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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C (claim 5) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species C should refer to Fig. 3 and not to Fig. 4 and/or Species C should include the claims 3, 4, 20, 21. This is not found persuasive because according to the specification, Fig. 4 could potentially refer to a base that is buoyant (see paragraph 0055 of present application).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 20, the claims will be examined in the present office action as a courtesy from the Examiner.
With respect to claim 21, such claim is directed to different embodiment(s) that are not required by either Species B or C. For example, claim 21 refers to an embodiment that requires the use of marine blades or an underwater turbine having blades. Thus, claim 21, is withdrawn as a non-elected claim.
This Office Action will take into consideration claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 19, 20 only.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vamvas (US 8,723,350).
Vamvas discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A tidal energy capture system for powering a power generator by capturing tidal energy in a body of water experiencing tides (see title), comprising: - a base 4, 7, 8 mounted to a ground (see Fig. 1) ;- a float 5 floating in the body of water adjacent the base (see Fig. 1); and - an arm 10 extending between the base and the float and pivotable relative to the base (see Fig. 1), the arm being connectable to the power generator 230, 234, 240 for powering the power generator when the float is moved up and down relative to the base by tides (see abstract; Fig. 3d).
Claim 3, the ground is submerged ground located under the body of water (see Fig. 1).
Claim 4, the base is supported on the ground (see Fig. 1).
Claim 19, A tidal power generation system for capturing tidal energy in a body of water experiencing tides (see title), comprising:-a base 4, 7, 8 mounted to a ground, wherein the ground is submerged around located under the body of water (see Fig. 1) and wherein the base is supported on the ground (see Fig. 1);- a float 5 floating in the body of water adjacent the base;- an arm 10 extending between the base and the float and pivotable relative to the base (see Fig. 1); and- a power generator 230, 234, 240 operatively coupled to the arm for providing power when the arm pivots relative to the base (see Fig. 3d).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vamvas in view of Tayouri et al (US 10,689,071).
Vamvas discloses all of the elements above. However, Vamvas does not disclose the element below. The problem to be solve appears to use a base that floats.
Such modification is well-known in the field. For example,
Tayouri et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 5, the base 102 is buoyant (column 5, lines 29 – 38) and anchored to the ground (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system as disclosed by Vamvas and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Tayouri et al for the purpose of efficiently stabilizing a floating structure during a storm.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vamvas in view of Schaefer et al (US 2012/0299376).
Vamvas discloses all of the elements above. The problem to be solve appears to move a battery from a conventional power system onto a ship via common mechanical devices. Such implementation is well-known in the art.
For example, Schaefer et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 20, the power generator is an electric generator 4 usable to provide electricity, the power generation system further comprising batteries 10 for storing the electricity, a shipping dock for allowing a ship to dock (since a ship is placed near the power system) to the tidal power generation system (paragraph 0020), and a transshipment crane usable to move the batteries between the tidal power generation system and the ship (see Figs. 1, 8, 9; paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system as disclosed by Vamvas and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Schaefer et al for the purpose of efficiently providing an offshore backup or emergency power supply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
March 12, 2026