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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s remarks. Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the prior art by incorporating claim 3 into claim 1. However, Examiner has previously rejected claim 3 in the-Final Rejection. Examiner is not persuaded that the prior art fails to disclose a first and second diffuser, wherein the turbine chamber is connected to the inlet pipe via a second diffuser and the second diffuser is upstream said convergent section. Examiner believes the divergent section of the upstream can read on the second diffuser which is upstream from the convergent section of the first diffuser. As such, the Examiner has maintained his rejection and reissued the non-final for the same reason as previously recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7,11, 12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestage, French Patent Publication 2497877 (hereinafter “Lestage”) in view of Casini, Harvesting energy from in-pipe hydro systems at urban and building scale (hereinafter “Casini”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Lestage discloses an apparatus for generating electricity from water flow (as shown in Figures by arrows) comprising: a convergent section connected at a downstream end thereof to an upstream end of a mixing chamber such that a venturi is formed (See, Figures as presence of Venturi in all of them); a diffuser section connected to a downstream end of the mixing chamber, the diffuser configured such that in use the static pressure at the exit of the diffuser is greater than the static pressure at the venturi (Implicit by Bernoulli’s Equation with the presence of Venturi); at least part of a tube located in the convergent section, such that an annulus is defined between the tube and the convergent section, to form a first flow passage , and the tube defining a second flow passage within the tube; and a turbine, which is connected with the tube and connectable to a generator (inherent from Title and Abstract although not shown), wherein the turbine is located within a turbine chamber that is connected at a downstream end thereof to an upstream end of the convergent section; and wherein the turbine chamber is connected to the inlet pipe via a second diffuser and the second diffuser is upstream from the convergent section. See, Figure 9 which shows multiple diffusers and multiple convergent sections. Examiner notes additional Figures also show a similar configuration.
Lestage fails to disclose the newly amended limitation of with a fluid tight seal wherein the turbine chamber is connected at an upstream end thereof to an inlet pipe with a fluid tight seal; wherein the turbine chamber comprises a self-contained unit that is separable from the remainder of the apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Casini discloses an apparatus for generating water flow with a turbine, wherein the turbine chamber is connected to an inlet and outlet pipe having divergent and convergent features and wherein a seal is located between the components, and as such wherein the turbine chamber is self-contained unit that is separable. See, Figure 2, 4, and 8. Examiner notes that he is taking official notice of a seal being located between the pipe components as it is well known in the art to use a seal between components to prevent leaking.
As such, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lestage with the teaching of Casini, namely to modify the water turbine apparatus of Lestage to make it comprises of several components with a seal located between them as taught by Casini because such a modification makes the apparatus easier to manufacture, easier to install, easier to maintain, and easier to conduct any sort of repair.
In Reference to Claim 4
Lestage further discloses wherein the inlet pipe comprises a siphon. See, Figure 4 and 5 which illustrates the use of a siphon on the inlet (higher level of water to lower level of water).
In Reference to Claim 5:
Lestage further discloses wherein the turbine chamber is pressurized in use. Examiner notes that it is inherent that the turbine chamber is pressurized as a pressure difference is required in order to extract energy to create electricity and therefore there must be a pressure.
In Reference to Claim 6 and 7:
Lestage further discloses wherein the turbine chamber has a substantially constant cross-sectional area and is cylindrical inner surface. See, Figure 1 and 4.
In Reference to Claim 11:
Lestage as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the turbine and or tube is slideably mounted within the turbine chamber. Examiner notes that the claim language of “slidably mounted” is a product by process claim and therefore only requires the structure of the turbine or tube to mounted with the turbine chamber. Therefore, as depicted in the figure Lestage discloses wherein the turbine is mounted into the turbine chamber (inherent as would be required to operate).
In Reference to Claim 12:
Lestage further discloses a tailpipe (10 shown as 22 in some images), which is connected to an outlet of the diffuser.
In Reference to Claim 18:
Lestage further discloses a barrier for locating across the cross-section of a flowing body of water, and at least one apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim, wherein the at least one apparatus is arranged to provide a flow path from the upstream side of the barrier to the downstream side of the barrier. See, Figure 3-5 and 7-9 which all show a barrier supporting the energy generating turbine system.
In Reference to Claim 19:
Lestage further discloses across a body of water to provide a reservoir of water, such that a head difference is created between the downstream and upstream sides of the barrier; and using the flow of water through the apparatus to rotate the turbine. See, Figure 4, 5 and 9 which illustrate a head difference created between upstream and downstream that causes the flow of water through the apparatus.
In Reference to Claim 20:
Lestage discloses a flow passage through a barrier across a body of water comprising and apparatus as claimed in claim 1. See, Figure 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestage, French Patent Publication 2497877 (hereinafter “Lestage”) in view of Casini, Harvesting energy from in-pipe hydro systems at urban and building scale (hereinafter “Casini”) in further view of Roberts, U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0184069 (hereinafter “Roberts”)
In Refrence to Claim 14:
Lestage as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the mixing chamber has a length that is at least double its diameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, renewable energy generation using a water turbine, Roberts discloses wherein the mixing chamber has a length that is at least double its diameter. See, Figure 4. For the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics to maximize energy generation.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lestage such that the mixing chamber has a length that is at least double its diameter as taught by Roberts because as discussed in Roberts such a modification is used during optimization to achieve the optimal energy generation for the average fluid flow through the system.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lestage, French Patent Publication 2497877 (hereinafter “Lestage”) in view of Casini, Harvesting energy from in-pipe hydro systems at urban and building scale (hereinafter “Casini”) in further view of Kuehnle, U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0241566 (hereinafter “Kuehnle).
In Reference to Claim 8:
Lestage as modifed discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the turbine chamber comprises a hatch in a wall thereof for providing access to the inside of the turbine chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle discloses a turbine wherein the turbine has a hatch (62) in Figure 9 wherein an operator can conduct maintenance on the turbine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lestage with the teachings of Kuehnle, specifically adding a hatch within the turbine to allow for the operator to Roberts as taught by Kuehnle because such a modification would allow an operator of the turbine to conduct maintenance easily.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestage, French Patent Publication 2497877 (hereinafter “Lestage”) in view of Casini, Harvesting energy from in-pipe hydro systems at urban and building scale (hereinafter “Casini”) in further view of Buttler, U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0127210 (hereinafter “Buttler”).
In Reference to Claim 9 and 10:
Lestage as modified discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose (although likely obvious) wherein the turbine and tube are mounted to a turbine support structure which is detachably mounted within the turbine chamber and wherein the turbine support structure comprises a skid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, water turbines, Buttler discloses wherein the turbine and tub are mounted to a turbine support structure and said structure is a skid (27). See, Figure 2 and 3. See also, claim 19 which recites that the framework 25 if appropriate is formed of skids for one of the plurality of hydraulic turbines.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to modify Lestage with the teachings of Buttler, specifically to have the turbine support structure contain a skid because as discussed in Buttler a skid is a well known alternative support structure for a turbine from that used by Lestage and would merely be a simple substitution of one known support structure for another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745