Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/740,132

Fish Passage System For Medium And High Head Dams

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Examiner
SINGH, SUNIL
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 1103 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1126
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1103 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “57” has been used to designate both pump turbine isolation valve and pump turbine isolation. (see page 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 6-8, 14-32 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 6 is confusing because claim 6 line 8 calls for “a lower portion of penstock”; however a penstock was never previously recited. Claim 6 line 10, “said penstock” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 16 “said penstock” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 17 “said fish trap” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 20 is indeterminate in scope since one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “an open-channel water gate”. Unclear where in the specification such limitation is discussed. Claim 23, “pipe” lacks an article –a—before it. Claim 24, “said penstock” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 25 “said penstock” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 25 “said open-channel fish trap” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 27 “said penstock” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 30 is indeterminate in scope since one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “attraction water”. Unclear where in the specification such limitation is discussed. 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) 6-8, 14-18, 21,22,24,26,28,30-36,39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2098640 in view of Reversal of Parts. EP document ‘640 discloses an apparatus for transporting fish past a dam (W), from headwater (O, Fig. 1) to tailwater (U, see Fig. 1), comprising: an elevated source of water (70) at greater-than-headwater pressure; drain piping (50-53) configured to drain said elevated source of water; valve componentry (71-73) configured to control release of said source of water through said drain piping; a headwater fish trap (between 40 and 20); a lower portion of penstock (part of 60, see Fig. 1) below headwater surface and to which said drain piping (53) is connected; and an additional portion of said penstock (60, close to U in Fig 1) that is between said lower portion of penstock and said tailwater. EP document ‘640 discloses the invention substantially in particular page 8 wherein the headwater can be at low tide and thus become tailwater and the tailwater can be at a higher elevation and considered as the headwater. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify EP document ‘640 and have the headwater become the tailwater and the tailwater become the headwater since it has been held that a mere reversal of essential working parts of a device involves only routine kill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Such a modification happens during low tide. Re claim 7, wherein said elevated source of water (70, Fig. 1) at greater-than-headwater pressure has a water surface that is elevated above a headwater water surface. Re claim 8, wherein said elevated source of water at greater-than-headwater pressure comprises a tank of water (71). Re claim 14, wherein said tank of water comprises a siphon-controlled tank of water (71-73, see page 9 of translation). Re claim 15, wherein said valve componentry (71-73, page 9 of translation) comprises siphon valve componentry. Re claim 16, further comprising a fish trap drain valve (55, pages 9-11 of translation) configured to block flow of water from said tailwater fish trap to said penstock when said fish trap drain valve is closed. Re claim 17, wherein said fish trap comprises an open-channel fish trap (see Figs. 2,3). Re claim 18, wherein said open-channel fish trap comprises a raisable water gate (40, see page 10 of translation). Re claim 21, further comprising at least one pump (72) configured to pump water upwards to said elevated source of water through elevated water source fill piping (52). Re claim 22, wherein said elevated water source fill piping (52) is distinct from said drain piping (53). Re claim 24, wherein said at least one pump (72) comprises a pump configured to pump water in said penstock upwards to said elevated source of water (this is the case when slide 55 left of 56 is closed and pump (72) pumps water from U to flow thru 60 and 53, see page 11 of translation). Re claim 26, wherein said at least one pump comprises a pump (72) configured to pump tailwater upwards to said elevated source of water (via 52). Re claim 28, wherein said drain piping (53) configured to drain said elevated source of water comprises a standpipe. Re claim 30, insofar claim 30 is understood, EP document ‘640 further comprising attraction water in said tailwater (O, Fig. 1). Re claim 31, further comprising a discharge valve (55, see page 11 translation) established (indirectly) at an upper end of said additional portion of said penstock. Re claim 32 further comprising a vent (73) configured to allow air to enter said additional portion of said penstock leading to the headwater. Re claim 33, EP document ‘640 discloses a method for transporting fish from tailwater to headwater, past a dam (W), comprising the steps of: - at least partially filling an elevated source of water (70) having a water surface that is above a headwater water surface; - attracting fish to, and trapping fish in, a headwater fish trap to generate trapped Fish (between 20 and 40); - draining said trapped fish from said headwater fish trap (see pages 9-11 of translation); - draining water from said elevated source of water to a penstock (60, pages 9-11 of translation); and - transporting said trapped fish through at least a portion of said penstock (60) to said tailwater. EP document ‘640 discloses the invention substantially in particular page 8 wherein the headwater can be at low tide and thus become tailwater and the tailwater can be at a higher elevation and considered as the headwater. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify EP document ‘640 and have the headwater become the tailwater and the tailwater become the headwater since it has been held that a mere reversal of essential working parts of a device involves only routine kill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Such a modification happens during low tide. Re claim 34, wherein said step of attracting fish to, and trapping fish in, a tailwater fish trap comprises the step of attracting fish to, and trapping fish in, an open- channel tailwater fish trap (see between 20 and 40 Fig. 1). Re claim 35, wherein said step of at least partially filling an elevated source of water (70) comprises the step of pumping (72, pages 9-11 of translation) headwater upwards to said elevated source of water. Re claim 36, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the step of pumping water within said penstock upwards to said elevated source of water (this is the case when slide 55 left of 56 is closed and pump (72) pumps water from U to flow thru 60 and 53, see page 11 of translation). Such a modification would be based on the desire to move fish from the headwater to the tailwater. Re claim 39, further comprising the step of preventing passage (55, right of member 56) of said trapped fish from said penstock (60) upwards towards said elevated source of water (70). Re claim 40, wherein said step of at least partially filling an elevated source of water comprises the step of at least partially filling a tank (71, pages 9-11 of translation). Re claim 41, wherein said step of at least partially filling a tank comprises the step of at least partially filling a siphon-controlled tank (71-73). Re claim 42, said step of draining water from said elevated source of water to a penstock comprises the step of opening at least one valve (55, pages 9-11 of machine translation). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19,20,23,25,27,29 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. Claims, 37,38,43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7. 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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. /SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 SS 1/10/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590424
Self-propelled earth working machine having a canopy variable in length in the longitudinal direction of the machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584409
RACKBAR ROTATION LIMIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571181
APPARATUS FOR REMOVING MATERIAL FROM A FLOOR OF A BODY OF WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565785
WAVE POOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560087
METHOD, ARRANGEMENT AND MACHINE FOR FULL FACE REAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+24.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1103 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month