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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks under “rejection (2)” stating, “the Office Action alleges that the claimed vertical arrangement would have been obvious without reason, instead alleging that the Applicant's disclosure does not provide any particular advantage, is used for any particular purpose or solves a stated problem.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the Office Action provides a reason on page 7, line 131 which is to save radial space as disclosed by the prior art of Kokubu on page 6, paragraph 0006.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks that, “the fact that the rotor unit (36) is not fastened, using a fastener, to other components including the pipe (32) within the casing (22) is not disclosed, nor even suggested, in Kokubu; there is no description that would serve as motivation or reason; and it is by no means a well-known or commonly used technique. Therefore, the present invention of independent claim 1 is not anticipated or obvious based on (A) Kokubu's hydraulic machine. Accordingly, it is considered that the present invention of independent claim 1 has novelty and non-obviousness over Kokubu.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the amended claim 1 now recites “the rotor unit being supported at a predetermined position relative to the pipe when the rotor unit is attached to the casing, and not being fastened to another component, including the pipe, in the inside of the casing with a fastener.” Figure 16 of Kokubu clearly shows the rotor unit (8) being supported at a predetermined position relative to the pipe (205) when the rotor unit is attached to the casing (202) and not being fastened to another component, including the pipe, in the inside of the casing with a fastener. Therefore, the prior art of Kokubu teaches the amended claim limitations of claim 1.
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)(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 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kokubu (WO 2013/051113 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kokubu discloses a water wheel comprising:
a casing (202 of Figure 16) configured to carry a fluid flow (W of Figure 16) through an inside thereof;
a pipe (205 of Figure 16) extending in the inside of the casing;
a rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) having a shaft (4 of Figure 16) configured to be inserted in the inside of the casing, the shaft being directed toward the pipe, and the rotor unit being detachably attached to the casing from outside (Page 6, para. 0006); and
the rotor unit being supported at a predetermined position relative to the pipe when the rotor unit is attached to the casing (see Figure 16), and
not being fastened to another component, including the pipe, in the inside of the casing with a fastener (see Figure 16).
Regarding claim 2, Kokubu discloses wherein the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) includes a runner (7 of Figure 16) fixed to a portion of the shaft (4 of Figure 16) located in the inside of the casing (202 of Figure 16).
Regarding claim 3, Kokubu discloses wherein the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) further includes a runner cover (204 of Figure 16) located on an outer periphery of the runner (7 of Figure 16).
Regarding claim 4, Kokubu discloses wherein the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) further includes a guide vane (17 of Figure 16) disposed opposite to the pipe (205 of Figure 16) with respect to the runner cover (204 of Figure 16), and the guide vane is configured to guide the fluid in the casing (202 of Figure 16) to the runner.
Regarding claims 5, 11, Kokubu discloses wherein the runner cover (204 of Figure 16) supports the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) at the predetermined position relative to the pipe (205 of Figure 16) when the rotor unit is attached to the casing (202 of Figure 16).
Regarding claims 6, 12, Kokubu discloses wherein
the runner cover (204 of Figure 16) and the pipe (205 of Figure 16) are butted together and fitted to each other (See Figure 16), and
a sealing member (see annotated Figure 12 below) is provided at a portion where the runner cover and the pipe are fitted to each other, and the sealing member is interposed between the runner cover and the pipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kokubu – Figure 12
Regarding claims 7, 13-19, Kokubu discloses wherein the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) includes a combination of a plurality of components including the shaft (4 of Figure 16), and
the rotor unit is configured such that one or some of the plurality of components are attachable and detachable to and from the rotor unit without detaching any other of the plurality of components (page 6, para. 0006, other components including the runner and runner cover are located inside the casing, the rotor unit is located outside the casing and can be easily replaced when needed).
Regarding claim 9, Kokubu discloses a hydraulic power generation (8 of Figure 16) device including the water wheel of claim 1, the hydraulic power generation device further comprising:
a generator (8 of Figure 16) configured to be driven by the water wheel (as defined by claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kokubu discloses a hydraulic power generation system including the hydraulic power generation device (8 of Figure 16) of claim 9, the hydraulic power generation system further comprising:
a flow path through which fluid flows (W of Figure 16),
the hydraulic power generation device being employed in the flow path (see Figure 16).
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.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubu (WO 2013/051113 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 20, Kokubu discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor unit (8 of Figure 16) is attached to an upper portion of the casing (202 of Figure 16) with the shaft (4 of Figure 16) extending in a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the rotor unit of Kokubu attached to an upper portion of the casing with the shaft extending in a vertical direction to save radial space and to easily replace the generator when the generator is resized, broken, or the like [Kokubu: Page 6, para. 0006]. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to attach the rotor unit vertically instead of horizontally. Applicant has not disclosed that attaching the rotor unit vertically provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the rotor unit being attached horizontally because the Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0114 discloses the rotor unit may be horizontally mounted such that the water wheel and the generator are arranged in a horizontal direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kokubu to obtain the invention as specified in claims 8 and 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834