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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea or mental process without significantly more. Claim 1 recites limitations including:
defining positions of a sluice-pump hub and a river diversion channel
creating a water flow model
determining whether it is necessary to adopt rectification measures
obtaining hydraulic characteristic values
determining whether the currently arranged algae control wells
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because once the determinations are complete there is no application of the abstract idea to a particular application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed components of pumping stations, retaining wall are recited are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: algae control wells in claim 1, the instant specification does not appear to provide corresponding structure or description for the recited wells, or for performing the function of algae control.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a river diversion channel in line three, the river diversion channel in line 6/7, and a river diversion channel in line 10, it is unclear if this is the river diversion channel or a different one.
Claim 1 recites the currently arranged algae control wells, the adopted rectifying measures and the algae control requirements in lines 16/17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites algae control wells, the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 5 recites a formula comprising the symbol m, but no specific definition of m is given, and the symbol m does appear mass as would commonly be used in the art. Therefore, the specific definition of the symbol m is not clear.
Claim 7 defines a calculation formula for total hydraulic loss, where the unit of total hydraulic loss Hf is Pascal per meter (Pa m), while the unit of the physical quantity on the right side of the equation is reduced to PaN, i.e. 1 m2, the two dimensions do not match.
Additional claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang (CN 212476272 U), in view of Liu (CN 112814079 A), in view of Fan CN 114934495 A.
With respect to claim 1, Shang teaches wetland purification systems comprising water conservancy control mechanism, flood diversion dike, multi-level pond wetland purification system; riverway in-situ purification system and river water conservancy station hinge (abstract, river diversion channel), river water sluice station hinge connected with a purifying system and the downstream end of the river and drainage pump station with two sides and four pumps (Figs. 1-4, p. 3-4 embodiment 1, sluice-pump hub area, at least two sets of pumping station units side by side at the water outlet end of the river diversion channel); water conservancy control mechanism 100 comprising a dam and control valve (Figs. 1-4, p. 3-4 embodiment 1, a retaining wall is arranged in the river diversion channel), and a flood guide dike which enhances flood and flood storage and water purification capability of river mouth area of river comprising Shang does not teach an inlet water tank, algae control wells are arranged at the retaining wall according to predetermined gaps, or the recited use of a model.
Shang is silent as the specifics of the pumping arrangements. Liu teaches double water pumping stations with a shared inlet pool (abstract), In the long-distance water diversion project of the major river, it is necessary to set the double-delivery pump station and that dual water delivery pump stations generally includes: front tank, overhauling gate, water inlet pool, double-water pump room and auxiliary factory building (background). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a inlet tank or pool as described by Shang as according to Shang, dual water pumping stations for use in river projects are generally used and when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
See 112 rejections above with respect to algae control wells. Fan teaches a river channel algae control system based on ship lock water conservancy hinge and rectification analysis method comprising a bank wall and algae removing wells (abstract), and a control system and rectification analysis method (Technical Field), the method comprising establishing a three dimensional flow field model to accurately analyze and calculate rectification measures (p. 3), and the use of hydraulic data (p. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine Fan’s river channel algae control system and rectification analysis method the taught combination in order to prevent algae impact to the river water quality, water ecological environment, and lift and improve the water environment (background).
Mao teaches a bloom elimination system for intercepting algae (abstract), the bloom guide unit comprises a river cutbank and first guide plate and second guide plate group are provided with diversion sluice gate.
With respect to claim 2, Fan teaches introducing grid for precise analysis and calculation (p. 3, 6-7).
With respect to claim 3, Fan teaches setting rectification measures at the river bottom and the use of rectifying structures (p. 2-4).
With respect to claims 4-7, Fan teaches a flow control equation and a turbulent model for simulating the physical quantity of the flow state of the water flow, comprehensively considering the precision and solving efficiency, preferably using the Navier-Stokes equation of Reynolds time to describe the flow field movement, and selecting the widely used standard k-epsilon turbulent flow model based on the physical quantity of the flow state of the water flow, designing waterpower characteristics analysis function, specifically analyzing the characteristics state of the water flow. wherein the hydraulic characteristics function at least comprises flow speed distribution uniformity, speed weighted average angle. characteristics state of the water flow at least comprises the uniformity of the flow speed distribution and the directionality of the water flow pump. While the taught combination does teach the specific recited formulas, applicant’s formula appears to be a variant of Navier-Stokes, absent evidence of unexpected results the specific math would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, Fan teaches a bottom sill 5 (p. 8, Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Shang teaches a dam as discussed above. Fan teaches algae wells arranged in the bank/dam in a row (p. 5).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang (CN 212476272 U), in view of Liu (CN 112814079 A), in view of Fan CN 114934495 A, in view of Mao (CN 105381641 B).
With respect to claim 10, the taught combination provides a dam/bank/retaining wall comprising algae control wells arranged opposite to the sluice-pump hub at an interval, while the taught combination does not explicitly teach an arc-shaped wall, absent evidence of criticality changes in shape are obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B., alternatively, Mao teaches a bloom elimination system for a curved body, intercepting algae (abstract, p. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a curved bank as described by Mao as curved bodies are known for use in algae elimination in river systems as shown by Mao and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu, equations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights