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 .
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 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finnigan (US 2010/0156106) in view of Espedal (US 2014/0145443).
Finnigan discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A bottom-hinged wave energy converter comprising: foundation 12 defining an apparent foundation weight; a power converter connected to the foundation (see Fig. 1), the power converter having a crank (via reciprocating motor/pump or device providing motive force for generator);
a flap arms having along an arm axis a crank ends connected to the crank and a flap end (see Fig. 1); and a flap 28 having a flap bottom connected to the flap end (see Fig. 1) and a flap top configured to be at or near an ocean surface (see Fig. 1) during use (see Figs. 2 – 4), the flaps having a substantially circular or elliptic flap cross-section in a cross-section plane (see Fig. 2) substantially perpendicular to the arm axis (see Figs. 2, 6, 9), which flap cross-sections is constant between the flap bottom and the flap top or varies between the flap bottom or flap top or increases between the flap bottom and the flap top thereby defining a flap buoyancy [0078], wherein the apparent foundation weight is lesser or greater than the flap buoyancy (see Fig. 1).
It is reminded that having a conservative drag coefficient value range or inertia coefficient range is well within someone having ordinary skill in the art. Finnigan discloses that it is highly desirable to minimize drag forces [0081] upon the blades [0084]. It is further noted that the inertia and drag forces are taken into account for improving the system [0084] and further teaches fluid motion and complex interactions between the blades and the water [0087], thus being capable of easily obtaining the very broad drag coefficient of 0.6 – 1.0 or 0.7 – 0.9 or inertia coefficient of 1.5 – 1.8 or 1.6 – 1.7.
Moreover, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (drag coefficient between 0.6-1.0 or 0.7-0.9 and/or an inertia coefficient between 1.5-1.8 or 1.6-1.7) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, Espedal teaches using flap having circular (cylindrical shape; see Fig. 4), which are well-known to have a drag coefficient of 1.0 – 1.16, which fall within the drag coefficient disclosed in the claim.
However, Finnigan does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Espedal discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the foundation comprises a ballast chamber to adjust the apparent foundation weight (see Fig. 1).
Claim 6, wave energy converter further comprises one or more anchors 36 attached to a seafloor and to one or more nodes on the foundation (see Fig. 1) and wherein the wave energy converter is a floating wave energy converter (see abstract) as the apparent foundation weight is slightly lower to the flap buoyancy (when the ballast buoyancy is adjusted; paragraph 0034, 0059, 0070).
Claim 7, comprising two, three, or more bottom-hinged wave energy converter and
each wave energy converter is connected to at least one other wave energy converter by a connection member forming together with the foundations a foundation structure (see Fig. 4, [0045]).
Claim 8, the foundation structure further comprises a hydro turbine generator 30 and/or a desalination unit powered by the two, three or more bottom-hinged wave energy converters.
Claim 9, the foundation structure has a horizontal structure length at least equal to or greater than a local mean wave wavelength (since the wavelength of the waves changes and at some point, the horizontal structure would be equal or greater).
Claim 10, two, three or more bottom-hinged wave energy converters (see Fig. 4) according to claim 1, wherein each wave energy converter is connected to at least one other wave energy converter by a connection member forming together with the foundations a foundation structure (see Fig. 4), the foundation structure defining a foundation structure apparent weight being less than the flap buoyancies (when the ballast buoyancy is adjusted; paragraph 0034, 0059, 0070) and the anchored floating wave energy converter system comprises one or more anchors 36 attached to a seafloor and to one or more nodes on the foundation structures (see Fig. 1).
Claim 4, the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for cone shape for the flap. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to any other shape, since applicant has not disclosed that the cone shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with an elliptical or circular shape.
Claim 5, the flap buoyancy is chosen as a function of localized wave climate such that the eigenfrequency of the wave energy converter is substantially equal to a mean wave frequency of a dominating wave of the wave climate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to come out with such optimum value (eigenfrequency of the converter), since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, due to the nature of waves constantly changing, at some point the eigenfrequency is going to be equal to the mean wave frequency.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the converter as disclose by Finnigan and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Espedal for the purpose of reducing maintenance and losses in a wave power system.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnigan and Espedal as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Hirsch (US 2005/0099010).
The combined energy converter discloses all of the elements above. Hirsch is being cited for further explicitly showing that the below elements are well-known in the art. Hirsch discloses, regarding,
Claim 6, wave energy converter further comprises one or more anchors 207 attached to a seafloor and to one or more nodes on the foundation (see Fig. 20) and wherein the wave energy converter is a floating wave energy converter (see abstract) as the apparent foundation weight is slightly lower to the flap buoyancy (via elements 210).
Claim 10, two, three or more bottom-hinged wave energy converters (see Fig. 2) according to claim 1, wherein each wave energy converter is connected to at least one other wave energy converter by a connection member forming together with the foundations a foundation structure (see Fig. 20), the foundation structure defining a foundation structure apparent weight being less than the flap buoyancies (via elements 210; see Fig. 20) and the anchored floating wave energy converter system comprises one or more anchors 207 attached to a seafloor and to one or more nodes on the foundation structures.
Claim 11, the anchored floating wave energy converter system further comprises a pylon extending during use above an ocean surface (see Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined converter as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Hirsch for the purpose of reducing the cost of wave energy converters.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnegan and Espedal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 6,711,897).
The combined converter discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined converter does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Lee discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the crank 3 is a single crank 3 connected to the power converter 4, wherein the flap arm 12 is a single flap arm 12 connected to the single crank 3, and wherein the flap 15 (equivalent device) is a single flap 15 connected to the flap arm 12 (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined converter as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Lee for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of a wave power system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that Finnigan allegedly fails to disclose a crank, flap arm and flap with a flap bottom and flap top, Finnigan shows in Fig. 1 a flap arm (connected at the bottom with flaps 28; see Fig. 1), a flap bottom and top (see Figs. 2 – 4) and a crank (device for providing motive force to generator 30, in Fig. 1).
As broadly reasonably interpreted, a crank is a device for providing a kinetic/motive force to the generator. In Finnigan, there must be a device for imparting a motive/kinetic for, otherwise the device would be inoperative and would not produce any electric energy via the generator.
Finnigan discloses that the flap 28 move and the movement is able to drive a bottom arm which provides a motive force for the generator [0082].
Also, the claims of the present application do not provide any specific structural detail to define the “crank” in order to differentiate the present application crank from the prior art.
Regarding the remark that Finnigan allegedly fails to disclose flaps having a circular or elliptic cross-section, Figs. 1 and 2 of Finnigan show that the flaps have a circular or elliptic cross-section.
Regarding the remark that Finnigan allegedly fails to disclose that the cross sections are constant or varies or increase, Figs. 1 and 2 of Finnigan show that the cross-section of the flaps do not change, thus the cross sections are constant.
Regarding the remark pertaining to the flaps having a drag coefficient or inertia coefficient as recited in claim 1, it is common knowledge to have a drag coefficient of 1.0 in wave power system since it is highly desirable to reduce the drag forces.
In ocean energy devices, the drag coefficient is a quantity that quantifies the hydrodynamic resistance (drag force) of an object when moving through water or when placed in a tidal/wave current. Finnigan and Espedal disclose ocean/water energy devices in which the flaps are placed in moving water or tidal/wave current.
Furthermore, it is well-known to derive a drag coefficient from the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also, typical values for wave energy converter for offshore structures have drag coefficient values between 06. – 1.2, which fall under the disclose value as recited in claim 1. Cylindrical structures (flap or pylons) have drag coefficients of 06. – 1.2. Espedal disclose having flap with cylindrical structures (see Espedal, Figs. 1, 4), which implicitly disclose a structure with a drag coefficient value of 0.6 – 1.2, which fall under the range value as disclosed in claim 1.
For example, Duggleby et al (US 2010/0013228) mentions that a drag coefficient for a blade is 1.0 and such value is conservative (emphasis added; see paragraphs 0057, 0058).
Calculating or arriving to such well-known, conservative value would have been very easy for someone having ordinary skill in the art, since such value is presented as common knowledge in the field or conservative (e.g., see Duggleby et al).
Moreover, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It is reminded that performing simulations is well-known in many fields. Even college and high school students are able to perform simulations for experimental reasons. Performing simulations/calculations in order to come out with ranges or values that are typical and well-known does not merit a patent. There are even various drag coefficient calculators available in the internet, which mention that the drag coefficient for a circular (cylinder shape) to be within the range disclosed in the claim.
See: https://engineerexcel.com/drag-equation/
PNG
media_image3.png
734
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
Regarding the remark that the claim discloses the optimal relationship between a drag coefficient and inertia coefficient of a flap (increasing inertia coefficient while decreasing drag coefficient), the claim language is disclosed in the alternative language and uses “or” statements. Moreover, there are numerous ranges for the drag coefficient or the inertia coefficient.
Such usage of alternative language “or” and disclosing various different ranges makes the claim very broad, thus the Prior Art reads on the claim language as presented.
In response to applicant's argument that Finnegan teaches away, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a primary/secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary/secondary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., paragraphs 0029, 0030 of the specifications; both the drag coefficient and inertia coefficient are highly dependent on the geometry of the flap; achieving high mean power) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Finnegan and Espedal are related to wave power systems. Both prior arts are in the same field of endeavor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duggleby et al discloses that it is common knowledge to in wave power systems to have flap with a 1.0 drag coefficient.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
February 13, 2026