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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024,08/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are found in claims 30, 32, 34, 35 below, the generic placeholder is bolded and underlined, the function is bolded..
30. (New) A system as claimed in claim 29 wherein the system comprises means to convert translational movement of the piston rod element into rotational movement of a shaft element.
Corresponding structure from the specification: “The means to convert may comprise a crank shaft element.”
32. (New) A system as claimed in claim 30 wherein the system comprises means to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the shaft element.
Corresponding structure from the specification: “The means to generate may comprise
an electrical generator. The means to generate may comprise a pulley belt to connect the flywheel element to the electrical generator.”
34. (New) A system as claimed in claim 33 wherein the system comprises means to couple the reception space of the accumulator element to an open loop water system.
Corresponding structure from the specification: “The system may comprise a motorised control valve to direct the liquid to the accumulator element in the event of a liquid draw off event. The two-port control valve in the potable open loop system enables the invention to harvest energy even if the potable open loop system is used as a fill line to a cold water storage tank.”
35. (New) A system as claimed in claim 34 wherein the system comprises means to couple the reception space of the accumulator element to a potable open loop water system.
Corresponding structure from the specification: “The system may comprise a motorised control valve to direct the liquid to the accumulator element in the event of a liquid draw off event. The two-port control valve in the potable open loop system enables the invention to harvest energy even if the potable open loop system is used as a fill line to a cold water storage tank.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 26-28, 33-36, 39, 40-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peatfield (GB 2143284)
Peatfield discloses:
26. (New) A system for harnessing a pressure fluctuation of a liquid, the system comprising:
an accumulator element (1) having a reception space for receiving a liquid (see Fig. 3, liquid space enters chamber to the left of the flexible membrane positions indicated by the solid and dashed lines 18a, 18b) and a container space for containing a gas (container space to the right of the flexible membrane positions indicated by the solid and dashed lines 18a, 18b),
the accumulator element having a transfer element (membrane that separates the liquid and gas, see Col. 3 lines 61-65 and Col. 4 lines 66-90) to transfer an input pressure fluctuation in the reception space to an output pressure fluctuation in the container space (fluid enters and exits the container 1 via the valves which are input pressure fluctuations in the reception space, which acts on the membrane to output the pressure fluctuations to the gas in the container space), and
a pneumatic actuator (turbine, mechanical drive coupled to the turbine, Col. 3 lines 52-58),
the container space being coupled to the pneumatic actuator to cause movement of at least part of the pneumatic actuator responsive to the output pressure fluctuation (Col. 3 lines 13-18 discloses the gas in the container space coupled to the turbine, which is a pneumatic actuator, and causes movement of the pneumatic actuator responsive to the output pressure fluctuation caused by the liquid entry into the reception space).
27. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the transfer element comprises a flexible diaphragm (Col. 3 lines 52-65, discloses a flexible diaphragm that separates the liquid and gas) to separate the reception space from the container space.
28. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the system comprises one or more valve elements between the container space and the pneumatic actuator to couple the container space to the pneumatic actuator (Col. 3 lines 43-46 discloses valves between the container space and the pneumatic actuator to cause the fluid to flow in the same direction through the turbine unit).
33. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the reception space of the accumulator element is configured to receive water (Col. 1 lines 5-11 discloses water as the liquid used in the system).
34. (New) A system as claimed in claim 33 wherein the system comprises means to couple the reception space of the accumulator element to an open loop water system (reception space is coupled to an open loop water system as disclosed in Col. 1).
35. (New) A system as claimed in claim 34 wherein the system comprises means to couple the reception space of the accumulator element to a potable open loop water system (liquid control valves 4, 6 that are used in Figs. 3-5 are means to couple the reception space of the accumulator 1 to a potable open loop water system, such as those disclosed in Col. 1; absent further limitations as to what a "potable open loop water system" requires, the water systems discussed in Col. 1 meet this limitation ).
36. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the container space of the accumulator element is configured to contain air or nitrogen (Col. 1 line 30 discloses air).
39. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the system comprises a pneumatic vane motor (turbine 7 is interpreted to be a type of pneumatic vane motor since it has vanes and is pneumatically driven to rotate like a motor).
40. (New) A method for harnessing a pressure fluctuation of a liquid, the method comprising the steps of:
containing a gas in a container space of an accumulator element,
receiving a liquid in a reception space of the accumulator element,
upon a pressure fluctuation in the liquid in the reception space, transferring the pressure fluctuation to the gas in the container space, and
causing movement of at least part of a pneumatic actuator responsive to the pressure fluctuation in the gas (see previous claim rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion).
41. (New) A method as claimed in claim 40 wherein the pressure fluctuation in the gas causes movement of the part of the pneumatic actuator in a translational manner (the claims do not further define what constitutes a "pneumatic actuator", therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flexible diaphragm movement system is interpreted to be the pneumatic actuator).
42. (New) A method as claimed in claim 40 wherein the method comprises the step of converting translational movement of the part of the pneumatic actuator into rotational movement of a shaft element (the claims do not further define what constitutes a "pneumatic actuator", therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flexible diaphragm movement system is interpreted to be the pneumatic actuator; the flexible diaphragm has translational movement that causes air to move, which actuates/causes a rotational movement of the turbine shaft).
43. (New) A method as claimed in claim 42 wherein the method comprises the step of generating electrical power from the rotational movement of the shaft element (Col. 3 lines 52-57 discloses the turbine coupled to an electrical generator).
44. (New) A method as claimed in claim 40 wherein the method comprises the step of coupling the reception space of the accumulator element to an open loop water system (see previous claim rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion).
45. (New) A method as claimed in claim 44 wherein the method comprises the step of coupling the reception space of the accumulator element to a potable open loop water system (see previous claim rejections for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion, absent further limitations as to what a "potable open loop water system" requires, the water systems discussed in Col. 1 meet this limitation).
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.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peatfield in view of Ivy et al. (US 8950181), hereinafter ‘Ivy’ and Huff (US 2014/0130485).
Regarding claim 29-32, Peatfield discloses the system as claimed in claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pneumatic actuator comprises an enclosure element and a piston rod element, the piston rod element being movable relative to the enclosure element in a translational manner, etc.
However, Ivy discloses a pertinent fluid driven system pertinent to the disclosure of Peatfield and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Ivy teaches that it is known in the art of equivalence between an air motor or turbine to generate power/electricity from a source of compressed fluid (Col. 1 lines 45-50);
wherein the system comprises means to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the shaft element (in light of Ivy Col. 1 lines 45-60, air motors are known in the art to be coupled to an electric generator to generate electricity, the rotor of the electric generator would be rotated by the operation of the air motor via compressed air as the fluid pressure source).
Further, Huff discloses a pertinent fluid driven system discloses pertinent to the disclosure of Peatfield and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Huff discloses wherein the pneumatic actuator comprises an air motor 160 including an enclosure element 250 and a piston rod element (Huff Col. 3 lines 57-67, Col. 4 lines 1-8 discloses a piston rod element including a connecting rods and a crankshaft), the piston rod element being movable relative to the enclosure element in a translational manner (Huff see Fig. 2, piston 270 translates linearly up and down within the cylinder 250);
wherein the system comprises means to convert translational movement of the piston rod element into rotational movement of a shaft element; wherein the means to convert comprises a crank shaft element (Huff Col. 4).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Peatfield teaches all elements except the pneumatic actuator comprises an enclosure element and a piston rod element, the piston rod element being movable relative to the enclosure element in a translational manner, wherein the system comprises means to convert translational movement of the piston rod element into rotational movement of a shaft element, wherein the means to convert comprises a crank shaft element, wherein the system comprises means to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the shaft element. Huff teaches a pneumatic actuator comprises an enclosure element and a piston rod element, the piston rod element being movable relative to the enclosure element in a translational manner, wherein the system comprises means to convert translational movement of the piston rod element into rotational movement of a shaft element, wherein the means to convert comprises a crank shaft element, and Ivy teaches wherein an air motor comprises means to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the shaft element.
When combined into Peatfield by replacing the air turbine with the air motor using a piston, crankshaft, etc. it maintains its function of generating electricity/mechanical motion from compressed air. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to systems using compressed air that function in the same manner in the environment of power generation systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Peatfield because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peatfield in view of Littmann et al. (US 9726150), hereinafter ‘Littman’.
Peatfield discloses the system as claimed in claim 26, but does not disclose wherein the pneumatic actuator is a sealed non-relieving non-exhausting pneumatic system.
However, Littmann discloses a fluid system pertinent to Peatfield and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Littmann teaches various benefits of closed gas systems instead of open gas systems in the field of energy generation. Littmann Col. 6 lines 61-67, Col. 7 lines 1-13 discloses that a closed gas system allows gases other than air to be used, and allows for pressure differentials greater than those that vent to the atmosphere.
Since the ability to used gasses other than air, and a greater pressure differential in the system is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Peatfield to have wherein the pneumatic actuator is a sealed non-relieving non-exhausting pneumatic system as taught by Littmann.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peatfield
Peatfield renders obvious:
38. (New) A system as claimed in claim 26 wherein the system comprises a motorised control valve to direct the liquid to the accumulator element in the event of a liquid draw off event (the claims do not specify what occurs during a "liquid draw off event", from the specification, this appears to refer to an event in which liquid is moved within the liquid system, therefore this limitation is met when the liquid flows into the accumulator 1 when the corresponding valve 4 is opened in Fig. 3-5, examiner takes official notice that motorized control valves are known in the art and would have been obvious to use to provide for selective opening and closing of the valves to achieve fluid flow control).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fyfe (US 9133814) discloses an apparatus for creating electricity from pressure fluctuations in pipes by using layers of special materials, and discloses this may be employed within a water main pipe conducting drinking or irrigation water
Christensen (US 9915179) discloses a system for harnessing a pressure fluctuation of a liquid, including a transfer element 300 to transfer an input pressure fluctuation
Watten et al. (US 2003/0066289) discloses a system for harnessing a pressure fluctuation of a liquid comprising an accumulator element 28 having a liquid reception space 44 and a gas container space 38, an input pressure fluctuation in the reception space to an output pressure fluctuation in the container space, and a pneumatic actuator, the container space being coupled to the pneumatic actuator to cause movement of at least part of the pneumatic actuator responsive to the output pressure fluctuation.
Walter (US 5519670) discloses a water hammer driven cavitation chamber that has pertinent structures and a closed fluid system
Hawxhurst (US 2807215) discloses a variable displacement pump having a system that would operate similar to the claimed invention if operated in reverse, such that the fluid drives the piston to rotate a shaft via the piston rod and crankpin
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 September 10, 2025