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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 legal phraseology “means”. 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 3, “wherin” should be --wherein--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 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 5 recites the limitation "said water inlets and said water outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the water inlet or the water outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the water outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the water outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the slaughter time of the fish or shrimp" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, “a means for recirculating water” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification identifies the means for recirculating as an air lift pump, a centrifugal pump, an axial flow pump, or equivalents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,014,647 to Woltman.
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).
Regarding Claim 2, Woltman 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 20, Woltman 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 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 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 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) 3 and 16 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 Claim 3, 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 16, Woltman is silent on teaching 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. However, 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 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.
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 PCT WO 2020227831 to Holder et al.
Regarding Claim 18, Woltman 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 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/10.5555/20123260560] February 2012, 11 pages.
Regarding Claim 26, Woltman 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 Pub. No. 2023/0225366 to Feinberg et al.
Regarding Claim 27, Woltman 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).
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 aquaculture system and method with each tank having a tank specific water treatment unit: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0101539.
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
14 April 2026
Prosecution Insights