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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malone (US 11,219,194).
Regarding claim 1, Malone teaches an aquaponics system (an aquaculture system (system includes a hydroponics system, making this an aquaponics system); abstract), comprising:
an aquaculture system coupled to a hydroponics system (some of this flow can be diverted via flow 13 as needed to provide nutrients for the growth of the plants in hydroponic system 4 (flow is from an aquaculture system); FIG. 2A, column 6 lines 9-11), the aquaculture system, comprising:
a fish tank ( the invention employs a fish tank; column 3 lines 34-35),
a digestor assembly coupled to the fish tank (a slip stream flow 21 directly from the fish tank to the mineralization basin by a conduit (mineralization basin is a digestor); FIG. 2B, column 6 lines 47-48),
a media bed coupled to the digestor assembly (the exchange being defined by the high solids loading associated with flow 11 into the mineralization basin and the lower solids loading of the returning flow 14 to the bioclarifier (bioclarifier contains a bead bed); FIG. 2B, column 5 lines 53-56), and
a fill tank coupled to the media bed (a charge chamber 54 is positioned beneath the bead bed and is equipped with a trigger 55; FIG. 4A, column 9 lines 48-49);
wherein nutrient-rich water is configured to flow from the fill tank to the hydroponic system (some of this flow can be diverted via flow 13 as needed to provide nutrients for the growth of the plants in hydroponic system 4 (flow is from bioclarifier, which contains the fill tank, to the hydroponic system); FIG. 2A, column 6 lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 2, Malone teaches wherein the digestor assembly comprises a skimmer tank (the suspended solids captured in the charge chamber settle out into the lower reaches of the filter hull 58, ultimately consolidating into a sludge concentration space or sludge chamber
56 (charge chamber and sludge chamber are a skimmer tank); FIG. 4A, column 10 lines 16-19) and a digestor tank (the mineralization basin 3 provides for aerobic digestion of the solids (mineralization basin is a digestor tank); FIG. 2A, column 5 line 33-34).
Regarding claim 3, Malone teaches wherein the skimmer tank comprises an outlet conduit configured to provide water to the media bed (internal air surface 48 is formed as the water is displaced downward as it escapes though gap 62 (gap allows for outlet of water, water will contact media bed); FIG. 4A, column 9 lines 51-53), and a solids valve configured to release undissolved solids into the digestor tank (pressures within the sludge compartment 64 sufficient to lift a portion of the accumulated sludge out of an elevated conduit 63 that leads to the sludge discharge 15; FIG. 4B, column 10 lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 4, Malone teaches wherein the digestor tank comprises an aeration stone coupled to an air pump (air is injected through an air stone (air comes from an air pump);
FIG. 3C, column 8 lines 63), a recycling pump configured to cycle contents of the digestor tank (the basin 3 is aerated by a simple air injection line 32 to induce air bubble input near the bottom inducing aeration and mixing (mixing cycles contents); FIG. 3C, column 8 lines 60-62), and a spigot to release the contents of the digestor tank (excess sludges can be removed via port 15; FIG. 3C, column 9 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 18, Malone teaches a method of using an aquaponics system (an aquaculture system (system includes a hydroponics system, making this an aquaponics system); abstract), comprising:
coupling an aquaculture system to a hydroponic system (some of this flow can be diverted via flow 13 as needed to provide nutrients for the growth of the plants in hydroponic system 4 (flow is from an aquaculture system); FIG. 2A, column 6 lines 9-11),
wherein the hydroponic system is configured to automatically cycle water therethrough using one or more solenoid valves (the sludge is discharged by reactivation of pump 73 and the opening of solenoid 94 controlling the discharge 11 to the basin 3 (pressure of fluid through solenoid cycles water through system); FIG. 4C, column 15 line 67, column 16 lines 1-2),
including the steps of: feeding water and fish waste from a fish tank to a digestor assembly (a slip stream flow 21 directly from the fish tank to the mineralization basin by a conduit (mineralization basin is a digestor); FIG. 2B, column 6 lines 47-48),
the digestor assembly comprising a skimmer tank (the suspended solids captured in the charge chamber settle out into the lower reaches of the filter hull 58, ultimately consolidating into a sludge concentration space or sludge chamber 56 (charge chamber and sludge chamber are a skimmer tank); FIG. 4A, column 10 lines 16-19) and
a digestor tank (the mineralization basin 3 provides for aerobic digestion of the solids (mineralization basin is a digestor tank); FIG. 2A, column 5 line 33-34);
using the skimmer tank to separate undissolved solids from the water (the suspended solids captured in the charge chamber settle out into the lower reaches of the filter hull 58, ultimately consolidating into a sludge concentration space or sludge chamber 56 (charge chamber and sludge chamber are a skimmer tank, settling separates undissolved solids); FIG. 4A, column 10 lines 16-19);
releasing the undissolved solids into the digestor tank (pressures within the sludge compartment 64 sufficient to lift a portion of the accumulated sludge out of an elevated conduit 63 that leads to the sludge discharge 15 (sludge discharge is to a digestor tank); FIG. 4B, column 10 lines 46-49),
wherein the digestor tank is configured to chum the undissolved solids and create a soil amendment (the basin 3 is aerated by a simple air injection line 32 to induce air bubble input near the bottom inducing aeration and mixing (mixing cycles contents); FIG. 3C, column 8 lines 60-62);
feeding the water from the skimmer tank to a media bed for further filtering, wherein the water is siphoned into a fill tank (the exchange being defined by the high solids loading associated with flow 11 into the mineralization basin and the lower solids loading of the returning flow 14 to the bioclarifier (bioclarifier contains a bead bed, chamber below bead bed is a fill tank); FIG. 2B, column 5 lines 53-56); and
providing the water from the fill tank to the hydroponic system (some of this flow can be diverted via flow 13 as needed to provide nutrients for the growth of the plants in hydroponic system 4 (flow is from an aquaculture system); FIG. 2A, column 6 lines 9-11) and
back to the fish tank (the hull operates under a head pressure, typically in the 5-20 psi range, with the water passing through the bead bed 51 before returning flow 12 to the tank; FIG. 2A, column 15 lines 32-34).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 11,219,194) in view of Hori et al. (US 2016/0113222 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Malone does not expressly disclose wherein the media bed comprises a bell siphon surrounded by lava rock.
However, in an analogous aquaponics art, Hori discloses wherein the media bed comprises a bell siphon (the water would go through the bell siphon 103 which drains the overflown automatically from each layer of grow-bed through the drainage system; FIG. 1, [0048]) surrounded by lava rock (bed can be hydroton or black cinder evenly layed on the bottom of each grow bed (black cinder is lava rock); [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Malone wherein the media bed comprises a bell siphon surrounded by lava rock, as taught by Hori, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the advantage of passively and automatically draining media beds as well as utilizing a media bed material that has many positive qualities as a grow media, such as a neutral pH and high porosity.
Regarding claim 6, Hori further discloses wherein the bell siphon is configured to siphon water through the lava rock and into the fill tank (the multi-layered aquaponics system further comprise of a water circulation system which circulates water from the fish tank through at least one layer of grow-bed and back to the fish tank (grow bed is comprised of lava rock, water travels to fish tank via siphon through grow bed); [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Malone wherein the bell siphon is configured to siphon water through the lava rock and into the fill tank, as taught by Hori, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the advantage of ensuring the media bed has sufficient water to grow plants.
Regarding claim 11, Hori further discloses wherein the hydroponic system comprises grow racks (multi-layered aquaponics system, with four layers being plant grow-beds 109 on the top and one layer being the fish tank 108 located at the lowest level touching the ground surface (each grow bed is a grow rack); FIG. 1, [0034]) and grow lights (each layer consists of LED growth-light 107 as a source of light for cultivation; FIG. 1, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Malone wherein the hydroponic system comprises grow racks and grow lights, as taught by Hori, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the advantage of increasing the growth of plants in a smaller area by allowing for stacking media beds vertically and providing dedicated light sources to each grow rack.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 11,219,194) in view of Leslie (US 2013/0247462 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Malone discloses wherein water flows from the fill tank to the hydroponic system via one or more inlets, the one or more inlets configured to provide the water to a first row of a plurality of rows (the bead filter is also equipped with a secondary port above the screen capable of delivering water 13 to the hydroponic plant systems, therefore the system is capable of providing water to a first row of a plurality of rows; FIG. 2A, column 15 lines 44-46).
Malone does not expressly disclose the water configured to flow to each subsequent row via respective overflow tubes.
However, in an analogous hydroponic art, Leslie discloses the water configured to flow to each subsequent row via respective overflow tubes (the shoulder or chute of the overflow level arrangement of each flood tray drains or discharges into a chute which is connected to a flood tray located at an adjacent layer below; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Malone to further include the water configured to flow to each subsequent row via respective overflow tubes, as taught by Leslie, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the advantage of reducing water waste by reusing excess water from higher rows to water subsequent rows.
Regarding claim 19, Malone discloses wherein the water from the fill tank enters a top row of a plurality of rows of a grow rack of the hydroponic system (the bead filter is also equipped with a secondary port above the screen capable of delivering water 13 to the hydroponic plant systems, therefore the system is capable of providing water to a top row of a plurality of rows; FIG. 2A, column 15 lines 44-46).
Malone does not expressly disclose wherein the water flows to each subsequent row via an overflow outlet and overflow tube.
However, in an analogous hydroponic art, Leslie discloses wherein the water flows to each subsequent row via an overflow outlet and overflow tube (the shoulder or chute of the overflow level arrangement of each flood tray drains or discharges into a chute which is connected to a flood tray located at an adjacent layer below; [0030]). (the shoulder or chute of the overflow level arrangement of each flood tray drains or discharges into a chute which is connected to a flood tray located at an adjacent layer below; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of wherein the water flows to each subsequent row via an overflow outlet and overflow tube, as taught by Leslie, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the advantage of reducing water waste by reusing excess water from higher rows to water subsequent rows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
Malone, Hori, and Leslie fail to disclose wherein the hydroponic system comprises one or more grow racks that further comprise at least one solenoid valve for actuating one-way valves of respective drain tubes. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the relevant date to have employed this system, because none of the references uncovered disclosed the nuances of the instant claim in a cumulative manner while still allowing for a plausible motivation to combine said references. Furthermore, the systems of Hori and Leslie teach away from utilizing solenoid valves, with Hori utilizing bell siphons, where valves could interrupt the intended operation of the siphon by preventing draining when the water level gets too high, and Leslie draining overflow over shoulders and/or weir edges, which cannot be modulated by a valve. The references taken solely, or in combination, fail to provide the required limitations, and modification of any complementary combination of the references of record would be impermissible and not provide any advantages over the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights