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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011160210 A2 to Klaptocz et al. in view of WO 2019165490 A1 to Kittel.
Regarding claim 1, Klaptocz et al. discloses a system comprising:
a base (Fig. 1: 144) comprising a front edge (132), a back edge (opposite/back side of 132), and a side wall (136) that extends from a left or right side of the base and to a top, wherein the side wall comprising a curvature (134) that extends from the front edge to the back edge for increasing a velocity of a liquid flowing over the base [0020];
the side wall and base forming a front corner at the intersection of the front edge (at 32) and the side wall and a back corner at the intersection of the back edge and the side wall (opposite/back side at 132);
the front corner having a front angle (Fig. 3: left 310) measured between the front edge and the side wall;
the back corner having a back angle (right 310) measured between the back edge and the side wall; and
a vertical turbine (Fig. 1: 110), wherein: the vertical turbine is positioned at about a midpoint (Fig. 3: 312) between the front edge and back edge of the base.
However, it fails to disclose the curvature comprises an apex positioned closer to the front edge of the base than the back edge of the base, thereby creating an offset between the vertical turbine and the apex; and wherein the front angle is greater than the back angle by a factor of about 1.2.
Kittel teaches the curvature comprises an apex (Figs. 16-18: 168) positioned closer to the front edge (165, 161) of the base than the back edge (166) of the base, thereby creating an offset between the vertical turbine (16) and the apex (168).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the apex as disclosed by Kittel to the curvature disclosed by Klaptocz et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to increase fluid velocity through the turbine.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front angle be greater than the back angle by a factor of about 1.2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 2, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the vertical turbine is positioned further from the front edge than the apex by a factor of about 1.14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical turbine positioned further from the front edge than the apex by a factor of about 1.14, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 4, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the front angle is about 27 degrees and the back angle is about 23 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front angle be about 27 degrees and the back angle be about 23 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 6, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above including the front edge of the base comprises a length (Fig. 1: along length of 132); the base, the side wall, and the top form an interior (130).
However, it fails to disclose the apex extends into the interior about 0.23-.025 times the length of the front edge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apex extend into the interior about 0.23-.025 times the length of the front edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 7, Klaptocz et al. discloses the side wall (right 136) extends upwardly from the right side of the base; the waterway turbine system comprises a second wall (left 136) extending upwardly from the left side of the base; and the second wall is substantially flat and perpendicular to the base.
Regarding claim 8, Klaptocz et al. discloses the side wall (left 136) extends upwardly from the left side of the base; the waterway turbine system comprises a second wall (right 136) extending upwardly from the right side of the base; and the second wall is substantially flat and perpendicular to the base.
Regarding claim 9, Klaptocz et al. discloses the base, the side wall, and the top are a unitary structure (Fig. 1: 140).
Regarding claims 10-13, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the base, the side wall, and the top comprise thermoformed plastic structures/a filled mesh/concrete/metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base, the side wall, and the top comprise thermoformed plastic structures/a filled mesh/concrete/metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize structural integrity.
Regarding claim 14, Klaptocz et al. discloses a system comprising:
a base (Fig. 1: 144) comprising a front edge (132), a back edge (opposite/back side of 132), and a side wall (136) that extends from a left or right side of the base, and a top (142) integrally formed with the side wall, wherein the side wall comprises a curvature (134) that extends from the front edge to the back edge with an apex for increasing a velocity of a liquid flowing over the base [0020];
the side wall and base forming a front corner at the intersection of the front edge (at 32) and the side wall and a back corner at the intersection of the back edge and the side wall (opposite/back side at 132);
the front corner having a front angle (Fig. 3: left 310) measured between the front edge and the side wall;
the back corner having a back angle (right 310) measured between the back edge and the side wall; and
a vertical turbine (110), wherein the vertical turbine is positioned at about a midpoint (Fig. 3: 312) from the front edge and back edge of the base.
However, it fails to disclose the apex is positioned closer to the front edge of the base than the back edge of the base, thereby creating an offset between the vertical turbine and the apex; and wherein the front angle is greater than the back angle by a factor of about 1.2.
Kittel teaches the apex (Figs. 16-18: 168) is positioned closer to the front edge (165, 161) of the base than the back edge (166) of the base, thereby creating an offset between the vertical turbine (16) and the apex (168).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the apex as disclosed by Kittel to the curvature disclosed by Klaptocz et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to increase fluid velocity through the turbine.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front angle be greater than the back angle by a factor of about 1.2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 15, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the vertical turbine is positioned further from the front edge than the apex by a factor of about 1.14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vertical turbine positioned further from the front edge than the apex by a factor of about 1.14, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 17, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the front angle is about 27 degrees and the back angle is about 23 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front angle be about 27 degrees and the back angle be about 23 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 18, Klaptocz et al. and Kittel discloses a system as described above including the front edge of the base comprises a length (Fig. 1: along length of 132); the base, the side wall, and the top form an interior (130).
However, it fails to disclose the apex extends into the interior about 0.23-.025 times the length of the front edge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apex extend into the interior about 0.23-.025 times the length of the front edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize fluid flow through the turbine.
Regarding claim 19, Klaptocz et al. discloses the side wall (right 136) extends upwardly from the right side of the base; the waterway turbine system comprises a second wall (left 136) extending upwardly from the left side of the base; and the second wall is substantially flat and perpendicular to the base.
Regarding claim 20, Klaptocz et al. discloses the side wall (left 136) extends upwardly from the left side of the base; the waterway turbine system comprises a second wall (right 136) extending upwardly from the right side of the base; and the second wall is substantially flat and perpendicular to the base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kittel is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Applicant argues that “Kittel is a non-analogous reference that a POSITA would not consider when designing a duct for a waterway turbine”. The Applicant is misinterpreting the Kittel reference as a design for purely wind turbines. Paragraph [0099] describes Figures 16-18 as “The ducts 160 and 190 are shaped to direct a flow of fluid, for example air, onto inlets 161, 191, respectively, and across the turbine 10”. This passage does not solely disclose designs for a wind turbine. Kittel mentions “a flow of fluid” such as air. This does not exclude a design for water turbines as water is also a fluid. The Applicant is constraining the disclosure of Kittel to a wind turbine but in reality, the disclosure of Kittel includes all fluids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8.
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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834