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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner notes that line 3 reads “bladed wheel; and” and line 4 reads “bladed wheel,” and respectfully suggests; “bladed wheel;[[ and]]” in line 3, and “bladed wheel[[,]];” to ensure consistency of punctuation across the entirety of claim 1.
Line 6 includes the character reference (120) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 6 includes the character reference (D) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 7 includes the character reference (d1) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 7 includes the character references (b1) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 8 includes the character reference (d2) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 9 includes the character reference (b2) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 10 includes the character reference (d1) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 10 includes the character reference (d2) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 11 includes the character reference (b1) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Line 11 includes the character reference (b2) and should be deleted to maintain consistency among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-12 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.
The term “essentially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "essentially" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “essentially” is defined as "in essence” or (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “essentially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “essentially” the target any more.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 are 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (DE 20200900184 U1) in view of Feltenberger et al. (WO 9956017 A2).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Geiger discloses a cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly (12, 2) for a hydropower machine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first cellular and/or bladed wheel (12); and
a second cellular and/or bladed wheel (2),
the first cellular and/or bladed wheel and the second cellular and/or bladed wheel being connected to one another for conjoint rotation and about a common axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows the two wheel connected along a common axis of rotation);
the first cellular and/or bladed wheel having a first diameter and a first width (Fig. 1, 12); and
the second cellular and/or bladed wheel having a second diameter and second width (Fig. 1, 2), wherein
the first diameter being greater than the second diameter; and
However, Geiger does not explicitly disclose, “the first width is essentially equal to the second width)
PNG
media_image2.png
230
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Feltenberger et al. teaches, in the field of water wheels, a conjoined wheel with a first larger diameter wheel (1912B) and a second, smaller diameter wheel (1912A) with a first wheel width and a second wheel width that are essentially equal (Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wheel assembly of Geiger to have a conjoined water wheel with different diameters and the same width as taught by Feltenberger et al., and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “In the embodiment of the invention shown in Fig. 24, a turbine 1921 with two runner sections 1912A, 1912B of different diameters is disclosed. In situations where the head and flow rate may vary frequently, the water flow can be directed from one runner section to the other to help maintain consistent speed of rotation and maximum available torque.
In general, turbine generating systems of this type can be constructed in various sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to 50 megawatts or more in output. An assortment of conventional control systems such as governors, valves and electrical relays can be utilized as desired. Any of a number of conventional housings can be utilized as desired to cover the turbine, gearbox, generator and control system to protect them from weather elements. The major benefit from the high torque turbine generating system is lower cost. This is due mostly to reduced work requirements for installation at dam sites. Another benefit is to provide a family of turbines regarding size and design characteristics to accommodate <sic> nearly all ranges of head and flow rates. Still another benefit is to provide for low cost installation of a power generating system in areas where no dam exists by connecting waterways with a higher elevation to waterways with a lower elevation by means of pipes or penstocks. This provides a water source with a head differential to a turbine generating system installed on the river bank in such a manner as to discharge water from the turbine into the river. (Pg. 9:18-10:4)”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the first cellular wheel and/or bladed wheel comprises at least one of wood, metal, or plastic (Geiger et al.; [0014] “the combined waterwheel may be preferably be made of a sturdy, durable plastic.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. do not explicitly teach, “a cell of a blade of the first cellular and/or bladed wheel having at least a volumetric capacity of 10 liters.”
It appears that the only difference between the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. and the claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (e.g., the cells or blades have a capacity of 10 liters.), and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device (e.g., both the claimed invention and Geiger allow for the flow of water to rotate the water wheels and generate electrical power [0015], [0012]; additionally see Feltenberger et al. Pg. 9:23-10:4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hydropower device of the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. to have blades or cells that have a volumetric capacity of 10 liters as one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device." (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1 as above,
the first cellular and/or bladed wheel having at least 4 cells or blades (Geiger, Fig. 1: Feltenberger et al., Fig. 24); and/or
the second cellular and/or bladed wheel having at least 2 cells or blades (Geiger, Fig. 1: Feltenberger et al., Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach a rotatably mounted cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly as in claim 1 as above, comprising:
a mechanical shaft (Geiger, 3); and
an electric generator (Geiger, 3; the Examiner notes that the electrical generator is shown with a shaft in at least Fig. 1),
wherein the mechanical shaft connects the cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly to the electric generator in such a way that the cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly drives the electric generator to generate electrical energy (“the control module collects and processes the electrical energy from the entire modular hydroelectric power plant for further transmission and use.” [0020], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach a hydropower machine assembly (Geiger, Fig. 1), comprising:
a rotatably mounted cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly as in claimed in claim 1 as above;
a first supply or discharge line (Geiger, 7) configured to set the cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly in a rotational movement (Geiger; [0015] “the water is achieved via the inlet channel 7 above the water wheel in the water wheel cells. By the weight of the absorbed water, the wheel is brought out of balance and can thereby be placed in the rotational movement”), which
is configured to carry a medium (Geiger, “water” as in [0015]); and/or
connects the first cellular and/or bladed wheel to the second cellular and/or bladed wheel in a medium-conducting manner (Geiger, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach a hydropower assembly (Geiger, Fig. 1), comprising:
a rotatably mounted cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly as claim in claim 1 as above;
a second supply or discharge line (Geiger, 9) to set the cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly in a rotation movement ([0015], the first and second wheel are connected and the discharge line is required to set the device in motion), which
is set up to carry a medium (Geiger, “water” as in [0015]); and/or
connected the second cellular and/or bladed wheel to the first cellular and/or bladed wheel in a medium-conducting manner (Geiger, Fig. 1), the second supply line being arranged below a first supply line (Geiger; 7, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach a hydropower assembly (Geiger, Fig. 1), comprising:
a rotatably mounted cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly as claimed in claim 1 as above;
an electrical accumulator (Geiger, Fig. 3; 11) connected to an electric generator (Geiger; 3, the Examiner notes that the electrical generator is shown with a shaft in at least Fig. 1 as well as Fig. 3) and configured to store the electrical energy generated by the generator (Geiger; “the control module collects and processes the electrical energy from the entire modular hydroelectric power plant for further transmission and use.” [0020], Fig. 3);
an expansion tank (Geiger, “water supply system”; additionally see Fig. 3 wherein a plurality of the combination systems can be arranged in series and the “above system” should be considered to be an expansion tank as well) configured to provide a constant volume of a medium (Geiger, “water” [0015])
a housing (Geiger, 1 “housing”) configured to close off the rotatably mounted cellular and/or bladed wheel assembly such that the medium circulates within the hydropower machine assembly between the first cellular and/or bladed wheel and the second cellular and/or bladed wheel (Geiger, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1, in a hydropower machine (Geiger, Fig. 1) for the production of electrical energy (Geiger, [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the second cellular and/or bladed wheel comprises at least one of wood, metal, or plastic (Geiger et al.; [0014] “the combined waterwheel may be preferably be made of a sturdy, durable plastic.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. do not explicitly teach, “a cell of a blade of the second cellular and/or bladed wheel having at least a volumetric capacity of 10 liters.”
It appears that the only difference between the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. and the claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (e.g., the cells or blades have a capacity of 10 liters.), and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device (e.g., both the claimed invention and Geiger allow for the flow of water to rotate the water wheels and generate electrical power [0015], [0012]; additionally see Feltenberger et al. Pg. 9:23-10:4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hydropower device of the combination of Geiger and Feltenberger et al. to have blades or cells that have a volumetric capacity of 10 liters as one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device." (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
<SIGNATURES ARE INCLUDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE>
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights