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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the primary reference fails to disclose or suggest that the apparatus be placed in the water (subsea) and there is no apparent reason to do so. Applicant points to Paragraph [0048] which suggests it’s a test apparatus for designing a generator containing a transparent section for what Applicant asserts to be observation from land. However, no where in Bai does it explicitly state that its device could not be placed underwater. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the apparatus claim placing it subsea and across the seabed is merely intended use and as such only requires the device have the inherent capability of being placed into the environment, it does not require the primary reference be in the environment. Furthermore, it is well known in the field of endeavor to utilize hydraulic transmissions for transference of power between a pump and generator/motor even subsea. For purposes of clarifying the record, Examiner has provided an additional reference which discloses the concept of a subsea hydraulic transmission between a pump and generator for a tidal power system.
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) 24, 27, 33, 39, 40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A in view of Lui et al., Tidal Current Turbine Based on Hydraulic Transmission System (hereinafter “Lui”) in further view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”).
In Reference to Claim 24:
Bai discloses a subsea long distance power transmission system: an electrically driven pumping station arranged to produce a flow of pressurised working fluid; an electricity generating station having an electrical generator coupled to a fluid powered machine, a supply duct arranged to convey the flow of working fluid from the pumping station to power the machine; a return duct that duct being arranged to convey the flow of working fluid from the generating station to the pumping station for represurization.
Bai fails to explicitly disclose a supply duct and return duct extending across the seabed between the pumping station and a generating station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits, Lui discloses a tidal wave conversion system wherein the pump is situated underwater and a duct connects the pump to the generating station via duct across the seabed. See, Figure 7.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai to place the transmission system in the subsea environment as taught by Lui because as discussed in Lui placing a hydrostatic transmission of Bai into the subsea environment over a traditional mechanical transmission allows for the advantage of less power fluctuations, better efficiency by allowing for tuning of the system to the energy output (adjustment of pump/motor). See, Figure 10 and 11 of Lui which shows consistent power output.
Bai as modified fails to disclose subsea installation connected to the generating station to be powered electrically by energy conveyed along the supply duct by the flow of working fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, remote power generator using ocean currents, Beck discloses a power generation facility 27 that through the use of an umbilical cord 35 electrical power from the generation facility to the control module 33 of the remote field 25 with subsea well heads for the wellheads ability to use the valves/actuators.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai with the teachings of Beck, specifically by modifying the generator of Bai to be capable of powering a remote field underwater with the addition of an umbilical cord because such a modification would solve the problem associated with hydrocarbon transportation long distances in remote deep locations where large power generation is difficult to reach (as discussed in paragraph [0007] of Beck).
In reference to Claim 40:
Bai discloses a method of transmitting power over a long distance underwater, the method comprising: supplying electric power (inherent as the electric motor 1 of the pump needs to be powered) from an electric power source to an electrically driven pumping station (2); using the electric power in the pumping station to produce a flow of pressurised working fluid ( See, Figure 1: through atleast conduit/pipes 2,4,5, and 9); conveying the flow of working fluid across the seabed (described as a tidual current generator which typically are located on the seabed) from the pumping station (2) to a machine (impeller part of generator 6) that is situated underwater and is remote from the pumping station; using the working fluid to power the machine; generating electric power in a generator (6) driven by the machine; and wherein the method further comprises: returning the flow of working fluid across the seabed from the machine to the pumping station (2), re-pressurising the flow and recirculating the flow back across the seabed to the machine in a closed loop. See, Figure 1 which illustrates a closed loop system.
Bai fails to explicitly disclose a supply duct and return duct extending across the seabed between the pumping station and a generating station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic circuits, Lui discloses a tidal wave conversion system wherein the pump is situated underwater and a duct connects the pump to the generating station via duct across the seabed. See, Figure 7.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai to place the transmission system in the subsea environment as taught by Lui because as discussed in Lui placing a hydrostatic transmission of Bai into the subsea environment over a traditional mechanical transmission allows for the advantage of less power fluctuations, better efficiency by allowing for tuning of the system to the energy output (adjustment of pump/motor). See, Figure 10 and 11 of Lui which shows consistent power output.
Bai as modified fails to explicitly disclose supplying the electric power from the generator to an electric power consumer situated underwater.
However, in the same field of endeavor, remote power generator using ocean currents, Beck discloses a power generation facility 27 that through the use of an umbilical cord 35 electrical power from the generation facility to the control module 33 of the remote field 25 with subsea well heads for the wellheads ability to use the valves/actuators.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai with the teachings of Beck, specifically by modifying the generator of Bai to be capable of powering a remote field underwater with the addition of an umbilical cord because such a modification would solve the problem associated with hydrocarbon transportation long distances in remote deep locations where large power generation is difficult to reach (as discussed in paragraph [0007] of Beck).
In Reference to Claim 27:
Bai further discloses wherein the working fluid is fresh water. Examiner notes that lakes undergo tidal currents due to the gravitational field created and as such since the system of Bai merely requires tidal currents to function it would be operational in a freshwater lake. Examiner notes that about 87% of surface water(most freshwater is formed in icecaps and glaciers and therefore not in actual a liquid state) that is fresh water is found in lakes. Furthermore, it is known by that oil dredging occurs in lakes (See, Venezuela) and therefore the combination of Bai as modified by Beck would still be applicable in a freshwater lake environment.
In Reference to Claim 33 and 42:
Bai further discloses wherein the pumping station (2) is underwater as the system is placed in the tidal environment and given the type of pump and the placement of tidal power generation systems the system to function would need to be submerged underwater.
In Reference to Claim 39:
Examiner notes that this claim is a claim of intended use and therefore Bai as modified only needs to be capable of operating at such a distance. Therefore, since Bai as modified has identical structure to that of Applicant’s. Examiner is capable of having said separation between the pumping and generating stations being at least 100km.
Claim(s) 25-26 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A (hereinfafter “Bai”) in view of Lui et al., Tidal Current Turbine Based on Hydraulic Transmission System (hereinafter “Lui”) in further view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”) as applied to Claim 24 and 40, respectively and in further view of Cooper et al., WIPO Publication WO2017/044852 (hereinafter “Cooper”).
In Reference to Claim 25, 26 and 41:
Bai as modified discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 24 and 40, but fails to explicitly disclose a remote electric power source that is connected to the pumping station by a cable and wherein the electric power source is at an above surface location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, subsea power equipment, Cooper discloses providing electrical power from a boat (82) located above the sea surface via cable (84) for powering a power generation system using water hydro turbines. See, Paragraph [0027].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai, such that the electrical power supply for the pumping system (2) to transmit pumped fluid to the turbine (5) to thereby power the oil/gas field (as discussed in Beck) because such a means of providing electrical power to subsea apparatus from for oil/gas extractions from above sea level is a customary practice in the field of endeavor, typically by either a rig or boat (as depicted and taught by Cooper).
Claim(s) 28-29, 43-44, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A (hereinfafter “Bai”) in view of Lui et al., Tidal Current Turbine Based on Hydraulic Transmission System (hereinafter “Lui”) in further view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”) as applied to Claim 24 and 40, respectively and in further view of Flight et al., Canadian Patent Publication CA 2857581 (hereinafter “Flight”).
In Reference to Claim 28-29, 43-44, and 46:
Bai as modified discloses all the limitations as recited in claim 24 and 40, respectively, but fails to explicitly disclose a production flowline that extends along the supply duct and is in fluid communication with a subsea source of hydrocarbon production fluid;wherein said production flowline is disposed within the supply duct; and surrounding the flow of production fluid with the flow of working fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Flight discloses a subsea well system for gas/hydrocarbon extraction wherein the riser (106 is responsible for providing the working fluid for energy generation to the power generation devices (Shown in Figure 2) and also contains within another conduit 116 the hydrocarbon (production flowline) extraction means) said hydrocarbon line extending along the supply duct and disposed within the supply duct, thereby surrounding the hydrocarbon line with working fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bai such that the production fluid and working fluid are within the same conduit as taught by Flight because such featuring is a customary practice in undersea oil dredging wherein the working fluid line also serves as a safety feature for being able to active a blow off preventer should the riser leak or fail. In addition, such a modification to Bai besides being known also is advantageous in that it would allow for the same system to be used for extraction of the hydrocarbon product that the actuator of Bai is utilizing and also would reduce the likelihood of damage to the hydrocarbon pipeline by having it surrounded (internal to the working fluid conduit) by the working fluid conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30-32, 34-38, and 45 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.
.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights