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.
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 1, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023084249 A2 to Roberts et al. in view of WO 2020077432 A1 to Jadani et al.
Regarding claim 1, Roberts et al. discloses a system comprising:
a powerhouse (Fig. 1: 07) including a power generating module (25) disposed therein;
an intake tube (06) coupled to the power generating module at an intake port and a draft tube (09) coupled to the power generating module at a draft port; and
a fluid conduit (05) defining a fluid flow path and including at least one transition region (05), the at least one transition region (05) coupled in a coaxial arrangement to at least one of the intake tube (06) and the draft tube.
However, it fails to disclose the at least one transition region comprising multiple transition collars formed of structural material.
Jadani et al. teaches the at least one transition region (Fig. 6: 70) comprising multiple transition collars (78) formed of structural material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the multiple transition collars as disclosed by Jadani et al. to the fluid conduit disclosed by Roberts et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve stabilization.
Regarding claim 3, Roberts et al. discloses at least one of the intake tube and draft tube are non-cementitious (Roberts does not mention cementitious material), and wherein waterstop material is disposed between at least one transition collar and the intake tube, draft tube, or both (flanges in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts et al. discloses at the transition region, at least one of the transition collars (Fig. 1: 05) define a circumference of the fluid conduit (05) and the intake tube (06) and the draft tube (09) define respective circumferences, the at least one of the transition collars and intake tube and draft tube are coupled together in a coaxial arrangement (05, 06, 09), and wherein: a) the circumference of the fluid conduit (05) is larger than at least one of a circumference of the intake tube or the draft tube (09); b) the circumference of the fluid conduit (05) is smaller than at least one of a circumference of the intake tube (06) or the draft tube; or c) a transition collar at an interface region has a thickness of cementitious material and wherein the circumference of the intake tube or the draft tube is within an outer circumference and inner circumference of the transition collar.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roberts et al. and Jadani et al. discloses a liner sleeve (Jadani et al., Fig. 3: 20) coupled circumferentially to an interior or exterior of the fluid conduit (10) at an interface region and extends at least a portion of the transition collar, the liner sleeve disposed between the transition collar (Fig. 10: 70) and a corresponding intake tube (10) or draft tube; and further comprising waterstop material (flanges of Roberts) coupled to at least one of an inner surface or outer surface of the liner sleeve.
Regarding claim 7, Roberts et al. discloses multiple portions compose at least one of the intake tube and draft tube and wherein adjacent portions are coupled together by complementary flanges, and wherein waterstop material is disposed between the complementary flanges (each tube has multiple line segments and flanges).
Regarding claim 8, Roberts et al. discloses at least one of the complementary flanges includes a guide dowel or off-centered bolt, and the other complementary flange include a complementary feature to accept the guide dowel or off-centered bolt ([0076] and [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Roberts et al. and Jadani et al. discloses the intake tube and draft tube are made of a material of sufficient strength to contain water pressure corresponding to a pressure of the fluid conduit filled with a fluid for a vertical distance between the powerhouse and a fluid intake structure at a respective fluid supply [0009].
Regarding claim 10, Roberts et al. discloses at least one support segment coupled to at least one of the intake tube or the draft tube between the respective portion of the fluid conduit and the powerhouse, and wherein the at least one support segment is configured to secure the intake tube or the draft tube to a structural feature to support or resist displacement force on the intake tube or the draft tube caused by fluid flow therein [0032].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023084249 A2 to Roberts et al. in view of WO 2020077432 A1 to Jadani et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of DE 102015115562 A1 to Bogl.
Regarding claim 2, Roberts et al. and Jadani et al. discloses a system as described above including the fluid conduit (Jadani et al., Fig. 6: 70) is defined by at least some of the transition collars (78), and at least one of the intake tube or draft tube is of non-cementitious material (Roberts does not mention cementitious material).
However, it fails to disclose the transition collars being formed of precast cementitious material.
Bogl teaches the transition collars being formed of precast cementitious material (Fig. 2: 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the precast cementitious material as disclosed by Bogl to the transition collars disclosed by Roberts et al. and Jadani et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve insulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument of “First, Roberts does not motivate the application or installation of a repair kit liner, such as from Jadani, to strengthen or repair Roberts' pipes, since Roberts teaches the use of a series of spaced apart external annular ribs for providing structural strength on a per segment basis. Roberts further does not motivate a need for any specialized repair techniques, because Roberts provides sections of pipes that can be easily disconnected and replaced via the axially abutting bolted flanges, particularly in an above-ground configuration illustrated in Roberts, Figure 1”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant’s arguments are based on mere allegations that Roberts does not motivate to strengthen or repair. However, the Applicant has not provided in the disclosure of Roberts that states that Roberts criticizes or discredits strengthen or repair.
In response to Applicant’s argument of “Therefore, the collars 78 of Jadani are not coupled in a coaxial arrangement to the water pipe 10 and do not teach or motivate use of the collars 78 in a transition region of a fluid conduit of Roberts, Figure 1, to support an obviousness rejection of Applicant's Claim 1”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fig. 11 of Jadani, the collars located at transition region 70 are coupled in coaxial arrangement to water pipe 10 and the collars in a transition region 70 of a fluid conduit 24.
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 VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F from 12pm-8pm.
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 C 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.
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights