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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in both cases the claims recite an underwater turbine system for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising: an upper pontoon; a lower pontoon connected to a cable extending to an underwater surface; a connector extending between the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon, the connector configured to be tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon; and a single propeller assembly with a plurality of blades being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream, wherein the upper pontoon applies a vertical buoyant force on the lower pontoon, and wherein rotation of the single propeller assembly generates electricity via a generator in the lower pontoon, wherein the upper pontoon is operable to supply water into and drain water from within the upper pontoon to change the vertical buoyant force applied by the upper pontoon to raise or lower the underwater turbine system, and wherein the lower pontoon comprises a plurality of pulleys about which the cable at least partially winds.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite wherein the upper pontoon has a same shape and profile as the lower pontoon.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite wherein the connector provides a fin that inhibits a yaw motion of the underwater turbine system and is configured to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon with the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite wherein the upper pontoon includes a first chamber and a second chamber, wherein the first chamber is operatively connected to a water pump to supply water to and drain water from the first chamber and the second chamber is operatively connected to a second water pump operable to supply water to and drain water from the second chamber, wherein filling the first chamber or the second chamber with water alters a center of the vertical buoyant force exerted on the upper pontoon of the underwater turbine system to control a pitch of the underwater turbine system.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite further comprising a predictive artificial intelligence controller actuatable to adjust the vertical buoyant force exerted on the lower pontoon to align the lower pontoon with a desired underwater stream depth.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite further comprising a shaft coupled to the single propeller assembly and to an electric motor, all housed within a chamber of the lower pontoon.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite an underwater turbine system for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising: an upper pontoon; a lower pontoon; a connector extending between and tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon; and a single propeller assembly with a plurality of blades being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly; wherein a vertical buoyant force applied by the upper pontoon on the lower pontoon, a drag force applied by the underwater ocean stream on the lower pontoon, and a tension force applied by a cable on the lower pontoon are configured to intersect at a location centered to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon with the underwater ocean stream.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite wherein the upper pontoon has a same shape and profile as the lower pontoon.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite wherein the connector provides a fin that inhibits a yaw motion of the underwater turbine system and is configured to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon with the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite further comprising a shaft coupled to the single propeller assembly and to an electric motor generator and an electric motor, all housed within a chamber of the lower pontoon.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite an underwater turbine system for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising: an upper pontoon; a lower pontoon; a connector extending between and tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon; a single propeller assembly with a plurality of blades being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly; and a cable extending from the lower pontoon and to an underwater surface, wherein a buoyancy of the upper pontoon is adjustable to raise or lower the underwater turbine system to a desired depth.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite wherein the lower pontoon comprises a shaft operatively coupled to the single propeller assembly and to a generator, wherein rotation of the single propeller assembly by the underwater ocean stream rotates the shaft, which rotates a rotor relative to a stator of the generator to generate electricity, wherein the lower pontoon further comprises an electric motor coupled to the shaft, which in turn is coupled to a friction winch assembly.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all three claims recite wherein the upper pontoon has a same shape and profile as the lower pontoon.
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 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McManus (US 9,890,762).
Regarding claim 12, McManus discloses an underwater turbine system (191 of Figure 5) for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising:
an upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5);
a lower pontoon (see Figure 5);
a connector (115 of Figure 5) extending between and tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon; and
a single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) with a plurality of blades (104 of Figure 1) being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly (Col. 2:56-58);
wherein a vertical buoyant force applied by the upper pontoon on the lower pontoon, a drag force applied by the underwater ocean stream on the lower pontoon (Col. 3:1-23), and
a tension force applied by a cable (115 of Figure 5) on the lower pontoon are configured to intersect at a location centered to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon with the underwater ocean stream.
Regarding claim 15, McManus discloses further comprising a predictive artificial intelligence controller (125 of Figure 5; Col. 3:33-51) actuatable (via 129 of Figure 2) to adjust the vertical buoyant force exerted on the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) by the upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5) to align the lower pontoon with a desired underwater stream depth.
Regarding claim 16, McManus discloses further comprising a shaft (105 of Figure 5) coupled to the single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) and to an electric motor generator (181 of Figure 5) and an electric motor (181 of Figure 5), all housed within a chamber of the lower pontoon (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, McManus discloses an underwater turbine system (191 of Figure 5) for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising:
an upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5);
a lower pontoon (see Figure 5);
a connector (115 of Figure 5) extending between and tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon;
a single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) with a plurality of blades (104 of Figure 1) being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly (Col. 2:56-58); and
a cable (115 of Figure 5) extending from the lower pontoon and to an underwater surface (117 of Figure 5),
wherein a buoyancy of the upper pontoon is adjustable to raise or lower the underwater turbine system to a desired depth (Col. 3:1-23).
Regarding claim 20, McManus discloses further comprising a predictive artificial intelligence controller (125 of Figure 5; Col. 3:33-51) actuatable (via 129 of Figure 2) to adjust a vertical buoyant force exerted on the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) to align the lower pontoon with a desired underwater stream depth.
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 2, 3, 7, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus (US 9,890,762), in view of Kejha (US 2009/0140524).
Regarding claim 2, McManus discloses an underwater turbine system (191 of Figure 5) for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising:
an upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5);
a lower pontoon (see Figure 5) connected to a cable (115 of Figure 5) extending to an underwater surface (117 of Figure 5);
a connector (115 of Figure 5) extending between the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon, the connector configured to be tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon (Col. 4:45-52; Col. 5:40-47); and
a single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) with a plurality of blades (104 of Figure 1) being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream (Col. 2:56-58),
wherein the upper pontoon applies a vertical buoyant force on the lower pontoon (Col. 3:1-23),
and wherein rotation of the single propeller assembly generates electricity via a generator (181 of Figure 5) in the lower pontoon,
wherein the upper pontoon is operable to change the vertical buoyant force applied by the upper pontoon (via 125 of Figure 5) to raise or lower the underwater turbine system.
McManus does not explicitly disclose the pontoon is operable to supply water into and drain water from within the upper pontoon to change the vertical buoyant force, and
a plurality of pulleys about which the cable at least partially winds.
Kejha discloses the pontoon (2 of Figure 1) is operable to supply water into and drain water from within the pontoon to change the vertical buoyant force (via 9 of Figure 1; Para. 0010, 0030; see claim 8), and
a plurality of pulleys (16 of Figure 1) about which the cable (17 of Figure 1) at least partially winds (Para. 0030; see claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the buoyancy mechanism of McManus able to supply water into and drain water from within the pontoon and a plurality of pulleys to wind/unwind cables, as taught by Kejha, to bring the system to the sea surface by unwinding the anchoring cables and/or by pumping water out from the ballast chamber [Kejha: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 3, McManus discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5) has a same shape and profile as the lower pontoon (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the upper and lower pontoons of McManus have the same shape and profile for ease on construction and maintenance since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, McManus discloses wherein the upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5) is configured to change the vertical buoyant force to avoid an ocean current (Col. 3:1-23).
Regarding claim 9, McManus discloses further comprising a predictive artificial intelligence controller (125 of Figure 5; Col. 3:33-51) actuatable (via 129 of Figure 2) to adjust the vertical buoyant force exerted on the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) to align the lower pontoon with a desired underwater stream depth.
Regarding claim 10, McManus discloses further comprising a shaft (105 of Figure 5) coupled to the single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) and to an electric motor (181 of Figure 5), all housed within a chamber of the lower pontoon (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, McManus discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5) includes a water pump to supply water to and drain water from within the upper pontoon.
Kejha discloses wherein the upper pontoon (2 of Figure 1) includes a water pump to supply water to and drain water from within the upper pontoon (via 9 of Figure 1; Para. 0010, 0030; see claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the buoyancy mechanism of McManus able to supply water into and drain water from within the pontoon, as taught by Kejha, to bring the system to the sea surface by pumping water out from the ballast chamber [Kejha: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 19, McManus discloses wherein the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) comprises a shaft (105 of Figure 5) operatively coupled to the single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) and to a generator (181 of Figure 5),
wherein rotation of the single propeller assembly by the underwater ocean stream rotates the shaft, which rotates a rotor relative to a stator of the generator to generate electricity (Col. 4:18-29), wherein the lower pontoon further comprises an electric motor (181 of Figure 5) coupled to the shaft, which in turn is coupled to a friction winch assembly.
McManus does not explicitly disclose a friction winch assembly.
Kejha discloses a friction winch assembly (16 of Figure 1; Para. 0030; see claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the pontoon of McManus have a friction winch assembly, as taught by Kejha, to bring the system to the sea surface by unwinding the anchoring cables [Kejha: Para. 0010].
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus (US 9,890,762), in view of Kejha (US 2009/0140524) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hunt (US 2010/0327583).
Regarding claim 4, McManus discloses wherein the connector (115 of Figure 5) inhibits a yaw motion of the underwater turbine system and is configured to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) with the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5).
McManus does not explicitly disclose a fin.
Hunt discloses a fin (105 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a fin in the system of McManus, as taught by Hunt, to provide a natural rudder for passive yaw alignment [Hunt: Para. 0058].
Regarding claim 8, McManus discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper pontoon includes a first chamber and a second chamber, wherein the first chamber is operatively connected to a water pump to supply water to and drain water from the first chamber and the second chamber is operatively connected to a second water pump operable to supply water to and drain water from the second chamber, wherein filling the first chamber or the second chamber with water alters a center of the vertical buoyant force exerted on the upper pontoon of the underwater turbine system to control a pitch of the underwater turbine system.
Hunt disclose wherein the upper pontoon includes a first chamber (401 of Figure 4A) and a second chamber (402 of Figure 4A), wherein the first chamber is operatively connected to a water pump to supply water to and drain water from the first chamber and the second chamber is operatively connected to a second water pump operable to supply water to and drain water from the second chamber (Para. 0090), wherein filling the first chamber or the second chamber with water alters a center of the vertical buoyant force exerted on the upper pontoon of the underwater turbine system to control a pitch of the underwater turbine system (Para. 0090-0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have ballast chambers in the pontoon of McManus connected to pumps to supply water to and drain water from the first chamber and the second chamber, as taught by Hunt, to alter the magnitude of a body pitching moment of the hydrokinetic device [Hunt: Para. 0090].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus (US 9,890,762), in view of Kejha (US 2009/0140524) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lo (US 2014/0116042).
Regarding claim 11, McManus discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber is filled with a biodegradable oil.
Lo discloses wherein the chamber (212 of Figure 2A) is filled with a biodegradable oil (Para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the chamber of McManus filled with oil, as taught by Lo, for cooling and lubrication purposes.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus (US 9,890,762).
Regarding claims 13, 21, McManus discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5) has a same shape and profile as the lower pontoon (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the upper and lower pontoons of McManus have the same shape and profile for ease on construction and maintenance since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus (US 9,890,762), in view of Hunt (US 2010/0327583).
Regarding claim 14, McManus discloses wherein the connector (115 of Figure 5) inhibits a yaw motion of the underwater turbine system and is configured to facilitate alignment of the lower pontoon (see Figure 5) with the underwater ocean stream flowing along the lower pontoon and past the single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5).
McManus does not explicitly disclose a fin.
Hunt discloses a fin (105 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a fin in the system of McManus, as taught by Hunt, to provide a natural rudder for passive yaw alignment [Hunt: Para. 0058].
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 5 and 6 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:
With respect to claim 5 and claims dependent thereon, McManus (US 9,890,762) is regarded as being the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim 5 and shows:
an underwater turbine system (191 of Figure 5) for generating electricity from an underwater ocean stream, comprising:
an upper pontoon (121 of Figure 5);
a lower pontoon (see Figure 5) connected to a cable (115 of Figure 5) extending to an underwater surface (117 of Figure 5);
a connector (115 of Figure 5) extending between the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon, the connector configured to be tensioned by the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon (Col. 4:45-52; Col. 5:40-47); and
a single propeller assembly (103 of Figure 5) with a plurality of blades (104 of Figure 1) being rotatably coupled to the lower pontoon and configured to be rotated by a force from the underwater ocean stream (Col. 2:56-58),
wherein the upper pontoon applies a vertical buoyant force on the lower pontoon (Col. 3:1-23),
and wherein rotation of the single propeller assembly generates electricity via a generator (181 of Figure 5) in the lower pontoon,
wherein the upper pontoon is operable to change the vertical buoyant force applied by the upper pontoon (via 125 of Figure 5) to raise or lower the underwater turbine system.
McManus does not explicitly disclose the pontoon is operable to supply water into and drain water from within the upper pontoon to change the vertical buoyant force, and
a plurality of pulleys about which the cable at least partially winds.
Kejha discloses the pontoon (2 of Figure 1) is operable to supply water into and drain water from within the pontoon to change the vertical buoyant force (via 9 of Figure 1; Para. 0010, 0030; see claim 8), and
a plurality of pulleys (16 of Figure 1) about which the cable (17 of Figure 1) at least partially winds (Para. 0030; see claim 3).
The subject-matter of claim 5 differs from McManus and Kejha reciting wherein the connector includes a plurality of connecting plates that extend between and interconnect the upper pontoon and the lower pontoon, wherein the plurality of connecting plates are arranged in an X-formation or a triangular formation about a rotating pin.
A detailed search and review of the prior art revealed a notable absence of the teachings recited in claim 5. The search was unable to find any prior art that teaches the limitation(s) “wherein the plurality of connecting plates are arranged in an X-formation or a triangular formation about a rotating pin.” Therefore, the prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the subject-matter of claim 5.
Dependent claim 6 is objected due to its dependency upon claim 5.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trepl, II (US 5,424,582), Lamb (US 4,569,200), Zhou (US 2025/0172119), Tetetleni (US 1,481,397) disclose a hydropower system comprising upper and lower pontoons.
Belinsky (US 2010/0164230), Stevens (US 8,450,870) disclose a hydro system comprising upper and lower pontoons, pulleys, and a winch.
Healy (US 8,963,352), Mackie (US 7,541,688), Wuenscher (US 4,411,632), Sankrithi (US 2009/0127861), Deangeles (US 2009/010525) disclose a hydro system comprising water ballast and pumps.
Garrido Garcia (US 2013/0234442) disclose a hydro system comprising pontoon, pulleys, winch, and a rotating pin.
Steelman (US 2010/0127501) disclose a hydro system comprising pontoon, pulleys, and a winch.
Stradinger (US 1,690,463) discloses a hydro system comprising pontoons and a motor.
Conclusion
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