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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-35, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavis US 20160061180 in view of Kobashikawa US 7023104.
Eavis discloses:
21. (New) A variable leverage pump comprising: a platform (see annotated Fig 3 herein); a first lever arm having a proximal end pivotally coupled with the platform and a distal end, wherein the first lever arm is configured to rotate about a lever axis (see annotated Fig 3 herein); and a pump 7 configured to rotate about a first axis and a second axis (see annotated Fig 3 herein), wherein the pump is positioned between the first axis and the second axis (see annotated Fig 3 herein), and wherein both the first axis and the lever axis are positioned directly underneath the second axis when the first lever arm is vertically positioned relative to the platform (see annotated Fig 3 herein wherein the first axis and the lever axis would be positioned directly underneath the second axis when the first lever arm is vertically positioned relative to the platform). Eavis does not disclose a single action pump.
However, Kobashikawa discloses the use of a single action pump (see e.g. any of Figs 6-7).
A simple substitution of one known pump (the single action pump of Kobashikawa) for another (the double action pump of Eavis) with the predictable result of pumping fluid via wave power has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the single action pump of Kobashikawa as a simple substitution for the pump of Eavis to gain the benefit of using a variable capacity/volume pump as taught by Kobashikawa in col 13 lines 30-36 and lines 53-58.
Eavis as modified above discloses (all reference s to Eavis unless noted otherwise):
22. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 21, wherein the distal end of the first lever arm is coupled to a float, and wherein the float is buoyant (the distal end of the first lever arm is coupled to a tubular frame 20 which forms a blade 2 wherein the blade is buoyant and thus floats as in 0040 and annotated Fig 3 herein).
26. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 21, further comprising a second lever arm pivotally coupled with the platform, wherein the second lever arm is configured to rotate about the lever axis (see annotated Fig 3 herein).
27. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 26, wherein the first lever arm and the second lever arm are coupled to a float (the first and second lever arms are coupled to a tubular frame 20 which forms a blade 2 wherein the blade is buoyant and thus floats as in 0040), and wherein each of the float, the first lever arm, and the second lever arm are configured to rotate about the lever axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
28. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 21, wherein a pump fulcrum defines the first axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein at the first axis).
29. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 21, wherein a force coupling defines the second axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein at the second axis).
30. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 21, wherein the first lever arm is configured to apply variable leverage to the single action pump (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
31. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 30, wherein the variable leverage is based on (i) a length of the first lever arm, (ii) a length between the first axis and the second axis, and (iii) an angular separation of the first lever arm and the single action pump relative to the second axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
32. (New) The variable leverage pump of claim 30, wherein the lever axis and the first axis are parallel (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
Eavis discloses:
33. (New) A method for assembling a variable leverage pump, the method comprising: pivotally coupling a first lever arm with a platform (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein), wherein the first lever arm is configured to rotate about a lever axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein); and positioning a pump 7 between a first axis and a second axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein), the pump being configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein), wherein both the first axis and the lever axis are positioned directly underneath the second axis when the first lever arm is vertically positioned relative to the platform (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein). ). Eavis does not disclose a single action pump.
However, Kobashikawa discloses the use of a single action pump (see e.g. any of Figs 6-7).
A simple substitution of one known pump (the single action pump of Kobashikawa) for another (the double action pump of Eavis) with the predictable result of pumping fluid via wave power has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the single action pump of Kobashikawa as a simple substitution for the pump of Eavis to gain the benefit of using a variable capacity/volume pump as taught by Kobashikawa in col 13 lines 30-36 and lines 53-58.
Eavis as modified above discloses (all reference s to Eavis unless noted otherwise):
34. (New) The method of claim 33, further comprising: coupling the first lever arm to a float, wherein the float is buoyant (the distal end of the first lever arm is coupled to a tubular frame 20 which forms a blade 2 wherein the blade is buoyant and thus floats as in 0040 and annotated Fig 3 herein).
38. (New) The method of claim 33, further comprising: pivotally coupling a second lever arm with the platform, wherein the second lever arm is configured to rotate about the lever axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
39. (New) The method of claim 38, further comprising: coupling a float to the first lever arm and the second lever arm, wherein each of the float (the first and second lever arms are coupled to a tubular frame 20 which forms a blade 2 wherein the blade is buoyant and thus floats as in 0040), the first lever arm, and the second lever arm are configured to rotate about the lever axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
40. (New) The method of claim 33, wherein a pump fulcrum defines the first axis and a force coupling defines the second axis (see e.g. annotated Fig 3 herein).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Eavis as modified above does not specifically disclose wherein the single action pump is configured to output a water pressure of at least 800 pounds per square inch (PSI). However, output pressure is a result effective variable that determines the delivery pressure of the pump. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to configure the pump of Whittaker to output a pressure of at least 800 pounds per square inch (PSI) since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges].
Additionally, the reference to water pressure is directed to the manner of operating the
claimed pump. Whittaker discloses all the structural limitations of the apparatus claim and is
structurally capable of being operated in the manner claimed. Therefore, Whittaker meets the
limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II: “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE
DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”. "Apparatus claims cover
what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d
1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 [Fed. Cir. 1990] [emphasis in original]. A claim containing a
"recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior
art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d
1647 [Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987].
Claim(s) 24, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavis US 20160061180 in view of Kobashikawa US 7023104 in further view of Whittaker US 20110018276.
Regarding claims 24 and 36, Eavis as modified above discloses wherein the single action pump comprises a first end and a second end (bottom and top ends of 7 of Eavis, respectively).
Regarding the limitations the second end of the pump comprising a piston rod pivotally coupled with the first lever arm by a force coupling, it appears the lesser diameter end of the pump 7 which would be associated with the piston rod is coupled to the lever arm. In any event, there are only two options for a person of ordinary skill in the art which wherein either option produced the same pumping action and therefore either option is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E). Additionally, Whittaker discloses the claimed configuration in e.g. Figs 6a-6b.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize connect the piston rod to the paddle as taught by Whittaker in the system of Eavis as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known pump arrangement for wave pumps.
Claim(s) 25, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavis US 20160061180 in view of Kobashikawa US 7023104 in further view of Murtha US 20170129788.
Regarding claims 25 and 37, Eavis as modified above discloses rotation of the first lever arm is configured to cause the single action pump to pressurize a fluid to flow for pumping water for desalination (see e.g. 0006, 0056-0057) but does not specify the type of desalination. Murtha discloses a reverse osmosis membrane, wherein a wave pump pressurizes a water to flow through the reverse osmosis membrane (see e.g. the abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a reverse osmosis membrane desalination process as taught by Murtha in the system of Eavis to gain the benefit of using a known desalination method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference, Kobashikawa, is now being used to teach the limitation which applicant agues.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights