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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III: Figs. 10-11 in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims 1 and 12 “recited a gate or a bypass, wherein the bypass comprises a regulating or damming device. The gate and/or bypass regulates a volume of water and/or a flow velocity of the water.” This is not found persuasive because the claims are not generic to all species and amended claims 1 and 12 are not allowable over the prior art of record as indicated below. Accordingly, claim 11 and the alternative of the plateau in claim 10 which direct to the non-elected species Figs. 12-14 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bypass” in line 10 of claim 1 and in line 10 of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“basin – or” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 and “device – is” in line 12 of claim 1 are grammatically incorrect;
the alternative language “a gate or a bypass for guiding water past the ramp and the stilling basin - or both a gate and a bypass” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 should be -- a gate or a bypass or both a gate and a bypass for guiding water past the ramp and the stilling basin--;
the limitation “the flow body is ram-like” in line 6 of claim 4 is redundant with that in lines 8-9 of claim 1;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 2 of claim 4 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “water, which flows” to --water flows-- or --water, the water flows;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 6 of claim 4 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “flow direction, which is” to --flow direction that is-- or --flow direction, the front flank is--;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 2 of claim 7 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “flaps, which pivot” to --flaps pivot-- or --flaps, the flaps pivot--;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 2 of claim 9 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “with which water displacement can be increased” to --for increasing water displacement--;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 2 of claim 10 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “section in which a gradient is greater than” to --section, wherein a gradient in the section is greater than--;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 8 of claim 10 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “plateau on which the gate is elevated or across which the gate extends” to --plateau, wherein the gate is elevated on the plateau or the gate extends across the plateau--;
the relative pronoun “which” in line 11 of claim 10 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “which” to --the interrupting edge--;
the relative pronoun “whose” in line 13 of claim 10 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “whose depth can be” to --the depth of the water body is lower--;
the limitation “the one or more gate flaps” in line 15 lacks antecedent basis in the claim, the examiner suggests changing it to --one or more gate flaps--;
the relative pronoun “which” in lines 4 and 6 of claim 11 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “body, which can be moved into the flow and which, in order to avoid being overflowed by surge water, is provided with a displacement plate, which protrudes” to --body capable of being moved into the flow in order to avoid being overflowed by surge water, the displacement body is provided with a displacement plate protrudes--; and
the relative pronoun “which” in line 4 of claim 12 should be replaced with the element to which it’s referencing to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language, the examiner suggests changing “which” to --the stilling basin-- to avoid confusion with other elements preceding said language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2011/0116870 (hereinafter Aufleger).
Regarding claim 1, Aufleger discloses a device for generating a standing surfable wave, comprising a channel (between the dash-lines in Fig. 1a) with two flow-limiting side walls (dash-lines in Fig. 1a) and a bottom (see Fig. 1b: about where 1 is pointing) of a water body (see Figs. 1a-1b: the water body that defines flow direction S) situated between the two flow-limiting side walls, wherein a depth of the bottom of the water body increases by a step (see Fig. 1b: the step between ramp 1 and base 3) to form a stilling basin (the basin about the area 4 and downstream thereof) and a bottom (bottom of base 3) of the stilling basin is positioned below a level (bottom level of area 1 in Figs. 1a-1b) of the bottom of the water body, wherein a ramp (2) is formed on the bottom of the water body before the stilling basin in a flow direction, and the ramp extends away from the bottom of the water body via angle α, and in the stilling basin, a ramp-like flow body (flow-guiding element 4) is embodied on the bottom of the stilling basin, wherein a bypass (ramp 1 is considered a bypass), wherein the bypass comprises a regulating or damming device (transverse structure Q) is positioned upstream of the ramp to regulate a volume of water and/or to regulate a flow velocity (see claim 1: lines 4-8). The alternative of a gate or both a gate and a bypass are addressed in the obviousness rejection(s) below,
Regarding claim 5, the device according to claim 1, wherein the flow body extends over a partial width of the stilling basin (see Fig. 1a), extends over an entire width of the stilling basin (see Fig. 1a), or slopes down to the bottom of the stilling basin toward the side walls that delimit the stilling basin (see Figs. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 6, the device according to claim 1, wherein the ramp has a control surface (top surface of ramp 2) situated toward a front (bottom end of ramp 2) in the flow direction, wherein the control surface extends from the bottom of the water body to a top (top free end of ramp 2) of the ramp in a form of a flat surface or an at least partially concave curve or a brachistochrone curve.
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) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aufleger.
Regarding claim 4, Aufleger teaches all of the limitations discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the flow body in the stilling basin is positioned in such a way that water flows over the ramp and forms the wave, strikes the flow body essentially perpendicularly, at an angle of 90° ± 25°or wherein the ramp-like flow body has a front flank in the flow direction, which is inclined toward the bottom of the stilling basin, wherein an inclination is set according to a flow pattern of water striking the bottom of the stilling basin and is between 15° and 55°.
Instead, Aufleger teaches the ramp-like flow body (height adjustable flow-guiding element 4) “is arranged at least approximately perpendicular to the flow direction (S) in the downstream region of the base (3) and which directs the flow in such a way as to produce no eddies there which have pronounced flow components counter to the main flow in the flow direction” (see abstract: lines 19-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the Aufleger’s flow body (4) in the stilling basin in such a way that water flows over the ramp and forms the wave, strikes the flow body essentially perpendicularly, at an angle of 90° ± 25° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively, Aufleger teaches the ramp-like flow body (4) is height adjustable and arranged at least approximately perpendicular to the flow direction (S) in the downstream region of the base (3), wherein the flow body (4) has a front flank (where SP is pointing in Fig. 2) in the flow direction that is inclined toward the bottom of the stilling basin (see Figs. 1b and 2). Aufleger also discloses “the angle of the mean slope of the counter-ramp to the horizontal in the flow direction can be adjusted between a smallest angle of -45° to 0° and a largest angle of 15° to 90°” (see para. [0021]). The regulation of the counter-ramp’s angle effective regulates the water flow angle of the wave striking the front flank (SP) of Aufleger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inclination of the front flank according to a flow pattern of water striking the bottom of the stilling basin and is between 15° and 55° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Aufleger discloses a method for generating a surfable wave, comprising positioning a ramp (counter-ramp 2) in a section of a natural or artificial body of water on a bottom (see Fig. 1b: about where 1 is pointing) of a water body (see Figs. 1a-1b: the water body that defines flow direction S) essentially transversely (see para. [0021]: 90°) to a flow direction (S), wherein the ramp piles up water to form a wave, providing a stilling basin (the basin about the area 4 and downstream thereof) after the ramp, which has a stilling basin bottom (bottom of base 3) that is positioned deeper than the bottom of the water body upstream of the ramp (see Fig. 1b), and positioning a flow body (flow-guiding element 4) for modulating the wave in a region in which the water flows into the stilling basin, wherein the flow body having a front flank (where SP is pointing in Fig. 2) for modulating the wave is positioned in such a way that the water strikes against the front flank of the flow body, and guiding the water via a bypass (the channel between the dash-lines in Fig. 1a is considered a bypass) that extends past the ramp and the stilling basin in order to regulate a volume of water or to regulate a speed of the water flowing over the ramp, or to regulate both the volume of water and the speed of the water flowing over the ramp, before the ramp, wherein the bypass comprises a regulating or damming device (transverse structure Q).
Aufleger teaches all of the limitations discussed above except for the water strikes perpendicularly against the front flank (SP).
Instead, Aufleger teaches the ramp-like flow body (height adjustable flow-guiding element 4) “is arranged at least approximately perpendicular to the flow direction (S) in the downstream region of the base (3) and which directs the flow in such a way as to produce no eddies there which have pronounced flow components counter to the main flow in the flow direction” (see abstract: lines 19-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the Aufleger’s flow body (4) in the stilling basin in such a way that water, flows over the ramp (2), strikes perpendicularly against the front flank (SP) of the flow body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aufleger in view of US 3,887,459 (hereinafter McLaughlin).
Regarding claim 16, Aufleger teaches the device according to claim 1 above except for the ramp is positioned in such a way that the top of the ramp is aligned with a step that increases the depth of the bottom of the water body to a depth of the stilling basin. Instead Aufleger teaches the ramp can have a constant slope in the flow direction. McLaughlin teaches an analogous device (Fig. 3) having a ramp is positioned in such a way that a top (where 85 is pointing) of the ramp is aligned with a step that increases the depth of the bottom of the water body to a depth of a stilling basin. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the adjustable ramp (2) of Aufleger with a constant ramp positioned in such a way that a top of the ramp is aligned with a step that increases the depth of the bottom of the water body to a depth of a stilling basin as taught by McLaughlin, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-15 is/are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aufleger in view of US 2003/0198515 (hereinafter McFarland).
Regarding claim 1, Aufleger discloses a device for generating a standing surfable wave, comprising a channel (between the dash-lines in Fig. 1a) with two flow-limiting side walls (dash-lines in Fig. 1a) and a bottom (see Fig. 1b: about where 1 is pointing) of a water body (see Figs. 1a-1b: the water body that defines flow direction S) situated between the two flow-limiting side walls, wherein a depth of the bottom of the water body increases by a step (see Fig. 1b: the step between ramp 1 and base 3) to form a stilling basin (the basin about the area 4 and downstream thereof) and a bottom (bottom of base 3) of the stilling basin is positioned below a level (bottom level of area 1 in Figs. 1a-1b) of the bottom of the water body, wherein a ramp (2) is formed on the bottom of the water body before the stilling basin in a flow direction, and the ramp extends away from the bottom of the water body via angle α, and in the stilling basin, a ramp-like flow body (flow-guiding element 4) is embodied on the bottom of the stilling basin, wherein a bypass (ramp 1 is considered a bypass), wherein the bypass comprises a regulating or damming device (transverse structure Q) is positioned upstream of the ramp to regulate a volume of water and/or to regulate a flow velocity (see claim 1: lines 4-8).
In the alternative, the limitations of a gate or both a gate and a bypass which the Aufleger does not teach, attention is directed to the McFarland reference which teaches an analogous device (Fig. 6 or 7) comprising a bypass (passageway 90 or 112) and a gate (flap valve 95 or 116) for controlling water flow such as volume of water and/or flow velocity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the water controlling structure (Q) of Aufleger with a bypass and a gate water controlling structure as taught by McFarland, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 3, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein the gate of McFarland is positioned essentially transversely to the flow direction in a body of water (see Fig. 1, between walls 30), the combination of Aufleger and McFarland include a distance between the gate and the ramp as for example the distance between Q and ramp 2 of Aufleger.
Although the distance is not in the specific range of 1.5 - 5 m. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between the gate and the ramp of Aufleger and McFarland to 1.5 - 5 m as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein Aufleger teaches the flow body extends over a partial width of the stilling basin (see Fig. 1a), extends over an entire width of the stilling basin (see Fig. 1a), or slopes down to the bottom of the stilling basin toward the side walls that delimit the stilling basin (see Figs. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 6, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein Aufleger teaches the ramp has a control surface (top surface of ramp 2) situated toward a front (bottom end of ramp 2) in the flow direction, wherein the control surface extends from the bottom of the water body to a top (top free end of ramp 2) of the ramp in a form of a flat surface or an at least partially concave curve or a brachistochrone curve.
Regarding claim 7, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein McFarland teaches the gate is a flap gate having gate flaps (see para. [0067], line 11: “Flow control flaps or valves”), which pivot toward a surface of a body of water and pivot into the body of water in order to limit an effective flow cross-section of the body of water from the bottom of the water body to free rear edges of the gate flaps.
Regarding claim 8, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein McFarland teaches a gate flap or a plurality of gate flaps (see para. [0067], line 11: “Flow control flaps or valves”) are arranged so that the gate flap or the plurality of gate flaps can be actuated and pivoted individually.
Regarding claim 9, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein McFarland teaches one or more gate flaps (see para. [0067], line 11: “Flow control flaps or valves”) is a displacement body (110) with which water displacement can be increased in a zone near the one or more gate flaps.
Regarding claim 10, the device according to claim 1 of Aufleger and McFarland, wherein in a region of the gate (see Fig. 7 of McFarland: the region of 116 on the left), the bottom of the water body is formed with a section (section under 116 on the left in Fig. 7), wherein a gradient in the section is greater than in a region of a rest of the bottom of the water body before and after the gate (116 on the left in Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 12, Aufleger discloses a method for generating a surfable wave, comprising positioning a ramp (counter-ramp 2) in a section of a natural or artificial body of water on a bottom (see Fig. 1b: about where 1 is pointing) of a water body (see Figs. 1a-1b: the water body that defines flow direction S) essentially transversely (see para. [0021]: 90°) to a flow direction (S), wherein the ramp piles up water to form a wave, providing a stilling basin (the basin about the area 4 and downstream thereof) after the ramp, which has a stilling basin bottom (bottom of base 3) that is positioned deeper than the bottom of the water body upstream of the ramp (see Fig. 1b), and positioning a flow body (flow-guiding element 4) for modulating the wave in a region in which the water flows into the stilling basin, wherein the flow body having a front flank (where SP is pointing in Fig. 2) for modulating the wave is positioned in such a way that the water strikes against the front flank of the flow body, and guiding the water via a bypass (the channel between the dash-lines in Fig. 1a is considered a bypass) that extends past the ramp and the stilling basin in order to regulate a volume of water or to regulate a speed of the water flowing over the ramp, or to regulate both the volume of water and the speed of the water flowing over the ramp, before the ramp, wherein the bypass comprises a regulating or damming device (transverse structure Q).
Aufleger teaches all of the limitations discussed above except for the water strikes perpendicularly against the front flank (SP).
Instead, Aufleger teaches the ramp-like flow body (height adjustable flow-guiding element 4) “is arranged at least approximately perpendicular to the flow direction (S) in the downstream region of the base (3) and which directs the flow in such a way as to produce no eddies there which have pronounced flow components counter to the main flow in the flow direction” (see abstract: lines 19-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the Aufleger’s flow body (4) in the stilling basin in such a way that water, flows over the ramp (2), strikes perpendicularly against the front flank (SP) of the flow body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the alternative, the limitations of a gate or both a gate and a bypass which the Aufleger does not teach, attention is directed to the McFarland reference which teaches an analogous device (Fig. 6 or 7) comprising a bypass (passageway 90 or 112) and a gate (flap valve 95 or 116) for controlling water flow such as volume of water and/or flow velocity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the water controlling structure (Q) of Aufleger with a bypass and a gate water controlling structure as taught by McFarland, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 13, Aufleger and McFarland teaches all of the claimed limitations as discussed regarding claim 12 teaches using the gate to adjust an effective flow cross-section of the water between two flow-limiting side walls and the bottom of the water body and an edge of the gate, wherein the gate is used to change the water flow from a flowing motion to a shooting flow motion and to change a transition from a Froude number with a value less than 1 to a Froude number with a value greater than 1 (see abstract of Aufleger).
Regarding claim 14, the method according to claim 13 of Aufleger and McFarland above teaches a distance between the gate and the ramp as for example the distance between Q and ramp 2 of Aufleger.
Although the distance is not in the specific range of 1.5 - 5 m. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between the gate and the ramp of Aufleger and McFarland to 1.5 - 5 m as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively, Aufleger teaches the ramp-like flow body (4) is height adjustable and arranged at least approximately perpendicular to the flow direction (S) in the downstream region of the base (3), wherein the flow body (4) has a front flank (where SP is pointing in Fig. 2) in the flow direction that is inclined toward the bottom of the stilling basin (see Figs. 1b and 2). Aufleger also discloses “the angle of the mean slope of the counter-ramp to the horizontal in the flow direction can be adjusted between a smallest angle of -45° to 0° and a largest angle of 15° to 90°” (see para. [0021]). The regulation of the counter-ramp’s angle effective regulates the water flow angle of the wave striking the front flank (SP) of Aufleger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inclination of the front flank according to a flow pattern of water striking the bottom of the stilling basin and is between 15° and 55° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the method according to claim 13 of Aufleger and McFarland above wherein the ramp accelerates has a control surface (top surface of ramp 2) situated toward a front (bottom end of ramp 2) in the flow direction, wherein the control surface extends from the bottom of the water body to a top (top free end of ramp 2) of the ramp in a form of a flat surface or an at least partially concave curve or a brachistochrone curve.
Allowable Subject Matter
The alternative limitations “the gate has a gate base plate with a rear edge in the flow direction that has one or more gate flaps arranged on the rear edge in an articulated and pivotable fashion, wherein the gate base plate rests on the two flow-limiting side walls or is positioned between the two flow-limiting side walls extending across a body of water transversely to the flow direction or is supported with support columns on the bottom of the water body or rests on the two flow-limiting side walls or is positioned between the two flow-limiting side walls and is supported on the bottom of the water body” of claim 8 are free from the prior art of record.
The alternative method “using the gate, with a gate base plate and with a gate flap joined in articulated fashion to a rear edge of the gate base plate, wherein the gate flap has the edge that can be pivoted down onto a body of water and into the body of water, wherein the gate base plate is parallel to the bottom of the water body or inclined toward the bottom of the water body in the flow direction so that when the gate flaps are producing a damming effect, the gate base plate dams up an incoming surge water to above a level of a headwater level” of claim 15 are free from the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0105685 (McFarland) teaches another wave generating device having a gate and a bypass for regulating water flow and wave size.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754