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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-10 recite the term “characterized in that” which is improper. Please revise to “wherein” or equivalent to comply with US patent practice.
Claims 2-10 recite the term “A reservoir” which is improper for introducing a dependent claim. Please revise to “The reservoir”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verzicht et al. (DE 3705425 C1) alone.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-8, Verzicht discloses a reservoir drawdown zone, which is arranged on the slope of a river, lake or reservoir, characterized in that: according to historical water level data, an area of the slope of the reservoir is divided to have a low-frequency submergence area, a relatively-low-frequency submergence area, a medium-frequency submergence area, a relatively-high-frequency submergence area and a high-frequency submergence area arranged in sequence from top to bottom on the slope of the reservoir according to a cumulative submergence frequency distribution of the slope of the reservoir; a submerged bank structure is arranged in the relatively-high-frequency submergence area, and relatively-high-frequency submergence area vegetation is arranged in the relatively-high-frequency submergence area on the submerged bank structure; a medium-frequency submergence area vegetation is arranged in the medium-frequency submergence area; a relatively-low-frequency submergence area vegetation is arranged in the relatively-low-frequency submergence area; and a low-lying channel on the downstream side of the submerged slope [apparatus 7 formed on the sloped banks of tidal rivers form a first water barrier and a dike 4 forms a second barrier with a downstream channel on the side opposite the river; Abstract and Figures 1 & 2].
Although Verzict is silent as to the reservoir drawdown zone comprising specifically high, medium and low frequency submergence areas, the Examiner contends that the device of Verzicht has to have these water level positions otherwise it would not function as intended, despite them not being specifically pointed out. Further, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple or as many dikes as necessary to control the storm surge in the river as required by the site-specific design conditions. Additionally, it has been held that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Specifically, regarding the vegetation, it would have been obvious to include some in target areas as a loose slope would merely get washed out in a storm event, and the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select a well-known grass or plant species to install in its respective intended area of favorable growing conditions.
Specifically regarding the slope percentages and ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the claimed values based on a number of site-specific variables including soil/rock type, length of the slope, depth of the river and volume of tidal shifts, etc. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verzicht et al. (DE 3705425 C1) in view of Byeon (US 2014/0042064).
Verzicht is silent as to there being ponds excavated into the low-frequency submergence area.
Byeon teaches an ecological water overflow system with a multi-level cell overflow pond [400] that may even include a gate dam [Paragraph 86].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Verzicht by adding the multi-cell overflow pond as described by Byeon to provide additional storm surge water volume management in a safe manner that can be further controlled as necessary.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Verzicht-Byeon combination as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-9 above, and further in view of Farahmand (US 2018/0348013).
The Verzicht-Byeon combination fails to disclose a sensor and control system associated with the gate.
Farahmand teaches an environmental monitoring system comprising a series of spillway gates, sensors, and processors to control said gates [Paragraphs 257-262; Figures 1, 8 & 9].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of the Verzicht-Byeon combination by adding the gate control system as described by Farahmand to improve performance by enabling the exiting water flow to be controlled in real-time and remotely away from the storm and surge thus improving safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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: Although the prior art of record teaches the use of a plurality of concave/convex structures (e.g. dikes along the slope of the bank) it would have been only through the use of hindsight reasoning to introduce soil fixing plants on the convex portions and submerged plants on the inside of the concave portions along the many of such portions positioned on the slope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619