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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s discussion of the applied prior art begins on page 5 of the Remarks. Applicant contends that “there is no structure analogous” in Wu to the structure of claim 21. Applicant continues, alleging that “the large percentage of the device is above the surface of the water and it is intended to be stationary while the waves move below the structure” and that “[t]here is nothing in Wu that hints at the device moving, only the water below.”
Applicant’s argument is facially meritless. It is irrelevant what portion of Wu is “above the surface of the water” because claim 21 does not recite any limitations that require any element therein to be disposed within a body of water. While the claim implicates such by reciting the “open water column” and the ballast and pump, there is no explicit recitation of a body of water or any limitation discussing how deep or shallow the vessel is with respect to the body of water. Moreover, Applicant’s contention that nothing in Wu hints at the device moving is unambiguously false. The device is disclosed as being disposed on a float or a ship. A float or a ship disposed in water would unambiguously involve upward and downward motion in response to wave actions impacting the float or ship. Thus, it is indisputable that Wu not only “hints at,” but explicitly discloses the device moving in at least an upward and downward motion. Thus, Applicant’s analysis of Wu cannot be considered persuasive to any extent. Applicant then summarily rejects Power without any substantive discussion, rendering the analysis of Power equally unpersuasive. Applicant then characterizes the instant subject matter, but this discussion is irrelevant as it is not within the explicitly claimed subject matter.
Applicant concludes the traversal by “traversing” Examiner’s findings of well-known subject matter. Applicant cites to MPEP §2144.03 to request that Examiner present evidence in support of the prior findings, but conspicuously fails to present any argument or evidence that the findings of well-known subject matter are not, in fact, well-known or otherwise obvious. Per MPEP §2144.03(B), adequate traversal requires that “an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” Moreover, “[a] mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.”
In accordance with MPEP §2144.03(C), that subject matter previous indicated as being “well-known” in now taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant has failed to adequately traverse Examiner’s prior findings, as discussed above. For clarity of the record, Examiner will nonetheless discuss those “well-known” subject matters and provide evidence in support of the findings, at least with respect to that subject matter which is still recited by the claims.
Re: Annular Shape of the Buoy
As amended, none of the remaining claims require the buoy to have an annular shape; as such, Examiner need not evidence the fact that making a buoy “annular” is well-known.
Re: Connection of a Generator to a Turbine
A vast number of prior art documents already made of record evidence this finding. For example, it was known as early as April of 1945 that a turbine may provide the requisite mechanical power to drive an electrical generator. See U.S. Patent 2,484,183, first cited by Examiner in the prosecution of parent case 17/489,246. While not previously cited during prosecution of the instant application, the reference nonetheless evidences that it is “well-known” to attach a generator to a turbine, as recited by instant claim 21.
Re: Propulsion of Floating Vessels
As amended, none of the remaining claims require the buoy to have any form of propulsion means; as such, Examiner need not evidence the fact that provision of propulsion means on a floating vessel is well-known.
Re: Provision of Computation Devices on Floating Vessels
As amended, none of the remaining claims require the buoy to have any form of computational means; as such, Examiner need not evidence the fact that provision of computational means on a floating vessel is well-known.
Re: Use of a Sail as a Propulsion Mechanism
As amended, none of the remaining claims require the buoy to have any form of propulsion means; as such, Examiner need not evidence the fact that provision of propulsion means, including a sail, on a floating vessel is well-known.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,466,244 (“Wu”) in view of U.S. Patent 3,870,893 (“Mattera”) and common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses
An energy extracting vessel comprising a buoy (col. 1, ll. 24-25) including a structure (inherent; the device of FIG 1 is disclosed as being on or within a float or ship, thus the vessel inherently includes a structure comprising at least a hull of the vessel), a high-pressure accumulator (e.g., 8d), a low-pressure accumulator (e.g., 8a), and an air pocket (e.g., 2c);
an open water column (3c) extending downwardly from the structure and in fluid communication with the air pocket (as shown by FIG 1),
a first one-way valve disposed between the air pocket inside the buoy and the high-pressure accumulator (valve 7c),
a second one-way valve disposed between the low-pressure accumulator and the air pocket (valve 6a is disposed between low-pressure accumulator 8a and the air pocket 2c along a flow path shown by FIG 1),
a conduit fluidly connecting the high-pressure accumulator to the low-pressure accumulator (the conduit extending from the right side of accumulator 8d to turbine 9 and then to the left side of accumulator 8a),
a turbine disposed in the conduit (9), and
wherein downward movement of the buoy causes water in the open water column to compress air in the air pocket.
Wu does not explicitly disclose: the buoy enclosing a hollow ballast chamber, the accumulators, and the air pocket; a generator coupled to the turbine; or a pump configured to transfer water into the ballast chamber.
As discussed above, as well as within the previous Office Action, Wu discloses the device of FIG. 1 being “supported by a structure fixed to the earth, or a float, or a ship” (emphasis by Examiner; see col. 1, ll. 24-25). Those of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from this disclosure that the device of FIG. 1 is disposed on a float or a ship in such a manner that the float or ship are not unbalanced; doing such would cause the float or ship to lean to one side and may result in flooding or other undue damage in cases of extreme waves.
Thus, the most reasonably interpretation of Wu is the placement of the device shown in FIG 1 within a central, hollow portion of the float or the ship. As the device of FIG 1 requires communication with the body of water to function, it logically follows that at least the vertically extending water channel must extend through the hull of the float or the ship. While this results in an aperture placed within the hull, those of ordinary skill would also appreciate that the hull would nonetheless remain sealed with respect to the edges of the aperture as leaving an open aperture within the hole would result in unmitigated inflow of water, causing the device and float to sink. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the float or ship of Wu is hollow and configured to enclose the accumulators 8a and 8d, as well as air pocket 2c. As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Wu such that the explicitly contemplated float or ship is formed such that it includes a hull (i.e., “a structure”) enclosing the accumulators and air pocket of Wu for the purposes of enabling the device of FIG 1 to perform the explicit functions disclosed by Wu.
With respect to the further enclosure of a hollow ballast chamber, Mattera discloses a floating energy extraction vessel (FIGS 1 and 2) having a hull (10), the hull enclosing a hollow ballast chamber (as may be reasonably inferred from the FIGS, ballast chambers 12 extend around the exterior of the vessel) comprised of a plurality of ballast chambers (12) configured to provide a selective floatation level “by the addition and subtraction of ballast therefrom” (col. 2, ll. 25-27). Mattera further discloses an air pocket (e.g., the portion surrounding numeral 27) and an open water column (25), the water column passing through the center of the hollow ballast chamber (which is formed from the plurality of chambers 12). While Mattera does not explicitly disclose a pump configured “to transfer water into the ballast chamber,” one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret the reference to include such a pump in order to perform the explicitly disclosed function of adding or subtracting ballast from chambers 12. Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to further modify Wu to further enclose a hollow ballast chamber, comprised of a plurality of ballast chambers that surround an outer perimeter of the vessel, the ballast chambers being provided with appropriate pumps to add or subtract water from the ballast chambers, for the purposes of enabling Wu to adjust a draft level of the vessel as is taught by Mattera.
With respect to the generator coupled to the turbine, Wu does disclose that the system is “applicable to electric power generation” (col. 1, ll. 8-9). As is well-known in the art, turbines are a common source of mechanical power for electric generators. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to further modify Wu to include a generator driven by the turbine for the purposes of producing electrical power from the circulation of compressed fluid within the device as depicted in FIG 1 of Wu.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wu in view of Mattera (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 21 and further discloses the conduit being located “outside the structure.” As discussed above, Examiner has interpreted “a structure” to be the hull of the float or ship on which the device of Wu is affixed. As the conduit is not integrated into the hull, it may be reasonably construed as being “outside” of the structure as presently recited.
Regarding claim 23, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 22 and further discloses the conduit being “above the structure.” As the hull of the float or the ship extends below the accumulators, at least some portion of “the structure” is below the conduit; stated another way, the conduit of Wu is at least partially “above the structure” of Wu when the hull of Wu is interpreted to be “the structure.”
Regarding claim 24, Applicant recites the turbine being “above the structure.” As discussed with respect to claim 23 above, the conduit is above at least a portion of the structure in Wu. As the turbine is disposed within the conduit, the turbine must also be above the structure.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Applicant recites the structure including “vertical side walls, and a draft of the vessel intersects said vertical side walls” as well as “the structure further comprises non-vertical side walls housing the ballast chamber.”
Ultimately, these claims are nothing more than a recitation of shape or configuration. Wu indisputably discloses the device of FIG 1 being fixed to a float or a ship. As interpreted in the rejection of claim 21 above, “the structure” of Wu is the hull of the float or the ship. While Wu does not explicitly disclose the shape of the hull, one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer that some portion of the hull is vertically oriented and some portion of the hull is non-vertical. Indeed, such is explicitly disclosed by Mattera. As seen in FIG 2 of Mattera, the hull of the vessel includes vertical side walls (e.g., the portion of the hull indicated by numeral 11). Mattera additionally discloses the hull comprising non-vertical side walls housing, at least partially, the ballast chamber 12.
Thus, the subject matter of claims 25 and 26 differs from the prior art solely in that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the draft of the vessel intersecting the vertical side walls of the hull. As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, hull shape is a matter of routine design choice based on various considerations, such as the application for the hull, drag imposed by the hull when travelling through bodies of water, etc. The courts have previously held that particular configurations (i.e., the specific shape of a device) is “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration” is significant. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B), citing to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As discussed above, the sole difference between the instant claims and the applied prior art is a matter of configuring the shape of the vessel and its hull. Since the particular shape of a hull is determined based, at least in part, on intended use and application of the vessel, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the generically disclosed hull of Wu such that it includes vertical portions that intersect with a draft of the vessel, as well as including non-vertical surfaces for housing at least a portion of the ballast chamber, for the purposes of achieving a desired appearance for the hull that additionally meets design criteria for the body of water in which the vessel is placed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights