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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Under the Brief Description of the Drawings: Figure 4 appears to have 4 figures; Figure 5 appears to have 3 figures; Figure 12 appears to have 2 figures; Figure 14 appears to have 2 figures; Figure 15 appears to have 2 figures; Figure 16 appears to have 2 figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "418" and "416" have both been used to designate “lower end” para 0057. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1216” has been used to designate both flanges and springs para 0070, 0071. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 § 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 3,4, 10-21 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 3 line 2, “in an” is awkward and confusing.
Claim 10 line 9 “water flowing in a direction from the first side and the second side” is confusing. It appears water is flowing in a direction from the first side to the second side.
Claim 10 line 12+ “fish traveling … pass through the fish pass system by a volume of water” is awkward and confusing. Its not clear how a fish pass by a volume of water. It seems that fish pass by riding or swimming in a volume of water similar as in claim 2.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 3 above.
Claim 15 line 11, “second direction” lacks clear antecedent basis and should be
–a second direction--.
Claim 15 line 11+ “fish traveling … pass through the fish pass system by respective volumes of water” is awkward and confusing. It’s not clear how a fish pass by respective volumes of water. It seems that fish pass by riding or swimming in respective volumes of water similar as in claim 2.
The remaining claims are only rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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) 2-5,15,17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by German document (DE 102016005862)
German document ‘862 discloses a fish pass system, comprising:
a helical blade including: a first side;
a second side opposite the first side;
an outside diameter extending between the first side and the second side;
and
an inside diameter extending between the first side and the second side, the
inside diameter for controlling a flow of water flowing in a direction from the first
side to the second side, the inside diameter defining an open center of the fish pass
system,
wherein fish traveling in an opposite direction to the direction of the flow
of the water pass through the fish pass system by riding or swimming in a volume
of water contained in a space between two adjacent turns of the helical blade as
the helical blade is rotating upstream or uphill, and
fish traveling in the direction of the flow of the water pass through the open
center of the fish pass system by swimming or moving over the inside diameter of
the helical blade (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 3, wherein the outside diameter of the helical blade is attachable to in an inside surface of a tube (see machine translation).
Re claim 4, wherein the tube is formed of a plurality of tubular segments (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 5, wherein the helical blade is integrally formed with an inside surface of a tube as a single unit of material (see machine translation).
Re claim 15, see discussion of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, the helical blade is formed as a single unit of material (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 18, see discussion of claim 3 above.
Re claim 19, see discussion of claim 4 above.
Re claim 20, see discussion of claim 5 above.
Re claim 21, see discussion of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 10-13,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘862 in view of Its Obvious to make Separate.
Re claim 10, German document ‘862 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see discussion above) expect that the helical blade is made up of blade segments joined together. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the helical blade in blade segments joined together since such a modification facilitates repair. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the ar. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Re claims 11-13, see discussion above with respect to claims 3-5.
Re claim 16, see discussion above with regards to claim 10.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘862 in view of WO document (WO 2020/061599)
German document ‘862 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘862 is silent about the tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube. WO document ‘599 teaches a tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube (see Fig. 2a).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify German document ‘862 to include
the tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube as taught by WO document ‘599 since such a modification guides the fish in the desired direction.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘862 in view of its obvious to make separate as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WO document ‘599.
German document ‘862 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘862 (as modified above) is silent about the tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube. WO document ‘599 teaches a tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube (see Fig. 2a).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify German document ‘862 (as modified above) to include the tube having a downstream end and an upstream end opposite the downstream end; a downstream transition disposed at the downstream end of the tube; and an upstream transition disposed at the upstream end of the tube as taught by WO document ‘599 since such a modification guides the fish in the desired direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
12/27/2025