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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 8 includes language that a component may further comprise a specific structural configuration. The term “may” represents a clearly understood indication of an optional limitation and, as such, the term does not introduce any indefiniteness in the claim language because, although it may otherwise represent a broad limitation followed by a narrower limitation, the narrower limitation is in this case explicitly optional.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petersen (US 4,780,217 A).
With respect to claim 1, Petersen teaches a system and associated methods for artificial aeration of a body of water in which a pump is employed to draw in deep water and force it through an ejector [Abs]. The system is portable and configured as a floating unit which may easily be moved to another location [Col. 3 lines 18-22]. In embodiments, the pumped water is ejected via a nozzle such as an undersea nozzle into a riser pipe [Col. 5 lines 15-38; Fig. 2]. The riser pipe, and/or additional pipes e.g. suction pipe (2) represent external tubes for containing said flows at various stages; these tubes are sized to reach the hypolimnion of the body of water in which the unit is placed, both to draw water from the deep layers via the suction pipe and to deliver it back there via the bottom of the riser pipe [Col. 2 lines 23-56]. The system further includes power cables i.e. for powering the pump (though not depicted in all embodiments) [Col. 5 lines 11-14, 56-58; Fig. 3].
In view of the above, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system described by Petersen anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Petersen describes the use of centrifugal immersion pumps, preferably of the self-priming variety [Col. 5 lines 15-22].
With respect to claim 3, Petersen teaches a suction mount (35) for holding the end of the suction pipe (2) and connecting to a filter (strainer) (21). The mount and other associated structures are connected to the main body e.g. the outer pipe (8), float (10), and base (36), which also supports the pump and its associated connections (hose adapter). In embodiments [Fig. 1] these elements can be internally integrated.
With respect to claim 4, as above the system floats independently and is provided with a buoyant structure as part of the casing i.e. float (10).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Liang (CN 101653754 A).
Petersen teaches as above but is silent to a waterproof on-off switch on the device. However, Liang teaches a water-spraying fountain device integrated into a floating platform [Abs] and teaches that the device has a waterproof switch and associated structures positioned thereon in a manner that allows for the power to be cut in certain situations e.g. when the device comes into contact with a bottom surface [0008]. It would have been obvious to incorporate such waterproof switches into the device of Petersen to allow for similar operations i.e. for power to be cut when needed to protect against improper positioning or, in general, to allow for actuation of the device as needed.
Regarding the limitations of claim 3 i.e. the base which connects all elements together, if this is intended to require that the elements are all centrally connected, Petersen is silent to at least internal integration of a filter (otherwise integrating the pump, associated connectors for e.g. tubing, and the like within the float body/platform as discussed above); however, in view of Liang, integration of filters directly into the structure of the pump would have been obvious. Liang teaches providing filters at the front position of a pump frame [0037] to protect the water pump and ensure efficient operation [0019].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Verner et al (US 4,107,240 A).
Petersen teaches as above but is silent to the materials from which various elements may be constructed, including a material with low thermal conductivity. Petersen does teaches structures e.g. riser pipes which may constitute rigid tubes as well as structures e.g. suction tubes which may represent flexible tubes.
However, Verner teaches systems for oxygen-enriching of water by adjustment of the hypolimnion layer [Abs] using a pump platform, and teaches that various distribution ducts may advantageously employ plastic tubing which is cheap, light, and easy to handle [Col. 3 lines 31-34]. The instant specification makes clear that plastic represents a material which has low thermal conductivity within the meaning of the invention; in view of Verner, it would have been obvious to employ plastic tubing to form the structures such as the distribution ducts, risers, etc. in Petersen’s system because, as in Verner, such material is cheap, light, and easy to handle.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Hou et al (CN 217398551 U).
Petersen teaches as above, including various electrical connections for driving system pumps, but is silent to an integrated power source such as a battery or solar panel.
However, Hou teaches a floating platform for use on lakes and the like [Abs] which integrates fountains [n0013] and, in order to provide system power for driving pumps and the like includes a rechargeable battery which is connected to a solar panel [n0014]. This allows the platform to operate by day and by night [n0032].
It would have been obvious to include batteries and solar panels as well-known technologies for providing localized power to the system of Petersen which, as in Hou, are known to be suitable for floating platforms for the sake of powering pumps and the like in fountains and related structures.
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Lappalaeinen (WO 2004/065312 A1) and Beauchamp (US PGPub 2017/0202208 A1).
Petersen teaches as above, including various electrical connections for driving system pumps, but is silent to an integrated power source such as a gas generator or an alternator of a gas engine.
However, Lappalaeinen teaches a very similar floating water fountain system i.e. for increasing oxygen content of the hypolimnion region of a body of water [Abs] and teaches that the system pumps may be driven at least at times using a combustion engine mounted to the device [pg. 11 lines 5-10] although the specific implementation is not detailed. Further to this, Beauchamp teaches a floating platform [Abs] which includes powered motive elements for moving the device [0002] and teaches that this may be powered by local or adjacently-connected power sources (e.g. using rechargeable battery intermediates) including elements containing an engine-driven generator such as a gasoline or diesel generator, which provides power using an alternator [0049].
In view of this, it would be well recognized that pump devices of the type described by Petersen may sufficiently integrate local power sources such as combustion engine sources as in Lappalaeinen and, in view of Beacuhamp, may employ such devices in the form of gas engine generators e.g. using alternators in order to provide electrical power for devices such as electrical pumps or similar. It would have been obvious to implement these in the device of Petersen as well-known power generation arrangements which are recognized as useful by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights