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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/4/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, and 20-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 24, and 28-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20060253969) in view of Lochtefeld (US 8496403; hereinafter Lochtefeld ‘403).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a pool wave generator, comprising:
a pool (2) defining a first side (side near 20), a second side (side near 1) opposite the first side, a first end (end near left outer C4), a second end (end near right outer C4) opposite the first end, and a floor (floor of 2 including R1-2), the first side of the pool defining three curved regions (regions of 2 near 20), the three curved regions comprising two outside curved regions (regions near 7) and one interior curved region (center region between 6 near 20) between the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5), the two outside curved regions curving outward and away (direction of 7) from the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5) and the one interior curved region curving inward and toward the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5), the pool further defining:
a first pool area (left side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the first end of the pool to a midpoint (midpoint of 2) of the pool between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 5); and
a second pool area (right side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the second end of the pool to the midpoint of the pool (see Fig. 5);
a beaching area (13 formed between the upper sidewalls 6) defined at the first side of the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027), the floor of the pool tapering upward to the beaching area (see Fig. 4-5); and
a plurality of chambers (1) at the second side of the pool, opposite the beaching area (see Fig. 5), for releasing water into the pool to generate a wave (24) in the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027),
wherein:
each of the first pool area and the second pool area extend a first distance (length of 2 extending from 1 to the beach formed between the upper sidewalls 6 near 20; see Fig. 5) from the beaching area to the plurality of chambers (see Fig. 5),
the plurality of chambers extends a second distance (distance along 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
However, Johnson does not disclose the second distance is greater than the first distance as claimed.
Lochtefeld (‘403) discloses a wave pool with moving reef wave generator extension and counter current wherein the second distance (distance along 5, 7, 9) is greater than the first distance (distance of 26 to 11 taken at each of 13; see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second distance of Johnson, to be greater than the first distance as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld (‘403), since it was known in the art that the size of the waves is a function of the distance that the waves have to travel through the pool (col. 1, ll. 42-56) and that the shoreline with a beach can be created in virtually any configuration (col. 10, ll. 54-65).
Regarding claim 24, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the entirety of the beaching area defines a zero depth (the depth of 13 is defined as a zero depth; see Fig. 3-5; ¶ 0020-0027).
Regarding claim 28, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: the wave is a first wave (one of 21) configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a first one (one of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5);
the plurality of chambers is further configured for releasing water into the pool to generate a second wave (the other of 21) in the pool; and
the second wave is configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a second one (the other of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the plurality of chambers are provided in linear arrangement (linear arrangement of 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: a first lateral side (one of 8) of the pool extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5); and
a second lateral side (the other of 8) of the pool opposite the first lateral side extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 31, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the two outer curved regions are equal in size and shape (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 32, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the first pool area is a mirror image of the second pool area about a center axis (center axis of 2) of the pool, the center axis extending from the first side of the pool to the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, Johnson discloses a wave pool comprising:
a pool (2) defining a first side (side near 20), a second side (side near 1) opposite the first side, a first end (end near left outer C4), a second end (end near right outer C4) opposite the first end, and a floor (floor of 2 including R1-2), the first side of the pool defining two outside regions (regions near 7) and an interior region (center region between 6 near 20) between the two outside regions (see Fig. 5), the interior region being a curved region curving inward and toward the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5), the pool further defining:
a first pool area (left side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the first end of the pool to a midpoint (midpoint of 2) of the pool between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 5); and
a second pool area (right side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the second end of the pool to the midpoint of the pool (see Fig. 5); and
a beaching area (13 formed between the upper sidewalls 6) defined at the first side of the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027); and
a plurality of chambers (1) at the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5) for releasing water into the pool to generate a wave (24) in the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027);
wherein:
each of the first pool area and the second pool area extend a first distance (length of 2 extending from 1 to the beach formed between the upper sidewalls 6 near 20; see Fig. 5) from the beaching area to the plurality of chambers (see Fig. 5),
the plurality of chambers extends a second distance (distance along 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
However, Johnson does not disclose the second distance is greater than the first distance as claimed.
Lochtefeld (‘403) discloses a wave pool with moving reef wave generator extension and counter current wherein the second distance (distance along 5, 7, 9) is greater than the first distance (distance of 26 to 11 taken at each of 13; see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second distance of Johnson, to be greater than the first distance as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld (‘403), since it was known in the art that the size of the waves is a function of the distance that the waves have to travel through the pool (col. 1, ll. 42-56) and that the shoreline with a beach can be created in virtually any configuration (col. 10, ll. 54-65).
Regarding claim 34, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: the wave is a first wave (one of 21) configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a first one (one of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5);
the plurality of chambers is further configured for releasing water into the pool to generate a second wave (the other of 21) in the pool; and
the second wave is configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a second one (the other of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 35, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses the plurality of chambers are provided in linear arrangement (linear arrangement of 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 36, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: a first lateral side (one of 8) of the pool extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5); and
a second lateral side (the other of 8) of the pool opposite the first lateral side extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 37, Johnson discloses a method of generating waves in a wave pool, the method comprising:
providing the wave pool (¶ 0019), the wave pool comprising:
a pool (2) defining a first side (side near 20), a second side (side near 1), and a floor (floor of 2 including R1-2), the first side of the pool defining two outside regions (regions near 7) and an interior region (center region between 6 and 20) between the two outside regions (see Fig. 5), the interior region being a curved region curving inward (see Fig. 5) and toward the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5), the pool further defining:
a first pool area (left side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the first end of the pool to a midpoint (midpoint of 2) of the pool between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 5); and
a second pool area (right side portion of 2 including outer C4) extending from the second end of the pool to the midpoint of the pool (see Fig. 5);
a beaching area (13 formed between the upper sidewalls 6) defined at the first side of the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027); and
a plurality of chambers (1) at the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5); and generating a wave (24) in the wave pool, wherein generating the wave in the wave pool comprises releasing water from at least one of the plurality of chambers into the pool (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0027);
wherein:
each of the first pool area and the second pool area extend a first distance (length of 2 extending from 1 to the beach formed between the upper sidewalls 6 near 20; see Fig. 5) from the beaching area to the plurality of chambers (see Fig. 5),
the plurality of chambers extends a second distance (distance along 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 5).
However, Johnson does not disclose the second distance is greater than the first distance as claimed.
Lochtefeld (‘403) discloses a wave pool with moving reef wave generator extension and counter current wherein the second distance (distance along 5, 7, 9) is greater than the first distance (distance of 26 to 11 taken at each of 13; see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second distance of Johnson, to be greater than the first distance as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld (‘403), since it was known in the art that the size of the waves is a function of the distance that the waves have to travel through the pool (col. 1, ll. 42-56) and that the shoreline with a beach can be created in virtually any configuration (col. 10, ll. 54-65).
Regarding claim 38, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: the wave (one of 21) is configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a first one (one of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5);
the method further comprises generating a second wave (the other of 21) in the wave pool; and
the second wave is configured to propagate from the second side of the pool towards a second one (the other of the regions near 7) of the two outside curved regions (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 39, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the plurality of chambers are provided in linear arrangement (linear arrangement of 1) along the second side of the pool (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein: a first lateral side (one of 8) of the pool extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5); and
a second lateral side (the other of 8) of the pool opposite the first lateral side extends from the second side of the pool at a non-zero, non-perpendicular angle (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 41, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses the floor of the pool defines a first floor area (a first floor of 2 and C4) of the first pool area and a second floor area (a second floor of 2 and C4) of the second pool area; and
each of the first floor area and the second floor area are contoured to define a plurality of wave zones (zones of waves 18-23) within the corresponding first pool area or second pool area (see Fig. 5); and
a height of the wave is different at each of the plurality of wave zones (¶ 0005, 0020-0027).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9, 11-12, 16, 23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20060253969) in view of Lochtefeld (US 8496403) as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Perslow (US 5186578).
Regarding claim 26, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Johnson does not disclose wherein: the pool wave generator further comprises a third pool area; and the beaching area is defined between the pool and the third pool area as claimed.
Perslow discloses a wave generator wherein: the pool wave generator further comprises a third pool area (portion of 15 near 17);
and the beaching area (top portion of 17) is defined between the pool and the third pool area (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the surf pool of Johnson, to have a third pool area as claimed, as taught by Perslow, since it was known in the art that a man-made basin defining a body of water may have an uneven depth and be divided up by a deep ocean region and a shallower lagoon region by an intervening reef such that waves induced by the wave generator are propagated and may spill over the reef and continue into the lagoon region (col. 3, ll. 17-26).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein the pool and the third pool area are separated by a divider (divider of 17) having a height (height of 17) at a desired water level (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein the height of the divider:
changes along a length of the divider between the pool and the third pool area; or
is at a low water height of the pool during wave generation; or
is at a resting water height of the pool when waves are not being generated (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein the height of the divider is at or above a low water height of the pool during wave generation (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1) and below a high water height of the pool during wave generation (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein the third pool area is configured to create a channel (channel of 13, 15, 17) for water to travel transverse across a length of the pool and minimize an amount of water returned into the pool at an exit location (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1) of the water leaving the pool after the wave (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein the third pool area is positioned to receive water exiting the pool during the wave to minimize a direct return of the water back into the pool (col. 3, ll. 17-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the channel is configured to extend around a lateral side (lateral side of 2) of the pool (see Fig. 5), wherein the channel is configured to reintroduce water from the channel into the pool at a bottom (near 8) of the pool (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein a gap (gap between 13 and 15) is formed between at least a portion of the pool (a portion of 13) and at least a portion of the third pool area (a portion of 15) along at least a portion of a length of the beaching area (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Johnson discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 24.
However, Johnson does not disclose wherein: the pool wave generator further comprises a third pool area; and the beaching area is defined between the pool and the third pool area; and a depth of the third pool area is greater than the zero depth of the beaching area as claimed.
Perslow discloses a wave generator wherein: the pool wave generator further comprises a third pool area (portion of 15 near 17); and
the beaching area (top portion of 17) is defined between the pool and the third pool area (see Fig. 1); and
a depth of the third pool area is greater than the zero depth of the beaching area (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the surf pool of Johnson, to have a third pool area as claimed, as taught by Perslow, since it was known in the art that a man-made basin defining a body of water may have an uneven depth and be divided up by a deep ocean region and a shallower lagoon region by an intervening reef such that waves induced by the wave generator are propagated and may spill over the reef and continue into the lagoon region (col. 3, ll. 17-26).
Claim(s) 20-22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20060253969) in view of Lochtefeld (US 8496403) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett (US 20180147469).
Regarding claim 27, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Johnson further discloses the pool comprises a first linear wall (horizontal wall of 1) and the plurality of chambers are configured to release water into the pool along an entire length of the first linear wall (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0019);
the pool comprises two lateral side walls (vertical walls extending from 1) extending from terminal ends of the first linear wall (see Fig. 5);
the pool comprises two exterior lateral side walls (8); and
a space between each of the two lateral side walls and corresponding each of the two exterior lateral side walls defines a side return channel (channel of 8) for water to flow (23) from the pool to the side return channel (see Fig. 5).
However, Johnson does not disclose the pool comprises two lateral side walls extending from terminal ends of the first linear wall at an oblique angle as claimed.
Bennett discloses a surf pool design and contiguous reef wherein the pool comprises two lateral side walls (4) extending from terminal ends of the first linear wall (wall of 8) at an oblique angle (see Fig. 1; ¶ 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lateral side walls of Johnson, to extend from the terminal ends of the first linear wall at an oblique angle as claimed, as taught by Bennett, in order to create a plunging wave on the sides of the surf pool for a desired configuration (¶ 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 20, the combination and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein a length (a length of the vertical walls extending from 1) of the two lateral side walls is less than a length (a length of 8) of the two exterior side walls creating an open mouth (open mouth at 23) between the side return channel and the pool (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses a back circulation channel (C5) coupling the side return channels (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, the combination above and specifically Johnson further discloses wherein the back circulation channel is adjacent the plurality of chambers (see Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20060253969) in view of Lochtefeld (US 8496403) and Perslow (US 5186578) as applied to claims 12 and 26 above, and further in view of Lochtefeld (US 6460201; hereinafter Lochtefeld ‘201).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 12.
However, Johnson does not disclose wherein the third pool area is in fluid communication with the pool through a deep channel positioned under the floor of the pool as claimed.
Lochtefeld ‘201 discloses an apparatus for controlling break points and reducing rip currents in wave pools wherein the third pool area (19) is in fluid communication with the pool (15, 17) through a deep channel (37) positioned under the floor (13) of the pool (see Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wave pool of Johnson above, to have a deep channel positioned under the floor of the pool as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld ‘201, so that the body of water in the pool and the water level on both ends of the pool can be maintained in substantial equilibrium (col. 8, l. 63 - col. 9, l. 10).
Regarding claim 14, the combination above and specifically Perslow further discloses wherein water received in the third pool area is diverted into another water structure (region surrounding 15), wherein the another water structure is a separate water activity area (col. 3, ll. 17-26), including a wading pool, a pool (col. 3, ll. 17-26), a lazy river, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 18, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 26.
Johnson further discloses a bridge (17); however, Johnson does not disclose the third pool area includes a cover, and the cover has perforations to permit fluid to flow there through but prevent a body part from traversing the cover as claimed.
Lochtefeld ‘201 discloses an apparatus for controlling break points and reducing rip currents in wave pools wherein the third pool area (19) includes a cover (21), and the cover has perforations (openings of the grated floor, 21) to permit fluid to flow there through but prevent a body part from traversing the cover (col. 7, l. 57 – col. 8, l. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the third pool area of the combination above, to have a cover as claimed, as taught by Lochtefeld ‘201, in order to allow water to pass while being suitable in size and shape to enable people to walk safely thereon in their bare feet (col. 7, l. 57 – col. 8, l. 11).
Conclusion
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-Friday 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
