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 DE 102015115562 A1 to Bogl.
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), an axial end of the at least one transition region (05) being connected to at least one of the intake tube (06), the draft tube, or both.
However, it fails to disclose the at least one transition region comprising multiple transition collars, each comprising a discrete precast segment including cementitious material, that are sealed to each other in a watertight manner.
Bogl teaches the at least one transition region comprising multiple transition collars (Fig. 2: 7), each comprising a discrete precast segment including cementitious material (9), that are sealed to each other in a watertight manner (6).
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 segments as disclosed by Bogl to the fluid conduit disclosed by Roberts et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve stabilization and insulation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Roberts et al. and Bogl discloses the fluid conduit is defined by at least some of the precast segments of cementitious material (Bogl, Fig. 2: 9) and at least one of the intake tube or draft tube is of non-cementitious material (Roberts does not mention cementitious material).
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 precast segment 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 precast segment.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roberts et al. and Bogl discloses a liner sleeve (Bogl, Fig. 4: 24) coupled circumferentially to an interior or exterior of the fluid conduit at an interface region and extends at least a portion of the precast segments, the liner sleeve disposed between the precast segments (9) and a corresponding intake tube (3b) 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 segments compose at least one of the intake tube and draft tube and wherein adjacent segments 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 Bogl 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023084249 A2 to Roberts et al. in view of US 20220250723 A1 to Hutcheson.
Regarding claim 23, 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 a lateral intake port and a draft tube (09) coupled to the power generating module at a lateral draft port, the intake port elevated with respect to the draft port (see angle/height theta).
However, it fails to disclose a vertical change region encompassing at least a vertical flow path portion between the intake port and the draft port.
Hutcheson teaches a vertical change region encompassing at least a vertical flow path portion between the intake port and the draft port (Fig. 1: vertical drop from penstock to river region).
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 vertical region as disclosed by Hutcheson to the system disclosed by Roberts et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to increase power generation. Refer to Hutcheson, [0026].
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023084249 A2 to Roberts et al. in view of US 20220250723 A1 to Hutcheson as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of US 20090134623 A1 to Krouse.
Regarding claims 28-29, Roberts et al. and Hutcheson discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claims 28-29.
Krouse teaches:
at least one sensor configured to detect an operational parameter of the power generating module or at least one of the intake tube or draft tube [0203].
a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor, the controller further communicatively coupled to an operational element within the power generation system to cause the operational element to adjust a fluid flow associated with the intake tube, draft tube, or both [0203].
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 sensors and controller as disclosed by Krouse to the system disclosed by Roberts et al. and Hutcheson.
One would have been motivated to do so to control fluid flow as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 23 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.
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 VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8.
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