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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 53 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 53, neither Stewart (prior art of record), nor any other reference, teaches all the claimed angles and structure of the fluid flow path for the underwater dredger. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to modify the fluid flow path to match all these ranges and structures as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 40 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 40 must end with a period.
Claim 55 contains two periods. Claims must only end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 17, 20, 22-23, 33, 40, 51-54 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.
The claim(s) are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Below is a listing of rejections under 35 U.S.C 112, however this list is not exhaustive and the claims must be revisited and revised to conform to current US practice.
There are various recitations of “e.g.”, “optionally”, and “such as” in many different claims. These phrases render the claims that contain them indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. At least claims 3, 17, 20, 22-23, 33, 40, 51-54 contain these phrases and must be addressed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17, 20, 22-23, 26, 28-31, 33, 40-41, 44-45, 48-49, 51-52, 54-55, 57, 60, 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 20200407940) in further view of Wong et al. (US 4443152).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses an underwater excavation apparatus, comprising:
a housing comprising:
at least one inlet (25); and
an outlet (30);
a rotor disposed in the housing (rotor 10 in housing 20);
a stator disposed in the housing (stator 15 in housing 20);
wherein the rotor having or comprising a plurality of first rotor blades (35),
wherein the first rotor blades comprise or define primary rotor blades of the rotor (primary blades 35),
Stewart fails to specifically disclose the rotor comprising secondary, splitter blades that commence part way along the length of a primary rotor blade. However, Wong discloses a similar rotatable head for moving slurry (Fig 4a; head 70) and teaches partial blades that commence part way along the length of adjacent full blade (secondary blade 122; primary blade 120).
Stewart and Wong are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of moving liquids containing solids in suspension. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stewart to incorporate the teachings of Wong and included partial, splitter blades on the rotor. One would have made this modification to divide the flow passage area of the full blades equally (Wong, col 5, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 3, while Stewart and Wong do not expressly disclose that the leading edge of the second rotor blade commences at 35% to 45% along the length of the adjacent first rotor blade, they do disclose the partial blades as commencing some distance along the length of the full blade as clearly depicted in Fig 4a of Wong. Wong states the partial blades have three purposes: divide the flow passage area of the four full blades equally, increase the pressure developed by the first blade row section, and develop a radially uniform meridional velocity distribution at the discharge or inlet to the second blade row (Wong; col 5, lines 40-45). As a result of the full blade design, pressures, and velocities controlling the leading edge commencement location, the location the leading edge of the secondary rotor blade commences is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the location may be adjusted based on any of the stated design principles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the commencement of the leading edge of the second rotor blades to be between 35% and 45% along the length of the primary, first rotor blade, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 4, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
a distance between and/or an area of a flow path between adjacent first and second rotor blades increases along the length of the respective first and second rotor blades;
a distance between and/or an area of a flow path between adjacent second rotor blades increases along the length of the respective second rotor blades;
a distance between and/or an area of a flow path between adjacent primary rotor blades increases along the length of the respective primary rotor blades (Stewart; Figs 11 and 12 appear to depict the distances between the blades 35 as increasing along the length of the rotor blade).
Regarding claim 5, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein a height of one or more of the first rotor blades and/or the second rotor blades reduces along a length of the respective first and/or second blades (Stewart; Fig 5 depicts the height of blades 35 as decreasing along a length).
Regarding claim 9, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the rotor is provided proximal to the at least one inlet;
the rotor comprises a first body, wherein the first and second rotor blades are disposed on the first body, and wherein optionally the first body comprises a first cone member; and/or
an apex of the rotor faces the at least one inlet (Stewart; Fig 10; rotor 10 is proximal to the inlet 25).
Regarding claim 10, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the plurality of first rotor blades comprise impeller blades;
the plurality of first rotor blades comprise aerofoil blades;
the plurality of second rotor blades comprise aerofoil blades (claim language is broad; Stewart discloses this in para [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the rotor has a rotor rotation axis (rotation axis A in Fig 5 of Stewart).
Regarding claim 17, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein, in use, flow of fluid past or across the rotor is at a first angle alpha from the rotor rotation axis,
and wherein optionally the first angle alpha diverges away from the rotor rotation axis in a direction away from at least one of the inlets and towards the outlet,
and wherein further optionally the first angle alpha (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts the same first angle alpha that diverges away from the rotation axis and away from the inlet toward the outlet).
While Stewart does not expressly disclose that the first angle is between 55 and 75 degree, it does disclose that the angle could be 45 to 55 deg and could be adjusted based on the shape of the rotor and how the fluid flow is passed over the rotor (Stewart; para [0108]). As a result of the rotor shape controlling the fluid flow, the first angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted based on the shape of the rotor. Because the angle disclosed in Stewart is 45 to 55 degrees, it is considered within the skill in the art to make the fluid flow between 55 and 75 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the angle to be between 55 and 75 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the housing comprises an axis, e.g. longitudinal axis,
and wherein optionally at least one of:
the rotor is arranged coaxially upon or with the axis of the housing;
the stator is arranged coaxially upon or with the axis of the housing;
the outlet is substantially coaxial with the axis of the housing; and/or
the housing is circumferentially/rotationally symmetrical about the axis of the housing (Stewart; para [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the stator comprising a plurality of first stator blades,
and wherein optionally the plurality of first stator blades comprise aerofoil blades (first stator blades 46; aerofoil blades 46 depicted in Fig 2a and 2b).
Regarding claim 23, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the stator comprises a plurality of second stator blades,
and wherein optionally the plurality of second stator blades comprise aerofoil blades (second stator blades 47; aerofoil blades 47 in Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 26, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the stator is provided proximal to the outlet of the housing;
the stator is provided between the rotor and the outlet;
the stator comprises a second body, wherein optionally the second body of the stator comprises a second cone member;
an apex of the stator faces the outlet (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts stator 15 as being proximal the outlet of the housing 30).
Regarding claim 28, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein:
the first stator blades comprise a plurality of primary stator blades (first stator blades 46);
the second stator blades comprise a plurality of secondary, splitter, blades (second stator blades 47); and
one or more of the second stator blades is provided between a pair of adjacent first stator blades (Fig 12 depicts second stator blades 47 being between first stator blades 46).
Regarding claim 29, ### An excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
a leading edge of one or more of the second stator blades commences part way along, e.g. 45% to 55% along, a length of an adjacent first stator blade;
a height of one or more of the second stator blades reduces along a length of the respective second stator blade (Fig 5 depicts the height of the stator blades reducing along a length of the blade);
a distance between and/or an area of the flow path between adjacent first and second stator blades decreases along the length of the respective first and second stator blades;
a distance between and/or an area of the flow path between adjacent second stator blades decreases along the length of the respective second stator blades (Stewart; Fig 12 depicts the distance between the second stator blades 47 as decreasing along the length of the blades).
Regarding claim 30, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein a distance between and/or an area of the flow path between adjacent first stator blades decreases along the length of the respective first stator blades (Stewart; Fig 12 depicts the distance between the second stator blades 46 as decreasing along the length of the blades).
Regarding claim 31, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the stator is coaxial with the rotor (Stewart; para [0049]).
Regarding claim 33, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein in use, flow of fluid past or across the stator is at a second angle beta from the rotor rotation axis,
wherein optionally the second angle beta converges towards the axis in a direction away from the at least one inlet and towards the outlet (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts the second angle beta that converges toward the axis away from the inlet).
While Stewart does not expressly disclose that the second angle is between 55 and 75 degree, it does disclose that the angle could be 5 to 15 deg and could be adjusted based on the shape of the stator and how the fluid flow is passed over the stator (Stewart; para [0114] and para [0117]). As a result of the stator shape controlling the fluid flow, the first angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted based on the shape of the stator. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the angle to be between 55 and 75 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 40, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
one or more of the inlets are provided on or at a side or sides of the housing;
one or more of the inlets is provided on or at an end of the housing;
one or more of the inlets are provided around, e.g., circumferentially or peripherally around, the housing;
one or more of the inlets are provided at a non-zero angle, e.g., perpendicularly or substantially perpendicularly, to the outlet;
one or more of the inlets are provided near or adjacent an end of the housing; and/or
one or more of the outlets are provided on or at another end of the housing (claim language is broad; inlet 25 is considered on or at an end of the housing in Fig 10)
Regarding claim 41, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
one or more of the inlets are inclined and/or offset from the axis of the housing;
one or more of the inlets are provided perpendicularly or substantially perpendicularly to the axis of the housing;
one or more of the inlets are provided non-parallel to the axis of the housing;
one or more of the outlets are provided on and/or parallel to the axis of the housing (claim language is broad; the outlet 30 is considered on the axis of the housing).
Regarding claim 44, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the apparatus is adapted to provide and/or direct a flow of water at a pressure of 200 KPa to 400 KPa and/or a volume flow of 0.5m3/s to 4m3/s (Stewart; para [0084]; 1 to 8 m3/s overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 45, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein there is provided a fluid flow path or passage extending from the at least one inlet to the outlet (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts a fluid path from inlet 25 to outlet 30).
Regarding claim 48, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein the fluid flow path comprises:
a first section; a second section; a third section; and/or a fourth section (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts four sections of the flow path indicated by the arrows).
Regarding claim 49, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the first section extends from the at least one inlet (Stewart; Fig 10; arrow at the top);
the second section contains at least part of the rotor (diverging arrows moving into the rotor blades);
the third section contains part of the stator (converging arrows moving out of the stator blades);
the fourth section extends to the outlet (bottom arrow at outlet).
Regarding claim 51, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the second section diverges away from an axis, e.g. longitudinal axis, of the housing (diverging arrows moving into the rotor blades away from the axis); and
the third section converges towards an axis, e.g. longitudinal axis, of the housing (converging arrows moving out of the stator blades toward the axis).
Regarding claim 52, there are any number of portions to the fluid flow path in Stewart. The claim fails to define any specifics of the portions other than providing broad names and the fluid path extending through the portions. Stewart discloses a fluid flow path with a first portion with an inlet, a final portion with an outlet, as well as a stator and rotor. One might further divide these fluid flow path portions into any number of portions.
Regarding claim 54, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein:
in a first mode of operation, which optionally comprises an excavation mode, the outlet faces an area to be excavated, and in such mode the one or more inlets are provided above, e.g., directly above, the outlet; and/or
in a second mode of operation, which optionally comprises a suction mode, the one or more inlets are provided proximal to an area which has been excavated, and in such mode the one or more inlets are provided below, e.g., directly below, the outlet (Stewart; para [0048]).
Regarding claim 55, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
an inside of the housing converges from the at least one inlet towards the rotor;
an inside of the housing diverges from an inlet end of the rotor towards an outlet end of the rotor (Stewart; Fig 10 depicts the diverging arrows at the inlet end of the rotor towards the outlet end of the rotor);
an inside of the housing converges from the stator towards the outlet.
Regarding claim 57, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein at least one of:
the outlet is substantially coaxial with the rotor;
the outlet is substantially coaxial with the stator (Stewart; para [0037]; Fig 10 depicts the outlet as coaxial with the rotor and stator).
Regarding claim 60, Stewart discloses an excavation apparatus wherein:
the excavation apparatus comprises means or an arrangement for dampening reactive torque on the excavation apparatus caused by rotation of the rotor (Stewart; para [0118]), in use
and wherein optionally at least one of:
the torque dampening means comprise or include anti-rotation vanes (para [0124], lines 1-2); and/or
the torque dampening means does not comprise a second rotor, such as a second rotor configured to counter-rotate relative to the rotor.
Regarding claim 65, Stewart discloses an underwater excavation system or tool, such as an underwater system or tool, comprising at least one underwater excavation apparatus (Stewart; claim 57).
Regarding claim 66, Stewart discloses a method of underwater excavation, the method comprising:
providing at least one underwater excavation apparatus; and
excavating an underwater location, using said excavation apparatus (Stewart; claim 58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Araoka (US 4456424) discloses a similar underwater sand pump that is analogous to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights