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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… pumps are each least partially submerged” should instead read “… pumps are each at least partially submerged.” 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 4 and 11-16 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least first pump" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes Applicant could amend claim 4 to instead depend upon claim 2 to overcome this rejection.
Claim 11 recites the term “[at] least partially submerged,” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “[at least] partially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear as to what degree or to what amount of the pump must be submerged to be considered “[at] least partially submerged.” For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting that any amount and/or piece of a pump that is underwater will constitute a pump which is at least partially submerged.
Claims 12-16 are rejected for depending upon claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a 2013 YouTube video “Rip Current in Wave Tank” posted by California Sea Grant (hereinafter, “CSG”) and further in view of US 2023/0415017 (hereinafter “Bollfrass”).
Regarding Claim 1, CSG discloses an open-topped vessel configured to provide a fluid reservoir with a predefined fluid level (figs. 1 – 3; Examiner notes a user is able to step into the tank, indicating it is open-topped, and the tank is filled with water at a predefined fluid level, which is approximate to the simulated shoreline), the vessel having a contoured bottom surface featured to emulate a sloped beach floor extending between a beach end wall (fig. 2: beach end 1) of the vessel and a deep end wall of the vessel opposite the beach end wall (fig. 2: deep end 2), and between first and second side walls that extend between the beach end and deep end walls (figs. 1-3; Title: “Rip Current in Wave Tank;” Examiner notes the vessel is a tank, which necessarily has side walls (not shown in figures) or else the water would not be contained),
wherein the bottom surface defines: a shoreline boundary that extends at the fluid level between the first and second side walls of the vessel (fig. 2: shoreline boundary 4, which is at fluid level; side walls inherent to tank are necessarily found on left and right sides);
a beach shoreline region, above the fluid level and extending from the shoreline boundary toward the beach end wall of the vessel (fig. 2: beach shoreline region 5 above the fluid level extending toward beach end 1); and
an underwater region, below the fluid level and extending from the shoreline boundary toward the deep end wall (figs. 2: underwater region extending between deep end 2 and shoreline boundary 4), and that comprises a shallow bleach floor region that slopes away from the shoreline boundary (beach floor region extending between ridges 3 and shoreline boundary 4), wherein first and second ridged features (left and right ridged features 3) define corresponding first and second shoal regions within the beach floor region, between the ridged features and the shoreline boundary (left and right shoal regions 6), wherein a gap, formed between the first and second ridged features (fig. 2: gap 7 which is formed between left and right ridged features 3), is configured to provide a back channel that redirects fluid that collects within the beach floor region toward the deep end wall (fig. 2: channel within gap 7; fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel;” Examiner notes the rip channel redirects fluid toward the deep end).
CSG does not explicitly disclose mechanical fluid outlets and instead discloses a person directly pouring a stream of fluid within the vessel toward the first and second ridged features of the bottom surface (fig. 3), forming a simulated rip current through the back channel (fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel… as it comes into the rip channel and you see the particles starting to move out through the rift channel;” Examiner notes the particles are simulating and demonstrating a rip current). However, Bollfrass discloses an open-topped vessel configured to provide a fluid reservoir with a predefined fluid level (Bollfrass, par. 0016: “a water simulation system is provided in the form of a tank defining an opening at a top end. The tank may be in the form of any vessel;” figs. 6, 8D: Examiner notes the reservoir can only contain so much fluid, thus indicating a predefined fluid level), wherein one or more fluid outlets configured to direct a stream of fluid within the vessel (par. 0016: “liquid into the tank through the plurality of fluidic inlets at a first velocity and in a first direction extending from the first end to the second end, and to draw the liquid from the tank through the plurality of fluidic outlets;” Examiner further notes the “first end” and “second end” of Bollfrass can be considered equivalent to the beach end and deep end, respectively, of CSG)… forming a simulated rip current through the back channel (par. 0059: “provides an advantageous configurability to the water simulation system, such that… rip currents… may be created as desired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets of Bollfrass in order to automate the process rather than hand-pouring the fluid and in order to more easily control the flow rate or direction of the fluid (Bollfrass, pars. 0053-0054).
Regarding Claim 2, CSG modified by Bollfrass further discloses at least a first pump that is in fluid communication with at least one or more fluid outlets (Bollfrass, par. 0052: “the one or more pumps 140 may be configured to… draw the liquid from the tank 110 in a second direction through the plurality of fluidic outlets 130”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets/inlets of Bollfrass described above for claim 1 would have included this pump.
Regarding Claim 3, CSG modified by Bollfrass further discloses the at least the first pump has a variable flow rate adjustable by a user (par. 0054: “the flow rates through the plurality of fluidic inlets 120 and/or the plurality of fluidic outlets 130 may be controlled to achieve a desired flow of liquid through tank 110”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets/inlets of Bollfrass described above for claims 1-2 would have included this pump adjustability.
Regarding Claim 4, CSG modified by Bollfrass further discloses the at least the first pump has a variable flow angle adjustable by a user (par. 0059: “the snorkel 322 may be configured to be rotatable at one or more points thereon for adjusting a height, direction, and/or position at which the liquid is introduced into the tank 110 from the plurality of swift water inlets 122”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets/inlets of Bollfrass described above for claim 1 would have included this pump adjustability.
Regarding Claim 5, CSG further discloses fluid depth within the gap exceeds fluid depth within the shoal regions (figs. 2-4: sloped bottom surface; bottom surface of gap 7 is lower than bottom surface of shoal regions 6).
Regarding Claim 11, CSG discloses an open-topped vessel configured for containing a predetermined amount of fluid at a fluid level (figs. 1 – 3; Examiner notes a user is able to step into the tank, indicating it is open-topped, and the tank is filled with water at a predefined fluid level, which is approximate to the simulated shoreline), the vessel having a sloped bottom surface that is contoured to emulate a portion of an ocean floor surface (figs. 1-4: lower surface is sloped and emulates a beach, shoreline, and ocean floor surface), extending from a deeper region of the vessel that lies below the fluid level (fig. 2: deep end 2), to a shallower region (fig. 2: shallow region 6), and further extending to an emulated beach shoreline (fig. 2: beach shoreline 4) and to a beach region that lies above the fluid level and extends along an opposite, rear end of the vessel (fig. 2: beach end 1, which lies above fluid level), wherein the contour of the bottom surface slopes upward from the deeper region toward the fluid level and continues above fluid level to the beach region (figs. 1-4); and
wherein the shoal region is defined between at least first and second ridged features of the bottom surface and the beach shoreline (left and right shoal regions 6 are between left and right ridged features 3 and the beach shoreline 4), and wherein a gap formed between the at least first and second ridged features (fig. 2: gap 7 between left and right ridged features 3) is configured to redirect fluid that collects within the shoal region away from the beach shoreline (fig. 2: channel within gap 7; fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel;” Examiner notes the rip channel redirects fluid from shoal region 6 toward the deep end 2).
CSG does not explicitly disclose pumps and instead discloses a person directly pouring a fluid to direct a fluid current inside the vessel toward the first and second ridged features (fig. 3; fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel;” Examiner notes the rip channel redirects fluid from shoal region 6 toward the deep end 2). However, Bollfrass discloses at least a first pump and a second pump (par. 0042: “reference to a ‘pump’ includes… two, or more pumps;” fig. 1A: left and right pumps 140), wherein the at least first and second pumps are each least partially submerged (figs. 1-2) and are energizable (par. 0075: “the system may simply be connected to a power source for operation;” Examiner further notes the pumps must inherently be energizable to be able to function as described) to direct a fluid current inside the vessel (par. 0016: “liquid into the tank through the plurality of fluidic inlets at a first velocity and in a first direction extending from the first end to the second end, and to draw the liquid from the tank through the plurality of fluidic outlets; par. 0059: “rip currents… may be created as desired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the pumps of Bollfrass in order to automate the process rather than hand-pouring the fluid and in order to more easily control the flow rate or direction of the fluid (Bollfrass, pars. 0053-0054).
Regarding Claim 12, CSG further discloses fluid depth within the gap exceeds fluid depth within the shoal regions (figs. 2-4: sloped bottom surface; bottom surface of gap 7 is lower than bottom surface of shoal regions 6).
Regarding Claim 13, CSG modified by Bollfrass further discloses the at least the first pump has a variable flow rate that is adjustable by a user (par. 0054: “the flow rates through the plurality of fluidic inlets 120 and/or the plurality of fluidic outlets 130 may be controlled to achieve a desired flow of liquid through tank 110”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets/inlets of Bollfrass described above for claim 11 would have included this pump adjustability.
Regarding Claim 14, CSG modified by Bollfrass further discloses the at least the first pump has a variable flow angle that is adjustable by a user (par. 0059: “the snorkel 322 may be configured to be rotatable at one or more points thereon for adjusting a height, direction, and/or position at which the liquid is introduced into the tank 110 from the plurality of swift water inlets 122”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid outlets/inlets of Bollfrass described above for claim 11 would have included this pump adjustability.
Claims 6, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CSG in view of Bollfrass as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2020/0388135 (hereinafter “Vaknin”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified CSG does not disclose an indicator that signals upon generation of a rip current condition. However, Vaknin discloses an indicator that is configured to signal a generated rip current condition within the vessel (par. 0129: “A signal may be generated… sounding an alert sound;” par. 0144: “Once a rip current is detected a signal may be issued, e.g., to generate an alert;” par. 0011: “to determine, a restricted area within said scene, based, at least in part, on detecting a boundary of a swimming pool or other body of water, such as, an ocean in said area;” Examiner notes the boundary within the system checks for a rip current event is essentially equivalent to a vessel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the indicator system of Vaknin in order to notify users a rip current has been detected (Vaknin, par. 0120).
Regarding Claim 9, modified CSG does not disclose an indicator that signals upon generation of a rip current condition. However, Vaknin discloses an audible signal generator that is energizable to indicate rip current conditions (par. 0129: “A signal may be generated… sounding an alert sound;” par. 0144: “Once a rip current is detected a signal may be issued, e.g., to generate an alert;” Examiner notes such a signal generator would necessarily be energizable to function). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the indicator system of Vaknin in order to notify users a rip current has been detected (Vaknin, par. 0120).
Regarding Claim 15, modified CSG does not disclose an indicator that signals upon generation of a rip current condition. However, Vaknin discloses an indicator that is configured to signal a detected rip current condition within the vessel (par. 0129: “A signal may be generated… sounding an alert sound;” par. 0144: “Once a rip current is detected a signal may be issued, e.g., to generate an alert;” par. 0011: “to determine, a restricted area within said scene, based, at least in part, on detecting a boundary of a swimming pool or other body of water, such as, an ocean in said area;” Examiner notes the boundary within the system checks for a rip current event is essentially equivalent to a vessel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the indicator system of Vaknin in order to notify users a rip current has been detected (Vaknin, par. 0120).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CSG in view of Bollfrass as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 107907627 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified CSG implies but does not explicitly disclose the fluid is provided from an external water source. However, Zhang discloses the fluid is provided from an external water source (fig. 1: fluid in tank 1 is externally provided by device 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the external water source of Zhang in order to pump the needed water into the reservoir to begin with (Zhang, pars. 0021-0022, 0035).
Regarding Claim 8, CSG modified by Zhang further discloses at least one drainage hole that allows fluid flow through at least one of the first or second side walls (Zhang, fig. 1: drainage hole on side wall which allows fluid to flow back to external source 8 via water pipe 9). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the external water source of Zhang described above for claim 7 would have included this drainage hole.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CSG in view of Bollfrass as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0201605 (hereinafter “Hill”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified CSG does not explicitly disclose any materials of the vessel. However, Hill discloses the bottom surface of the vessel is formed from a molded thermoplastic (par. 0124: “With regards to the nature of the channel 10 and reservoir 9… they are normally made of materials not unlike a swimming pool, such as concrete, although a portable version of the wave simulator may use… thermoplastics”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thermoplastic vessel/lower surface of Hill with the rip current simulation tank of CSG in order to use a material well-known to be lightweight, which could potentially aid in portability of the device (Hill, par. 0124).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CSG in view of Bollfrass as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of GB 2226940 (hereinafter “Ichikawa”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified CSG does not explicitly disclose a hinged lid. However, Ichikawa discloses a hinged lid for the vessel (fig. 5; p. 2: “a [water] tank accommodated in the frame and open at the top, an openable and closable lid hinged to the open top of the frame”).
Ichikawa does not explicitly disclose the hinged lid includes a surface for writing. However, this is a functional limitation (“for writing”) which is drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, the hinged lid of modified CSG in view of Ichikawa comprises a flat surface (Ichikawa, fig. 2: 21) which, barring any clear distinguishing features, could function as a surface for writing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tank of CSG with the hinged lid of Ichikawa in order to provide a protective covering to the tank (Ichikawa, figs. 2-5), to allow the user to easily open or close that lid as needed (Ichikawa, fig. 5; abstract; p. 3), and to potentially allow for additional functionality, such as switches, directly above the tank (Ichikawa, p. 2).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CSG in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 17, CSG discloses an open-topped vessel configured for containing a predetermined amount of fluid at a fluid level (figs. 1 – 3; Examiner notes a user is able to step into the tank, indicating it is open-topped, and the tank is filled with water at a predefined fluid level, which is approximate to the simulated shoreline), the vessel having a sloped bottom surface that is contoured to emulate a portion of an ocean floor surface (figs. 1-4: lower surface is sloped and emulates a beach, shoreline, and ocean floor surface), extending from a deeper region of the vessel that lies below the fluid level (fig. 2: deep end 2 below fluid level), to a shallower shoal region (fig. 2: shallow region 6), and further extending to an emulated beach shoreline (fig. 2: beach shoreline 4) and to a beach region that lies above the fluid level and extends along an opposite, rear end of the vessel (fig. 2: beach end 1, which lies above fluid level), wherein the contour of the bottom surface slopes upward from the deeper region toward the fluid level and continues above fluid level to the beach region (figs. 1-4);
wherein the shoal region is defined between at least first and second ridged features of the bottom surface and the beach shoreline (left and right shoal regions 6 are between left and right ridged features 3 and the beach shoreline 4), and wherein a gap formed between the at least first and second ridged features (fig. 2: gap 7 between left and right ridged features 3) is configured to redirect fluid that collects within the shoal region away from the beach shoreline (fig. 2: channel within gap 7; fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel;” Examiner notes the rip channel redirects fluid from shoal region 6 toward the deep end 2).
CSG does not explicitly disclose a fluid inlet or external source of water and instead discloses a person directly pouring a fluid inside the vessel toward the first and second ridged features (fig. 3; fig. 4: Transcript, and 0:33-0:52 of video: “a shallow region in the center… that shallow region represents a rip channel;” Examiner notes the rip channel redirects fluid toward the ridged features 3 and the deep end 2). However, Zhang discloses a fluid inlet for connection to an external source of water having sufficient pressure to impel the fluid inside the vessel (fig. 1; par. 0049: “The water is discharged back into the… tank 1 through the drain outlet 7 and the water pipe 6”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the fluid inlet and external water source of Zhang in order to automate the process rather than hand-pouring the fluid and in order to more easily control the flow and fluid level as needed (Zhang, pars. 0048-0050).
Regarding Claim 18, CSG modified by Zhang further discloses the fluid inlet is in fluid communication with one or more nozzles in the deeper region of the vessel (Zhang, fig. 1: deeper region on left/front side; par. 0050: “The intelligent switch 87 adjusts the flow rate and velocity of the discharged water according to the discharge volume of the water body”). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the external water source of Zhang described above for claim 17 would have included this communication with the nozzle.
Regarding Claim 19, CSG modified by Zhang further discloses the vessel further comprises at least one drainage hole that maintains the fluid within the vessel at the fluid level (Zhang, fig. 1: drainage hole on side wall which allows fluid to flow back to external source 8 via water pipe 9; pars. 0040-0042: “The intelligent water pump 82 can automatically start or stop pumping water from the aquaculture tank 1 according to the water level. The water level regulator 83 is equipped with a pressure sensor to sense the water depth. When the water depth reaches 0.8m, the pressure sensor automatically controls the smart water pump 82 to stop working… When the water level is too low, the intelligent switch 87 is automatically turned off to ensure that the water level in the breeding tank 1 is maintained at the highest tide position; Examiner notes this water level control utilizes the drainage hole to work). The combination of the rip current simulation tank of CSG with the external water source of Zhang described above for claim 17 would have included this drainage hole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
2023 WJHG article “Panama City Beach safety director demonstrates new rip current simulator” teaches an open-topped vessel containing water with a sloped bottom surface that demonstrates rip currents. The only named entity within the article is Panama City Beach Safety Director Daryl Paul.
US 2020/0256074 (Ross) teaches an apparatus which can simulated rip currents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715