DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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.
With regard to claim 18, the claim states that the channel body is below a top surface of an obstacle. According to the specification, this is in reference to culverts under an overpass (eg. fig. 1 of application). However, parent claim 1 requires a completely open top of the channel body. It is unclear how the channel body can be below a top surface of an obstacle yet have a completely open top. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (2014/0035283).
With regard to claim 1, Park discloses a water channel comprising a channel body having an entrance and an exit (eg. fig. 1; water flowing through channel), the channel body defining a flow direction from the entrance to the exit (figs. 3a, 3b), wherein a top of the entrance, the exit, and an entire length of the channel body between the entrance and the exit is open (figs. 1, 3a, 3b); a turbine (200) positioned within the channel body such that water flowing through the channel body drives the turbine (fig.s 1, 3a, 3b); intake deflectors positioned at the entrance, the intake deflectors being angled away from the flow direction relative to the channel body and positioned to direct a flow of water into the entrance of the channel body (figs. 3a, 3b; curved inlet); and outlet deflectors positioned at the exit of the channel body and extending away from the exit of the channel body and angled away from the flow direction relative to the channel body (figs. 3a, 3b; curved outlet).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peckham (7,375,437) in view of Ogata (JP 2018194002 A).
With regard to claim 1, Peckham discloses a water channel (eg. fig. 4) comprising: a channel body (10) having an entrance, an exit, the channel body defining a flow direction from the entrance to the exit (fig. 4); a turbine (14; figs. 3-4; col. 4, lines 45-53) positioned within the channel body such that water flowing through the channel body drives the turbine (figs. 3-4); intake deflectors (angled walls of intake fig. 4) positioned at the entrance, the intake deflectors being angled away from the flow direction relative to the channel body and positioned to direct a flow of water into the entrance of the channel body (fig. 4); and outlet deflectors (angled walls of outlet) positioned at the exit of the channel body and extending away from the exit of the channel body and angled away from the flow direction relative to the channel body (fig. 4).
Peckham is silent regarding a top of the entrance, the exit, and an entire length of the channel body between the entrance and the exit is open.
Ogata discloses a water channel (10) with a turbine (20) wherein a top of the entrance, the exit, and an entire length of the channel body between the entrance and the exit is open (figs. 1a, 2a, 3a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peckham and have the top be open as taught in Ogata, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easier access to the interior of the water channel.
With regard to claim 3, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the intake deflectors, the outlet deflectors, or both the intake deflectors and the outlet deflectors comprise a base deflector at a bottom of the channel body and lateral deflectors on opposed sides of the channel body (Peckham, figs. 3, 5).
With regard to claim 4, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the channel body has a base, a first channel wall, and a second channel wall that extends upward from the base along a first length of the base (Peckham, figs. 1-2), the second channel wall being spaced from the second channel wall along a width of the base to define the entrance and the exit (Peckham, figs. 3-4); the intake deflectors are positioned on the first channel wall and the second channel wall adjacent to the entrance(Peckham, figs. 3-4); and the outlet deflectors are positioned on the first channel wall and the second channel walls adjacent to the exit (Peckham, figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 5, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the first channel wall and the second channel wall comprise pontoons on opposed sides of the channel body (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 11, Peckham, as modified, further discloses ballast carried by the channel body, the ballast being adjustable to control a buoyancy of the channel body (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 12, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the ballast is adjustable to control a slope of the channel or a depth of the channel body in a body of water (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 13, Peckham, as modified, further discloses a plurality of anchors that are adapted to fix the channel body in a desired position (Peckham, col. 8, lines 49-61).
With regard to method claim 14, the claimed method of driving a turbine would inherently be performed by the modification of Peckham to include the open top as taught by Ogata as discussed above. Peckham further discloses adjusting the water channel to control the flow of water through the channel body (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 15, Peckham, as modified, further discloses adjusting the water channel comprises setting a depth, an orientation of the water channel relative to a surface of the body of water, or both a depth and an orientation of the water channel in the body of water (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 16, Peckham, as modified, further discloses adjusting the water channel comprises controlling a ballast carried by the water channel (Peckham, col. 3, lines 44-53).
With regard to claim 18, Peckham, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state installing the channel body below a top surface of an obstacle such that the channel body traverses the obstacle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device to Peckham could readily be placed in any location in a body of water, to include water flowing under a bridge.
With regard to claim 19, Peckham, as modified, further discloses anchoring the channel body at a desired position in a body of water (Peckham, col. 8, lines 49-61).
Claim(s) 6-9, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peckham (7,375,437) in view of Ogata (JP 2018194002 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srybnik et al. (7,605,490).
With regard to claims 6-7 and 17, Peckham, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the intake deflectors and the outlet deflectors are adjustable and comprise rams that control the angle of the deflectors.
Srybnik discloses a water channel with a turbine wherein the intake deflectors (eg. 12a, 12b, 12e, 12f)and the outlet deflectors (eg. 12c, 12d, 12g, 12h) are adjustable and comprise rams that control the angle of the deflectors (col. 3, lines 31-54; “mechanical means”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Peckham and have the inlet and outlet be adustble as taught in Srybnik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order optimize pressure within the system.
With regard to claim 8, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the intake deflectors are at an angle of between 35 and 55 degrees, and define a flow area of between 40% and 70% larger than a flow area of the channel body at a point between the inlet deflectors and the outlet deflectors (Srybnik, col. 3, lines 31-62).
With regard to claim 9, Peckham, as modified, further discloses the outlet deflectors are at an angle of between 35 and 55 degrees and define a flow area of at least 40% larger than a flow area of the channel body at a point between the inlet deflectors and the outlet deflectors (Srybnik, col. 3, lines 31-62).
With regard to claim 20, Peckham, as modified, further discloses a step of adjusting the intake deflectors, the outlet deflectors, or both the intake deflectors and the outlet deflectors to increase a flow velocity of the flow of water through the channel body (Srybnik, col. 3, lines 31-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments are based on new limitations which have been addressed above.
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 BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights