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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4-5 are amended. Currently, claims 1 and 3-30 are pending in the application with claims 16-30 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites “the floating frame connected to the first hydrokinetic turbine via a first turbine mooring coupling” in lines 6-7, and “the floating frame does not provide floatation support to the first hydrokinetic turbine” in line 10. Applicant has no support for the limitations that the floating frame is connected to the first hydrokinetic turbine but does not provide floatation support for the hydrokinetic turbine in the originally filed disclosure. Such description is no where to be found in the originally filed disclosure.
Claims 3-15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
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 3-15 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites “the floating frame connected to the first hydrokinetic turbine via a first turbine mooring coupling” in lines 6-7, and “the floating frame does not provide floatation support to the first hydrokinetic turbine” in line 10. It is not clear how a floating frame connected to the first hydrokinetic turbine via a first turbine mooring coupling, but does not provide floatation support to the first hydrokinetic turbine. When a floatation frame connected to a hydrokinetic turbine, it inherently provides a floatation support by the connection. Therefore, it is unclear what “floatation support” is encompassing and being referred to.
Claims 3-15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
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.
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 and 3-6, 8, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sia (US 2017/0292499) in view of Vu (US 2019/0085819), and further in view of Teichmann (US 2005/0286268).
Regarding claim 1, Sia discloses a power generation system (fig. 6Y) comprising:
a first hydrokinetic turbine (see submerged water turbine 471, 500a, 500b in fig. 6Y, [0152-153], and [0149]) positioned in a waterway and secured to the waterway by anchor (or suction cap device 550, see fig. 6Y);
a floating frame (see flotation-ballast tank 578, [0152]) and connected to the first hydrokinetic turbine (471, 500a, 500b) via a turbine mooring coupling (see line 457u in fig. 6Y, [0152]);
at least one solar panel (see solar cells 579, [0152]) attached to the floating frame (578, see fig. 6Y).
Sia discloses the water turbines and their electrical generation (see [0153]) by harvesting the kinetic energy of the water current efficiently (see [0149]). As such, the water turbines of Sia are hydrokinetic turbines.
A waterway must have banks to hold water. Sia does not explicitly draw a waterway having a first bank and a second bank, and the water is between the first bank and the second bank, such that the floating frame and the first hydrokinetic turbine are positioned between the first bank and the second bank; nor does he teach the floating frame does not provide floatation support to the first hydrokinetic turbine.
Vu draws a waterway of a river having a first bank and a second bank, and the water is between the first bank and the second bank; such that the devices (or water turbines on/in the water is between the first bank and second bank (see figs. 25a-b, [0049]). Vu also teaches connecting the hydrokinetic turbines (or the water turbines) to the first bank or the second bank of the waterway (see figs. 25a-b).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used the power generation system of Sia, e.g. the first hydrokinetic turbines and the floating frame supporting solar panel, in and on the water of the waterway of a river having the first bank, a second bank, and water between the first bank and the second bank such that the devices on or in the water is between the first bank and the second banks as taught by Vu; because Vu teaches rivers are one type among many others well known as the most widespread renewable and sustainable energy resources in the world (see [0001]). Such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the power generation system. In such modification, the first hydrokinetic turbines and the floating frame supporting at least one solar panel are between the first bank and the second bank of the waterway. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have connected the hydrokinetic turbines to the first bank or the second bank as taught by Vu, because Vu teaches such connection would obtain the best efficiency of the hydrokinetic turbines (or the water turbines) and allow avoidance the construction of hydraulic dams in rivers (see [0084]). In such modification, the floating frame does not provide the floatation support of the first hydrokinetic turbine since the first hydrokinetic turbine is connected to and being supported by the banks of the waterway.
It is noted a water turbine is a device that generates AC power, or a source of AC power as evidenced by Teichmann (see [0019] of Teichmann). In other words, the water turbine of Sia is inherently configured to generate a first AC power.
Solar cells are devices that generate DC power, or a source of DC power as evidenced by Teichmann (see [0016] of Teichmann). In other words, the solar panel (or solar cells of 579) of Sia is inherently configured to generate a first DC power and a transmission line connected to the solar cells must be a DC bus.
Sia teaches protecting electrical components, but does not specify the electrical components to include a rectifier, such that the first hydrokinetic turbine (or water turbine) electrically is connected to a rectifier to rectify the first AC power into a second DC power and the rectifier is electrically connected to the at least one solar panel via a DC bus.
Teichmann discloses connecting an AC source (24, fig. 2) such as water turbine ([0019]) to a rectifier (26) to rectify the AC power into a DC power (see fig. 2 as the rectifier 26 is an AC/DC converter) to be fed into a DC/AC converter (12) of the power conversion system (10, fig. 1, [0019]), and the power conversion system (10, fig. 1) includes a DC power source (20) such as a photovoltaic system or a solar cell with DC transmission line (see fig. 1, [0016]) connected to the converter (12, see fig. 1). In other words, Teichmann discloses a power generation system comprising a power management circuit including a rectifier (26) electrically connected to a hydrokinetic (water) turbine (24) to rectify a AC power generated by the hydrokinetic (water) turbine into a DC power and the rectifier is also electrically connected to the connected to the solar panel (e.g. photovoltaic system or solar cell) with DC transmission line since the rectifier (26) and the solar panel (e.g. photovoltaic system or solar cell) are DC power inputs and electrically connected to the DC/AC converter (12).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sia by incorporating the power management circuit including a rectifier as taught by Teichmann such that the first hydrokinetic turbine (or the AC power source of water turbine 417/500a/500b) to rectify the first AC power (or the power generated by the AC power source of the first hydrokinetic turbine of water turbine) into a second DC power and the rectifier electrically connected to the at least one solar panel via a DC bus (or transmission line of the solar panel); because Sia explicitly suggests including electrical components for the system, and Teichmann teaches such power management circuit is desirable that helps in the achievement of high power quality and power factor while avoiding active semiconductors in the high current path ([0006] and [0024-0028]).
Sia does not explicitly disclose positioning the floating frame (578) downstream from the first hydrokinetic turbine (or water turbine 471/500a/500b). However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have rearranged or positioning the floating frame (578) downstream from the first turbine (471/500a/500b), because such rearrangement is a mere rearrangement of the system parts that would not modify the operation of the system, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above; wherein Sia discloses using multiple water turbines (471/500a/500b) and connecting the water turbines via turbine mooring (or line 457u, see fig. 6Y), and Vu teaches using multiple hydrokinetic turbines (or water turbines, see figs. 25a-b).
Modified Sia does not disclose arranging/positioning the second turbine downstream from the floating frame, or the other end opposite to the first kinetic turbine.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power generation system of Sia by incorporating a second turbine downstream from the floating frame or at the end opposite to the first turbine; because such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above, wherein Sia discloses connecting the floating frame to the first hydrokinetic turbine (see claim 1 above) and Vu teaches connecting the hydrokinetic turbines to the first bank or the second bank via a (first) mooring coupling (see figs. 25a-b of Vu). As such, the floating frame of modified Sia is connected to at least the first bank of the waterway via a first mooring coupling.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 4 above, wherein Sia teaches using multiple turbines (see fig. 6Y of Sia) and Vu also teaches using multiple turbines and connecting the devices to the banks of the waterway (see figs. 25a-b of Vu).
Modified Sia does not explicitly disclose a second turbine positioned downstream from the floating frame and the floating frame connected to a second portion of the waterway via a second mooring coupling.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power generation system of Sia by incorporating a second turbine positioned downstream from the floating frame and connecting the floating frame (or the flotation ballast tank 578) to a second portion of the water way via a second mooring coupling to provide additional anchors and energy generation, because Sia teaches using multiple turbines and Vu also teaches using multiple turbines and connecting floating devices to the first bank of the waterway. Such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above, wherein Sia discloses using solar cells (in plural form), or an array of solar panels/cells.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above, wherein Sia discloses the solar panel is a photovoltaic panel (or solar cells, see [0152]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above, wherein Teichmann’s power management circuit includes an inverter (see DC/AC converter 12, fig. 1) connected to the rectifier (26, see fig. 2), wherein the inverter (12) is further connected to the at least one solar panel (or DC source 20, see fig. 1, [0016] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 10 above, wherein Teichmann discloses the at least one solar panel is connected to the inverter (or DC/AC converter 12) through a DC string optimizer (see the control unit 14 in figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above, wherein Sia teaches the floating frame is also a buoy ([0152]) and including floating objects such as turbines (500a/500b) being anchored (see fig. 6Y).
Modified Sia does not explicitly disclose including one buoy positioned upstream of the floating frame.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power generation system of modified Sia by incorporating a buoy (or an additional floating frame 508/flotation ballast tank 578) positioned upstream of the floating frame (or the flotation ballast tank 578), because such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sia (US 2017/0292499) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dederick (US 2011/0139299).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 6 above, wherein Sia describes using solar cells (in plural form, see [0152]) and shows the solar cells (579, fig. 6Y) in a form of a panel, or a solar panel comprises an array of solar panels/cells.
Sia does not explicitly show the array of solar panels comprises a plurality of rows of solar panels.
Dederick shows the array of solar panels (12) comprises a plurality of rows of solar panels (see fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power generation system of Sia by using the array of solar panels comprising a plurality of rows of solar panels (or solar cells) as taught by Dederick, because Sia explicitly suggests using solar cells (in plural form) and such modification is a mere rearrangement of the system parts that would not modify the operation of the system, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above.
Modified Sia does not disclose including a switch configured to output both a power generated by the first turbine and a power generated by the at least by the at least solar panel.
Dederick discloses including a switch (S1 or S2 or S3, see figs. 1A-B) for routing the electricity (see [0035-0037], [0057-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power generation system of modified Sia by incorporating a switch for routing the electricity as taught by Dederick.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 10 above, wherein Teichmann discloses a battery is a DC source (20, [0016]) and the teaches the DC source connected to converter (12 or 32, see figs. 1, 3-5), which is also an inverter.
Modified Sia does not explicitly disclose the battery bank connected to a converter and a switch connected to both the inverter and the converter (or the inverter connected to the battery).
Dederick discloses a battery bank (44) connected to a converter (or DC/AC converter 46) and using a switch (S1, S2 or S3) for routing electricity generated by wind turbine (or wind generator 14) and the solar panel collector (12, see figs. 1A-B, [0035-0037], [0057-0058]), wherein the battery bank is for electrical power storage ([0057-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power management circuit of modified Sia by incorporating a battery bank for electrical power storage as taught by Dederick. It would also have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have connected a converter (or an inverter DC/AC) to the battery bank, and incorporating a switch as taught by Dederick, because Teichmann discloses connecting a DC source such as a battery to a converter (or DC/AC 12) and Dederick teaches incorporating a switch would allow the electricity to be routed. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the switch connected to both the inverter and the converter to output both a power generated by the first turbine and a power generated by the at least one solar panel to have the power generated by the first turbine and the power generated by the at least one solar panel to be routed.
Regarding claim 13, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 12 above, wherein Teichmann discloses including a control system (see process control 14, figs. 1-5) in the power management circuit. In other words, the power management circuit of modified Lim has the control system (14) connected to the inverter (or DC/AC converter 12), the switch (as taught by Dederick as in claim 12 above), and the converter (or the DC/AC converter connected to the battery bank).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sia (US 2017/0292499) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wells (US Patent 3,556,036).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sia discloses a power generation system as in claim 1 above.
Modified Sia does not state in words a bow positioned upstream of the floating frame (or flotation ballast tank 578).
Wells teaches a bow of a vessel (10) immediately adjacent the foremost barge will shield that barge against high seas and therefore will simplify barge tie down problems inasmuch as high seas break away forces will be reduced (see col. 2, lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floating frame (or flotation ballast tank 578) of modified Sia by including a bow positioned upstream (or the foremost section) as taught by Wells; because Wells teaches a bow would shield the floating frame against high seas and therefore simplifying barge tie down problems inasmuch as high seas break away forces will be reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-15 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.
Applicant argues Sia and Teichmann do not teach the claimed invention.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection 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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights