Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/248,049

WAVE SYSTEM AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Whitewater West Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 836 resolved
-12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/2025 has been entered. 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, 8, 10, 11, 15, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland (US Patent 8,602,685) in view of Hill (US Patent 6,019,547). Regarding Claim 1, 35, McFarland shows a wave system, comprising: a water outlet (14,12) for water to flow onto a ride area (10); an obstacle (15) configured to generate a surface contour on a surface of the water flowing over the obstacle ( column 5 lines 65-70; Fig.2) in the ride area; a water recovery (34) for removing the water from the ride area; a declined surface (32) positioned between the water outlet and the obstacle for flowing the water (56) from a higher elevation (near 42) at the water outlet to a lower elevation (near 44) at the obstacle; and wherein the obstacle incudes an actuator (44,42) to change a shape of the obstacle (column 6 lines 24-30). A rear surface (see annotated figure below) of the obstacle is configured to maintain a substantially continuous surface across (see annotated figure below; one piece between 21 and 24) the obstacle and beyond the rear surface in the ride area upon a change of position of the actuator. McFarland fails to show the actuator further configured to change a position about a first axis and a second axis, the first axis being different than the second axis. Hill teaches a wave forming apparatus having an actuator (88) further configured to change a position about a first axis and a second axis, the first axis being different than the second axis (column 10 lines 15-25). The actuator is configured to move linearly along the first axis and linearly along the second axis to change the position and the shape of the obstacle (column 10 lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an actuator configured to change a position about a first axis and a second axis in order to be able to easily manipulate the shape of the wave. PNG media_image1.png 528 795 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 8, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, further comprising a generally planar and level surface (20) adjacent to the obstacle on a side of the obstacle toward the water outlet (near 38; Fig.2) Regarding Claim 10, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is configured to change of the obstacle (column 6 lines 23-30). Regarding Claim 11, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, wherein the Regarding Claim 15, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, wherein the obstacle comprises one or more rigid surfaces for retaining a desired shape when encountering a force from the water (column 6 lines 10-15). Wherein the rear surface (22) forms one of the one or more rigid surface. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland (US Patent 8,602,685) in view of Hill (US Patent 6,019,547) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of McFarland (US Patent 7,722,291 herein after McFarland ‘291). Regarding Claim 9, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, further comprising a generally planar and level surface (20) adjacent to the obstacle on a side of the obstacle away from the water outlet (adjacent 36; Fig.2). McFarland fails to show The rear surface of the obstacle is further configured to extend through the generally planar and level surface adjacent to the obstacle on the side of the obstacle away from the water outlet. McFarland ‘291 teaches the rear surface (40) of the obstacle (45) is further configured to extend through the generally planar and level surface (24) adjacent to the obstacle on the side of the obstacle away from the water outlet (30; Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes a rear surface of an obstacle on the side opposite the water Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland (US Patent 8,602,685) in view of Hill (US Patent 6,019,547) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Murphy (US Patent Publication 20150057093). Regarding Claim 13, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, but fails to show an inflatable bladder. Murphy teaches an actuator (160) comprises an inflatable bladder (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inflatable bladder to increase the number of waves. Claim(s) 25-29, 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland (US Patent 8,602,685) in view of Hill (US Patent 6,019,547), Perslow (US Patent 2018209159), and McFarland (US Patent 7,722,291 herein after McFarland ‘291). Regarding Claim 25, 33, 34, 36, McFarland shows a wave system, comprising: a water outlet (14) for water to flow onto a ride area (10); an obstacle (15) configured to generate a surface contour on a surface of the water flowing over the obstacle in the ride area (Fig.2); a water recovery (34) for removing the water from the ride area; a declined surface (32) positioned between the water outlet and the obstacle for flowing the water (56) from a higher elevation (near 42) at the water outlet to a lower elevation (near 44) at the obstacle; and wherein the obstacle further comprises an actuator (44,42) to change a shape of the obstacle. McFarland fails to show a controller to dynamically control a position or shape of the obstacle, an actuator to change a shape of the obstacle and to cause linear translation of the obstacle via a first axis and a second axis, the first axis being different than the second axis, and a rear surface of the obstacle is configured to extend at least partially through a support infrastructure. Perslow teaches a wave system including a controller to dynamically control a position or shape of the obstacle (paragraph 119). The controller further comprises a programmer configured to permit a user to select a desired obstacle shape at a desired time, wherein the programmer is in communication with actuator (paragraph 119 and 121). The controller is configured to adjust an amount of water flowing onto the ride area (paragraph 119 and 121). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller in order to allow the user to control the wave profile. Hill teaches a wave forming apparatus having an actuator (88) to change a shape of the obstacle and to cause linear translation of the obstacle via a first axis and a second axis, the first axis being different than the second axis (column 10 lines 15-25). The actuator is configured to move linearly along the first axis and linearly along the second axis to cause the linear translation of the obstacle (column 10 lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an actuator configured to change a position about a first axis and a second axis in order to be able to easily manipulate the shape of the wave. McFarland ,291 teaches a rear surface (40) of the obstacle (45) is configured to extend at least partially through a support infrastructure (24) of the wave system to maintain a substantially continuous surface across the obstacle and beyond the rear surface in the ride area (Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes a rear surface of an obstacle to extend through a support structure in order to create a smooth wave profile. Regarding Claim 26, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 25, further comprising a generally planar and level surface (20) adjacent to the obstacle on a side of the obstacle toward the water outlet (near 38; Fig.2) Regarding Claim 27, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 25, further comprising a generally planar and level surface (20) adjacent to the obstacle on a side of the obstacle away from the water outlet (adjacent 36; Fig.2). McFarland fails to show wherein the rear surface of the obstacle is further configured to extend through the generally planar and level surface adjacent to the obstacle on the side of the obstacle away from the water outlet. McFarland ‘291 teaches the rear surface (40) of the obstacle (45) is further configured to extend through the generally planar and level surface (24) adjacent to the obstacle on the side of the obstacle away from the water outlet (30; Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes a rear surface of an obstacle on the side opposite the water outlet to extend through a support structure in order to create a smooth wave profile. Regarding Claim 28, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 25, wherein the actuator is configured to change a slope of the obstacle (column 6 lines 23-30). Regarding claim 29, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 25, wherein the actuator is configured to change a height of the obstacle (column 6 lines 25-30). Regarding claim 32, McFarland shows the wave system of claim 25, wherein the obstacle comprises one or more rigid surfaces for retaining a desired shape when encountering a force from the water (column 6 lines 10-15). Wherein the rear surface forms one of the one or more rigid surfaces (column 6 lines 10-15). Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland (US Patent 8,602,685), Hill (US Patent 6,019,547), Perslow (US Patent 2018209159), and Murphy (US Patent Publication 20150057093). McFarland shows the wave system of claim 1, but fails to show an inflatable bladder. Murphy teaches an actuator (160) comprises an inflatable bladder (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inflatable bladder to increase the number of waves. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments in regards to the new limitation have been addressed in the action above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm. 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 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. /LAUREN A CRANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 20, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599269
TILEABLE RECEPTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595649
FLUIDICS DEVICES FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596390
TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENT METHOD FOR AN INTELLIGENT TOILET, AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, A STORAGE MEDIUM, AND AN INTELLIGENT TOILET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590448
CONTROL SYSTEM AND A CONTROL METHOD OF INTELLIGENT TOILETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584301
LAVATORY CARRIER ASSEMBLY WITH WASTE LINE ACCESS PORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 836 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month