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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests a single primary reef and a reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel and the single primary reef (Applicant Arguments/Remarks, p. 8). Examiner disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Fincham (US 20200256073) is relied upon to disclose a single primary reef (208). Lochtefeld (US 20150089731) and Bennett (US 20190329115) are both relied upon to teach the obviousness of a reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel set forth below. In combining the teaching of the reformation reef of Lochtefeld and Bennett with the pool and single primary reef of Fincham, the combination results in the reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel and the single primary reef and meets the claim absent further limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17-18, 22-23, 41, 43-44, 46, and 48-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham (US 20200256073) in view of Lochtefeld (US 20150089731).
Regarding claim 15, Fincham discloses a wave pool, comprising:
a channel (200) for containing water (¶ 0026-0030), the channel having a first side (201), a second side (203), a proximal end (205), and a distal end (207), the channel comprising:
a base (base of 200) extending between the first side and the second side and between the proximal end and the distal end (see Fig. 2), the base comprising:
a base floor (floor of the base of 200; see Fig. 2);
a single primary reef (208; ¶ 0031) extending adjacent and approximately parallel to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2); and
a track (204) positioned along the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030); and
a foil (¶ 0026-0030) that is movable along the track, the foil positioned to travel through the water contained in the channel for forming a body of wave energy (¶ 0026-0030), the body of wave energy including a primary wave formed as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the single primary reef (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030).
However, Fincham does not disclose a reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel and the single primary reef; and the body of wave energy further including a reformation wave that is simultaneously formed with the primary wave as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the reformation reef as claimed.
Lochtefeld discloses a method and apparatus for managing and controlling breaker waves in a wave pool including a reformation reef (14, ¶ 0038-0039) extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 1) and the single primary reef (12; see Fig. 1; 14 extends at an angle relative to the first side of the channel near 5 and 12); and the body of wave energy further including a reformation wave (waves formed by 3 and 14) that is simultaneously formed with the primary wave as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the reformation reef (¶ 0038-0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of Fincham, to include a reformation reef as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld, in order to allow for different wave breaking formations with different wave characteristics (¶ 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 17, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the reformation reef extends relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 1) and/or the single primary reef at the angle that is approximately 30 degrees to approximately 50 degrees (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the reformation reef extends linearly along the base floor (14 extend linearly; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the reformation reef is positioned along the base floor such that the body of wave energy intersects the reformation reef at an approximately 90 degree angle (see Fig. 1 and 3a-b) or advances approximately parallel to the reformation reef depending on whether the foil is traveling in a first direction or a second direction (see Fig. 1 and 3a-b).
Regarding claim 23, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the reformation wave and the primary wave are formed simultaneously to allow simultaneous surfing by a first surfer along the reformation wave and a second surfer along the primary wave (see Fig. 1; ¶ 0008-0009).
Regarding claim 41, Fincham discloses a wave pool, comprising:
a channel (200) for containing water (¶ 0026-0030), the channel having a first side (201), a second side (203), a proximal end (205), and a distal end (207), the channel comprising:
a base (base of 200) extending between the first side and the second side and between the proximal end and the distal end (see Fig. 2), the base comprising:
a base floor (floor of the base of 200; see Fig. 2);
a single primary reef (208; ¶ 0031) extending adjacent and approximately parallel to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2); and
a wave generator (204; ¶ 0026-0030) configured to travel through the water contained in the channel for forming a body of wave energy (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030), the body of wave energy including a primary wave formed along the single primary reef (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030).
However, Fincham does not disclose a plurality of reformation reefs each extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel; and the body of wave energy further including a plurality of reformation waves that are each formed along one or more reformation reefs of the plurality of reformation reefs as claimed.
Lochtefeld discloses a method and apparatus for managing and controlling breaker waves in a wave pool including a plurality of reformation reefs (14, ¶ 0038-0039) each extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 1); and the body of wave energy further including a plurality of reformation waves (waves formed by 3 and 14) that are each formed along one or more reformation reefs of the plurality of reformation reefs (¶ 0038-0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of Fincham, to include a plurality of reformation reefs as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld, in order to allow for different wave breaking formations with different wave characteristics (¶ 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 43, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses each reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs extend relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 1) and/or the single primary reef at the angle that is approximately 30 degrees to approximately 50 degrees (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 44, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses at least one reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs extend linearly along the base floor (14 extend linearly; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 46, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses at least one reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs is integrated into the base floor such that the at least one reformation reef is immovable (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 48, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the plurality of reformation reefs include a first series of reformation reefs (14 above line A-A) and a second series of reformation reefs (14 below line A-A), the first series of reformation reefs positioned to form a first set of reformation waves as a result of the wave generator traveling in a first direction (direction of waves above line A-A), and the second set of reformation reefs being positioned to form a second set of reformation waves as a result of the wave generator traveling in a second direction (direction of waves below line A-A) that is opposite the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 49, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the first series of reformation reefs includes at least two reformation reefs (each of 14 above line A-A) and the second series of reformation reefs includes at least two reformation reefs (each of 14 below line A-A).
Regarding claim 50, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the first series of reformation reefs includes a first left reformation reef (14 above line A-A near 7) and a second left reformation reef (14 above line A-A near 11), the first left reformation reef having a first width, the second left reformation reef including a second width, the first width being wider than the second width (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 51, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the first left reformation reef is positioned closer to the proximal end (5) of the channel compared to the second left reformation reef (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 52, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses each reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs is positioned along the base floor such that the body of wave energy intersects the reformation reef at an approximately 90 degree angle (see Fig. 1 and 3a-b) or advances approximately parallel to the reformation reef depending on whether the wave generator is traveling in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 1 and 3a-b).
Regarding claim 53, the combination above and specifically Lochtefeld further discloses the at least one reformation wave and the primary wave are formed simultaneously to allow simultaneous surfing by a first surfer along the at least one reformation wave and a second surfer along the primary wave (see Fig. 1; ¶ 0008-0009).
Regarding claim 54, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the wave generator is bi-directional and configured to form a body of wave energy including the primary wave and the plurality of reformation waves when traveling in a first direction and when traveling in a second direction that is opposite from the first direction (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 55, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the wave generator is a foil (¶ 0026, 0030), a paddle array, a caisson, or a plunger.
Claim(s) 15, 19, 22-23, 41, 45-46, 48-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham (US 20200256073) in view of Bennett (US 20190329115).
Regarding claim 15, Fincham discloses a wave pool, comprising:
a channel (200) for containing water (¶ 0026-0030), the channel having a first side (201), a second side (203), a proximal end (205), and a distal end (207), the channel comprising:
a base (base of 200) extending between the first side and the second side and between the proximal end and the distal end (see Fig. 2), the base comprising:
a base floor (floor of the base of 200; see Fig. 2);
a single primary reef (208; ¶ 0031) extending adjacent and approximately parallel to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2); and
a track (204) positioned along the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030); and
a foil (¶ 0026-0030) that is movable along the track, the foil positioned to travel through the water contained in the channel for forming a body of wave energy (¶ 0026-0030), the body of wave energy including a primary wave formed as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the single primary reef (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030).
However, Fincham does not disclose a reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel and the single primary reef; and the body of wave energy further including a reformation wave that is simultaneously formed with the primary wave as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the reformation reef as claimed.
Bennett discloses a wave energy and rip current control system for surf pools including a reformation reef (17-18; ¶ 0095) extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 6); and the body of wave energy further including a reformation wave (¶ 0095) that is simultaneously formed with the primary wave as a result of the body of wave energy interacting with the reformation reef (¶ 0095). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of Fincham, to include a reformation reef as claimed, as taught by Bennett, in order to create a circulation in the surf pool and brings balance back to the wave breaking process in the surf pool (¶ 0095). In doing so, the combination meets the limitation of a reformation reef extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel and the single primary reef as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the reformation reef extends along an arc along the base floor (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the reformation reef is positioned along the base floor such that the body of wave energy intersects the reformation reef at an approximately 90 degree angle (see Fig. 6) or advances approximately parallel to the reformation reef depending on whether the foil is traveling in a first direction or a second direction (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 23, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the reformation wave and the primary wave are formed simultaneously to allow simultaneous surfing by a first surfer along the reformation wave and a second surfer along the primary wave (see Fig. 6; a surfer may surf along the reformation waves of 17-18 while another surfer may surf along the primary wave formed by 16).
Regarding claim 41, Fincham discloses a wave pool, comprising:
a channel (200) for containing water (¶ 0026-0030), the channel having a first side (201), a second side (203), a proximal end (205), and a distal end (207), the channel comprising:
a base (base of 200) extending between the first side and the second side and between the proximal end and the distal end (see Fig. 2), the base comprising:
a base floor (floor of the base of 200; see Fig. 2);
a single primary reef (208; ¶ 0031) extending adjacent and approximately parallel to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 2); and
a wave generator (204; ¶ 0026-0030) configured to travel through the water contained in the channel for forming a body of wave energy (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030), the body of wave energy including a primary wave formed along the single primary reef (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0030).
However, Fincham does not disclose a plurality of reformation reefs each extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel; and the body of wave energy further including a plurality of reformation waves that are each formed along one or more reformation reefs of the plurality of reformation reefs as claimed.
Bennett discloses a wave energy and rip current control system for surf pools including a plurality of reformation reefs (17-18; ¶ 0095) each extending at an angle relative to the first side of the channel (see Fig. 6); and the body of wave energy further including a plurality of reformation waves (¶ 0095) that are each formed along one or more reformation reefs of the plurality of reformation reefs (¶ 0095). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of Fincham, to include a plurality of reformation reefs as claimed, as taught by Bennett, in order to create a circulation in the surf pool and brings balance back to the wave breaking process in the surf pool (¶ 0095).
Regarding claim 45, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses at least one reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs extend along an arc along the base floor (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 46, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses at least one reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs is integrated into the base floor such that the at least one reformation reef is immovable (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 48, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the plurality of reformation reefs include a first series of reformation reefs (left reefs of 17 and 18) and a second series of reformation reefs (right reefs of 17 and 18), the first series of reformation reefs positioned to form a first set of reformation waves (left waves of 20) as a result of the wave generator traveling in a first direction (see Fig. 6), and the second set of reformation reefs being positioned to form a second set of reformation waves (right waves of 20) as a result of the wave generator traveling in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 49, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the first series of reformation reefs includes at least two reformation reefs (left reef of 17 and left reef of 18; see Fig. 6) and the second series of reformation reefs includes at least two reformation reefs (right reef of 17 and right reef of 18; see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 50, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the first series of reformation reefs includes a first left reformation reef (left reef of 17) and a second left reformation reef (left reef of 18), the first left reformation reef having a first width, the second left reformation reef including a second width, the first width being wider than the second width (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 51, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the first left reformation reef is positioned closer to the proximal end of the channel compared to the second left reformation reef (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 52, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses each reformation reef of the plurality of reformation reefs is positioned along the base floor such that the body of wave energy intersects the reformation reef at an approximately 90 degree angle (see Fig. 6) or advances approximately parallel to the reformation reef depending on whether the wave generator is traveling in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 53, the combination above and specifically Bennett further discloses the at least one reformation wave and the primary wave are formed simultaneously to allow simultaneous surfing by a first surfer along the at least one reformation wave and a second surfer along the primary wave (see Fig. 6; a surfer may surf along the reformation waves of 17-18 while another surfer may surf along the primary wave formed by 16).
Regarding claim 54, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the wave generator is bi-directional and configured to form a body of wave energy including the primary wave and the plurality of reformation waves when traveling in a first direction and when traveling in a second direction that is opposite from the first direction (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 55, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the wave generator is a foil (¶ 0026, 0030), a paddle array, a caisson, or a plunger.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham (US 20200256073) in view of Lochtefeld (US 20150089731) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fricano (US 20210148129).
Regarding claim 21, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 15.
However, the combination above does not disclose the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor as claimed.
Fricano discloses a method of control of a variable reef generating artificial waves wherein the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor (¶ 0060, 0070). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of the combination above, such that the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor as claimed, as taught by Fricano, in order to establish a specific shape, size, and oriented reef to generate a specific wave (¶ 0060, 0070).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham (US 20200256073) in view of Bennett (US 20190329115) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fricano (US 20210148129).
Regarding claim 21, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 15.
However, the combination above does not disclose the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor as claimed.
Fricano discloses a method of control of a variable reef generating artificial waves wherein the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor (¶ 0060, 0070). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of the combination above, such that the reformation reef is movable relative to the base floor as claimed, as taught by Fricano, in order to establish a specific shape, size, and oriented reef to generate a specific wave (¶ 0060, 0070).
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 WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11AM-5PM.
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, David P Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/WILLIAM R KLOTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights