,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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Williams and Fraenkel.
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
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 11 is 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 11 is unclear for reciting the relative term “easy”. The term is not defined.
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) 1, 3, 7, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams GB2592567 in view of Fraenkel US 20100183377.
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a tidal turbine assembly (Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a first turbine (one of the three rotors R), comprising a first plurality of foils, that is configured, in use, to rotate around an upright axis that is upright relative to the sea bed (Fig. 4); and
a second turbine (a different one of the three rotors R), comprising a second plurality of foils, that is configured, in use, to rotate around an upright axis that is upright relative to the sea bed (Fig. 4);
wherein the first turbine and the second turbine are coupled by a support beam (28) that is configured to be, in use, above the sea level (L); and
wherein the support beam is coupled to a support column (30) to support the support beam, in use, above the sea level (Fig. 4), and
wherein the support column (30) is connected to a gravity base (26) to support the support column in an upright orientation relative to the sea bed in use (Fig. 5).
However, it does not teach that the gravity base is weighted and immovable relative to the sea bed in response to natural force solely by its own weight.
Fraenkel teaches a gravity foundation for underwater turbines comprising a gravity base weighted and immovable relative to the sea bed in response to natural force solely by its own weight ([0009]). Since both Williams and Fraenkel teach bases for underwater turbines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the base as taught by Williams by simply substituting the base of Fraenkel in order to mount the turbine to the sea floor in an immovable manner.
Regarding claim 3, Williams further discloses that each turbine comprises a turbine shaft wherein each turbine rotates about a turbine axis (Fig. 4), wherein the turbine shaft is coupled to the support beam at one end and to the gravity base at the other end (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Williams further discloses that a respective power generating portion (31) mounted to the support beam proximate to each of the respective first and second turbines (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Williams further discloses that the first turbine is configured to rotate about an axis parallel to the axis about which the second turbine rotates (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Williams further discloses that the support column (30) supports the support beam (28) between the first and second turbines such that the first and second turbines are on either side of the support column (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Williams further discloses a pair of support columns (30) for supporting the support beam, in use, above the sea level (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams GB2592567 and Fraenkel US 20100183377 and further in view of Kay US 20220316441.
Regarding claim 4, Williams does not teach that each turbine comprises a turbine shaft wherein each turbine rotates about a turbine axis, wherein the turbine shaft is only coupled to the support beam.
Kay teaches a tidal turbine assembly wherein the turbine (10) rotates about an axis (X) and the turbine shaft (22a) is only coupled to a support beam (13, Fig. 7).
Because both Williams and Kay teach means to connect an underwater rotor to a generator, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the means as taught by Williams by simply substituting in the means as taught by Kay in order to achieve the predictable result of rotating the turbine shaft and generate power. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams GB2592567 and Fraenkel US 20100183377 and further in view of Gehring US 7215036.
Regarding claim 5, Williams does not teach that the support column (30) is provided by a monopile. Williams does teaches using “more than one turbine R” ([0020]) but does not require the three shown in the figures. Using only two turbines is within the teachings of Williams. Looking at Fig. 5 and removing a single rotor such that only two remain shows two support columns (30).
Gehring teaches a tidal turbine assembly comprising rotors supported between an upper frame and lower frame and supported by a monopile (section of 13 between upper and lower frame 12). Doing so would reduce the number of components simplifying the assembly and reducing manufacturing costs. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support column as taught by Williams by utilizing a monopile as taught by Gehring in order to reduce the number of components, simplify the assembly, and reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 6, Gehring further teaches that the tidal turbine assembly is coupled to a monopile of a wind turbine (Fig. 9a) in order to increase the electricity sent to the power grid (col. 6 ln. 19-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tidal turbine assembly as taught by the combination by coupling it to a monopile of a wind turbine in order to increase the electricity sent to the power grid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 is allowable for the foil support being configured to be movable up and down relative to the turbine shaft. Moore teaches that the entirety of the rotor with its shaft are removed from the water. There is no independent movement of the foil support causing the movement out of the water.
Claim 11 is allowable for each foil of the first and second plurality of foils is weighted at a distal end proximate to the sea bed in use with positive buoyancy to float vertically to allow easy connection and replacement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights