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)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 1. 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 interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: driving member in claim 3. Based on the specification, the driving member is a rod or bar (7) as shown in Fig. 1, 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the transmission is connected to one or more output shafts arranged in a balanced mode.” It is not clear what mode constitutes a balanced mode. In other words, it is not clear how to connect the transmission to the one or more output shafts so that it can be considered that they are arranged in a balanced mode.
Claim 2 recites “a horizontal generator and a vertical generator.” It is not clear what constitutes a horizontal generator or a vertical generator. In other words, it is not clear if horizontal and vertical are merely referred to the installation orientation of the generator on its installation surface or if they are referring to something else, such as the orientation of the inlet shaft with regard to the generator rotor/stator.
Claim 3 recites that “a load-bearing ball or a load-bearing roller configured to reduce frictional resistance of a driving member is installed on the annular load-bearing wall.” Hence, a load-bearing ball or a load-bearing roller, i.e., one load-bearing ball or load-bearing roller is installed on the annular load-bearing wall. Based on claim 3, this ball or roller is configured to reduce frictional resistance of the driving member. The driving member rotates a complete 360-degree round circle over the annular load-bearing wall. Hence, in order for the ball or roller to reduce frictional resistance of the driving member, the one ball or roller has to cover the entire 360-degree upper surface of the wall. However, Fig. 2 shows the ball or roller 8 only in two spots, the rest is free from any ball or roller. Hence, it is not clear how this one ball or roller installed only on a portion of the wall can reduce frictional resistance of the driving member.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the driving member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the water baffle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claim 6 is rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song et al. (CN 105804914), referred to hereafter as Song.
With regard to claim 1, Song discloses an efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set (Fig. 1, 2), comprising a buried load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1. Note that a buried load-bearing structure foundation is a very broad limitation as most things can be interpreted to be buried in something else, be load-bearing as it’s the case with most mechanical elements, and be a structure foundation, as most mechanical elements can be interpreted to be a structure foundation), wherein a transmission (4 and 5, individually or in combination) is installed in the load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1), an input shaft of the transmission is connected to a load-bearing column (1) driven by hydraulic power to rotate (Fig. 2. Also see abstract disclosing “the action of water flow in the trench or river (11)”), the transmission is connected to one or more output shafts arranged in a balanced mode (Fig. 1), and each output shaft is connected to a generator (6).
With regard to claim 4, Song further discloses that the driving member (8) is of a rod structure or a disc structure (Fig. 1, 2), and a load-bearing inhaul cable (2 or 3, individually or in combination) is added between the load-bearing column and the driving member (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, Song further discloses that the water baffle (7) is placed in an annular water channel (11) to rotate as push of water flow, and a separating apparatus is arranged between a water inlet and a water outlet of the annular water channel (In Fig. 2, see the separating apparatus between a water inlet and a water outlet which separates the water inlet and the water outlet).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN 105804914), referred to hereafter as Song in view of Downing (US 2002/0141858).
With regard to claim 2:
Song discloses the efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the generator comprises a horizontal generator.
Song does not appear to explicitly disclose that the generator comprises a vertical generator.
However, Downing teaches an efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set to rotate as push of water flow and further teaches an output shaft connected to a generator, the generator being a vertical generator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add a vertical generator to the Song, to yield predictable results of producing electrical energy. This addition furthermore would provide more electrical energy production and also provides redundancy in the system in case the horizontal generator fails or breaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prisbrey (US 1,480,299) in view of Song et al. (CN 105804914), referred to hereafter as Song.
With regard to claim 1:
Prisbrey discloses an efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set, comprising a buried load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1, “a buried load-bearing structure foundation” is the area where pump 9 is installed), wherein a pump (9) is installed in the load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1), an input shaft of the pump is connected to a load-bearing column (6) driven by hydraulic power (the water flow in trough 1) to rotate.
Prisbrey uses its efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set to generate energy to rotate a pump (9) instead of the recited generator, hence Prisbrey does not appear to explicitly disclose a generator. Also, Prisbrey does not appear to explicitly disclose a transmission between the load-bearing column and the generator.
However, Song teaches an efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set (Fig. 1, 2), comprising a buried load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1), wherein a transmission (4 and 5, individually or in combination) is installed in the load-bearing structure foundation (Fig. 1), an input shaft of the transmission is connected to a load-bearing column (1) driven by hydraulic power to rotate (Fig. 2), the transmission is connected to one or more output shafts arranged in a balanced mode (Fig. 1), and each output shaft is connected to a generator (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to do a simple substitution of one known element for another, and substitute the pump of Prisbrey with the generator and transmission of Song, to obtain predictable results of producing electrical energy.
The pump of Prisbrey is already in the load-bearing structure foundation (see Fig. 1 of Prisbrey), hence after the above modification and substituting the pump of Prisbrey with the generator and transmission of Song, the combination of Prisbrey and Song discloses a transmission that is installed in the load-bearing structure foundation, an input shaft of the transmission is connected to the load-bearing column (as taught by Song), the transmission is connected to one or more output shafts arranged in a balanced mode (as taught by Song), and each output shaft is connected to a generator (as taught by Song).
Although Prisbrey has a water connection from the trough (1) to the load-bearing structure foundation, the person of ordinary skill can close this line when they substitute the pump with the generator and transmission because it no longer be needed. Note that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Hence, in the above combination, when the water line connection to the load-bearing structure foundation is not needed as a result of the modification, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to simply close that line or just remove it.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Prisbrey and Song further discloses that the load-bearing structure foundation is formed by a foundation (Prisbrey, in Fig. 1, see the foundation under pump 9) and an annular load-bearing wall (see Fig. 1 of Prisbrey. In a first interpretation, “an annular load-bearing wall” is the wall immediately next to pump 9. In a second interpretation, “an annular load-bearing wall” is the inner wall of trough 1. In a third interpretation, “an annular load-bearing wall” is the outer wall of trough 1), a load-bearing ball or a load-bearing roller (Prisbrey, see load-bearing rollers 21 and 25 in Fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6. Also see page 2; line 94 specifically disclosing rollers 21) configured to reduce frictional resistance of a driving member (14 and 15) is installed on the annular load-bearing wall (Prisbrey, Fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6. The rollers are installed on the wall by virtue of being on the wall as depicted in Fig. 5 and 6), one end of the driving member is connected to the load-bearing column (Prisbrey, Fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6), and the other end of the driving member is connected to a reversible water baffle (Prisbrey, see “reversible water baffle” 34 in Fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Prisbrey and Song further discloses that the driving member is of a rod structure or a disc structure (Prisbrey, Fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6), and a load-bearing inhaul cable (Prisbrey, 8) is added between the load-bearing column and the driving member (Prisbrey, Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Prisbrey and Song further discloses that the water baffle is placed in an annular water channel (Prisbrey, 1, see Fig. 1, 2) to rotate as push of water flow, and a separating apparatus (Prisbrey, see the separating apparatus between inlet 2 and outlet 3 in Fig. 1 and 2) is arranged between a water inlet (Prisbrey, 2) and a water outlet (Prisbrey, 3) of the annular water channel.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Prisbrey and Song further discloses that the separating apparatus is formed by a separating wall higher than a water surface or a plurality of separating plates higher than a water surface (Prisbrey, see Fig. 1, 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prisbrey (US 1,480,299) in view of Song et al. (CN 105804914), referred to hereafter as Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Downing (US 2002/0141858).
With regard to claim 2:
The combination of Prisbrey and Song discloses the efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the generator comprises a horizontal generator.
The combination of Prisbrey and Song does not appear to explicitly disclose that the generator comprises a vertical generator.
However, Downing teaches an efficient hydrokinetic rotating disc generator set to rotate as push of water flow and further teaches an output shaft connected to a generator, the generator being a vertical generator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add a vertical generator to the combination of Prisbrey and Song, to yield predictable results of producing electrical energy. This addition furthermore would provide more electrical energy production and also provides redundancy in the system in case the horizontal generator fails or breaks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar generator sets such as US 5137423.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745