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 Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to multiple informalities. No amendment to the drawings or specification was received, therefore the objections remain.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 13 were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the claims to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1 and 5-18 were rejected as being obvious over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh and Kawasaki. Claims 2 and 20 were rejected as being obvious over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick. Claim 3 was rejected as being obvious over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and Soliman. Claim 4 was rejected as being obvious over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and Ogles. Claim 19 was rejected as being obvious over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and Liu. The Applicant amended claims 1-2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued that Suchanek in view of Burnaugh and Kawasaki does not teach counterweights attached adjacent to the axle via connecting rods, an EV chassis on top of the walking beam track with protective end stops, and capturing an alternately falling force of the counterweights to generate constant and uniform output. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding counterweights attached adjacent to the axle via connecting rods, the counterweights of Suchanek (FIG. 5, 28) is attached relatively adjacent to the axle (FIG. 11, 28) via connecting rods (FIG. 11, 32) to the walking beam. Regarding an EV chassis on top of the walking beam track with protective end stops, Kawasaki teaches an EV chassis (FIG. 4, 7) being used in a gravitational power generation apparatus with protective end stops at each end of the track (FIG. 1, 1). Furthermore, the analogous structure of counterweights in Suchanek teaches the counterweights located on a platform (FIG. 1; 105, 106) with protective end stops at each end of the platform to stop the counterweight. Regarding capturing an alternately falling force of counterweights to generate constant and uniform output, Suchanek teaches capturing an alternately falling force of counterweights (FIG. 1, 104) to generate an output (Paragraph [0081]-[0082]). Burnaugh further teaches using an alternately falling force to generate constant and uniform output, therefore Suchanek in view of Burnaugh teaches the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that modifying the systems in Suchanek with the teachings of Burnaugh and Kawasaki, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Regarding secondary considerations with relation to commercial success, there does not seem to be a sufficient nexus between the claimed invention and the claimed commercial success of the Archimedes Gravity Pump as the merits of the invention, while commendable, seem to not be unique as the Archimedes Gravity Pump is one of 143 qualified teams, therefore not explicitly showing commercial success and a long felt need.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 113 and 115 as seen in FIG. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 5-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0400013 to Suchanek in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0145451 to Burnaugh, Japanese Patent No. 2014-118963 to Kawasaki, and U.S. Patent No. 6,386,322 to McCormick.
Regarding claim 1, Suchanek teaches a system for harnessing gravity to generate, leverage, and store electrical energy (Paragraph [0001]), comprising:
one or more walking beams (FIG. 1, 1), wherein each walking beam comprises a track (FIG. 1, 10) having at least two ends (FIG. 1; 100, 105) located on opposite sides of the track, wherein each walking beam is affixed to one end of an upright support stanchion (FIG. 1, 4) via an axle (FIG. 1, 101),
a plurality of counterweights (FIG. 1, 28) attached to the walking beam adjacent to the axle via one or more connecting rods (FIG. 1, 28);
a weight (FIG. 1, 104) positioned on top of the track and allowed to move back and forth on the track (Paragraph [0081]-[0082]), wherein the back-and forth movement of the weight is limited by the length of its piston (FIG. 1, 106), wherein the back-and-forth movement of the weight along the track causes the walking beam to move up and down (Paragraph [0086]-[0094]).
Suchanek does not teach two protective end stops located on opposite ends of the track, the one or more walking beams being connected and supported by a reinforced concrete support structure, the weight on top of the track being an electric vehicle (EV) chassis limited by the protective end stops; and a flywheel attached to the walking beams via a rack and pinion arrangement, wherein the up and down movement of the walking beam is converted into a rotational movement via the rack and pinion arrangement to capture an alternately falling force of the counterweights, thereby rotating the flywheel for generating constant and uniform electrical output.
However, Burnaugh teaches a counterweight powered gravity electrical generation device having at its output a flywheel (FIG. 1, 9) attached via a rack and pinion arrangement (FIG. 1; 7, 12), wherein the up and down movement of the device is converted into a rotational movement via the rack and pinion arrangement to capture an alternately falling force of the counterweights (Paragraph [0002]), thereby rotating the flywheel for generating constant and uniform electrical output (Paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek with the rack and pinion and flywheel of Burnaugh to more smoothly maintain a constant power output for the system.
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh does not teach two protective end stops located on opposite ends of the track, the one or more walking beams being connected and supported by a reinforced concrete support structure; and the weight on top of the track being an electric vehicle (EV) chassis limited by the protective end stops.
However, Kawasaki teaches a gravitational power generation apparatus with an electric vehicle chassis (FIG. 4, 7) located on a track (FIG. 1, 2) with protective end stops (FIG. 1, 1) located on opposite ends of the track, limited by the protective end stops.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh with the EV chassis of Kawasaki due to the lower coefficient of friction of the chassis of Kawasaki to replace the piston operated weight of Suchanek to result in more efficient power generation.
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh and Kawasaki does not teach the one or more walking beams being connected and supported by a reinforced concrete support structure.
However, McCormick teaches a walking beam structure connected and supported by a reinforced concrete support structure (Column 3 lines 55-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh and Kawasaki with the concrete support structure of McCormick to provide a more stable support for the system.
Regarding claim 2, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein McCormick further teaches a first proximal end of a first walking beam being attached to an upper section in the reinforced concrete support structure (Column 3 lines 55-62).
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick does not teach a second proximal end of a second walking beam being attached to an upper section in the reinforced concrete support structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick by adding a second walking beam connected to the reinforced concrete support structure as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a duplication of parts to increase the potential power output of the system (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 5, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the upright support stanchion post being perpendicular to the respective walking beam (FIG. 1-8; during some point during operation support 4 is perpendicular to beam 10).
Regarding claim 6, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the connecting rod moving vertically configured to allow the corresponding walking beam to move up and down within a desired range (Paragraph [0087]; [0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Kawasaki further teaches the EV chassis being positioned on top and connected to the track configured to move along the length of the track (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Kawasaki further teaches the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis on the track at a desired speed generates electrical energy (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the EV chassis moving continuously on the track using a connection between the upright support stanchion posts and the track at an axis (Paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the EV chassis moving along the track through gravitational effect of the counterweights against the weight of the EV chassis (Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the falling force of the counterweights utilizing gravitational energy that enables the EV chassis to travel back and forth on the track to efficiently control the weight of the EV chassis for generating electricity and long-term energy storage (Paragraph [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 12, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the counterweights leveraging the weight of the EV chassis and its movement along the length of the track to generate more potential energy (Paragraph [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the walking beams being inclined to the upright support stanchions (FIG. 1, 10) and leveraged to use a small amount of energy to lift a small weight to create more potential energy (Paragraph [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 14, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the back-and-forth movement of the EV chassis causing the walking beam to move up and down configured to convert the potential energy of the walking beam into kinetic energy (Paragraph [0086]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 15, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Burnaugh further teaches the potential energy being converted into kinetic energy through a clockwise movement of the flywheel (Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Burnaugh further teaches the kinetic energy being converted into a rotational movement of the flywheel configured to generate constant and uniform electrical energy (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Burnaugh further teaches the flywheel comprising an electrical generator (FIG. 1, 10) configured to store the generated electrical energy.
Regarding claim 18, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Burnaugh further teaches the flywheel being connected to the electrical generator via the rack and pinion arrangement (FIG. 1; 9, 10; Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein McCormick further teaches the system being adapted for generating artificial fluid lift by utilizing back and forth movement of the EV chassis (Abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,754 to Soliman et al. (hereinafter Soliman).
Regarding claim 3, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1.
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick does not teach the protective end stops being in the form of springs.
However, Soliman teaches an oscillating power generating system with end stops (FIG. 12b, 116) being in the form of springs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick with the spring end stops of Soliman to maintain more of the kinetic energy of the EV chassis when changing its direction of movement.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 4,099,447 to Ogles.
Regarding claim 4, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Suchanek further teaches the ends at the ends of the tracks being connected to another part of the system via a support cabling (FIG. 1; 12, 13)
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick does not teach the support cabling being attached to the upright support stanchion post.
However, Ogles teaches a walking beam system with a support cabling (FIG. 5; 212, 214) attached to an upright support stanchion post (FIG. 5, 14’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick with the support cabling attachment of Ogles to provide further securement to the track.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick and in further view of Taiwan Patent No. M620708 to Liu.
Regarding claim 19, Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick teaches the system of claim 1.
Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick does not teach one or more solar PV panels attached to the top of the EV chassis configured to charge a battery unit coupled to the EV chassis.
However, Liu teaches an EV chassis (FIG. 1A, 30) having a solar PV panel (FIG. 1, 10) attached to the top of the chassis configured to charge a battery unit coupled to the EV chassis (Translation Page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Suchanek in view of Burnaugh, Kawasaki, and McCormick with the solar PV panels of Liu to generate more energy for the system and make it more self-sustaining.
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834