp in a tank, purging the fish or shrimp respectively by: providing disinfected water to the tank, during a purging period, allowing off-flavour substances to become purged from the fish or shrimp, after said purging period, harvesting the fish or shrimp from the tank for slaughter (Feinberg paragraph [0007], [0077], [0004], [0010], claim 8; water from a public water source is "disinfected water" applicant doesn't claim a special disinfecting step of the water nor what is used to disinfect it, "clean" water of Feinberg satisfies the limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Feinberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to improve flavour for human consumption as taught by Feinberg. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 28, Woltman as modified teaches before providing disinfected water to
the tank: disconnecting the water inlet of the tank from the recirculation (Woltman teaches tank
isolation step via valve #58; Col. 3 lines 45-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner does not agree with applicant’s reasoning. The current claim language added to the independent claims merely states “wherein at least one of the at least two farming tanks comprises a new water inlet that is connected to a new water line, and wherein each tank comprises a water inlet that is connected to the recirculation.” This claim language is not explicit about requiring that these are two separate lines nor does the language exclude the new inlet feeding into a shared line with the recirculated water. The claim does not specify where the tank inlet is located. In other words, the tank inlet of Carlbeg could be at the juncture of the both the new and recycled lines (Carlberg Fig. 1 the point where #15 and #64 meet could be interpreted as the water inlet). The claim does not specify that these enter directly into the tanks form independent and separate lines at different spots on the tank. It is the examiner’s position that Woltman as modified by Carlberg satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitations.
Carlberg element #15 is the new water line and where it discharges into the tanks or where it meets with the recirculated water line #64 is the new water inlet.
Woltman teaches administering water to the tanks wherein each tank comprises a water inlet that is connected to the recirculation (Woltman Fig. 1 #36 and #36 connected to each tank #10 and to recirculation #31 and #28), but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein at least one of the at least two farming tanks comprises a new water inlet that is connected to a new water line. However, Carlberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an aquaculture system with a new water inlet that is connected to a new water line (Carlberg Fig. 1 #15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woltman with the teachings of Carlberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for replenishment as taught by Carlberg (Carlberg Col. 13 line 30-31). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Carlberg is an improvement on the base device of Woltman because it considers evaporation and provides new water to address this issue to insure the proper amount of water is available for operation of the system. Carlberg teaches providing a new water inlet and inlet line as a known technique applicable to Woltman to address water lost from evaporation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Carlbeg is a known technique that would improve the system of Woltman by replenishing the system with new water to address the water lost from evaporation.
Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that Woltman as the primary reference teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the recirculated water but was merely silent on the new water. Carlberg was merely cited as a secondary reference teaching the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to feed both new water from a new water line. Howerver, Carlberg even goes a step further by teaching the general knowledge that it is know to provide both a new water inlet line and recirculated water from a recirculation line into farm tanks,
Even if the claim language was amended to more clearly specify what applicant is arguing the examiner would like to bring to attention U.S. Patent No. 2018/0116184 to Kemp et al Fig. 9 #111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123 new water inlets lines into tanks and separated water inlet line of recycled water from #124. Applicant this cited reference on the IDS US PTO-1449 filed 26 January 2026. It clearly teaches it is known to provide separate independent lines for new water and recycled water into farming tanks, but was not used in the current grounds of rejection because the teachings of Carlberg satisfies the broad nature of the current claim limitations regarding a new and recycled water inlet.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
05 October 2026
