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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pool 975, 76)” in line 1 should read --pool (75, 76)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, line 10, claim 3, line 3, claim 7, line 13, and claim 9, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the junction” is interpreted to read --a junction--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the junction” is interpreted to read --a junction--.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincham (US 20190063092) in view of Slater (US 20170044784).
Regarding claim 1, Fincham discloses a wave generating foil (122, 300, ¶ 0053) for use in a wave pool (100) with a shore (211) and water line (199), the foil comprising:
an inner surface (302, 312-314, 340) extending from a leading edge (304) to a trailing edge (306), the inner surface extends below and above the water line (¶ 0026);
the inner surface constructed to be propelled (via 118, ¶ 0025) along a travel line (116), the travel line defines a shore side (203) and an opposite side (201);
the inner surface comprising:
a first section (annotated in Fig. 9A below) extending away from the leading edge (the first section annotated in Fig. 9A below extends away from the leading edge near 342) and substantially parallel to the travel line (the first section is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foil shown in Fig. 9A below; see Fig. 8A-9B);
a second section (annotated in Fig. 9A below) that extends away from the first section (the second section annotated in Fig. 9A below extends away from the first section; see Fig. 8A-9B).
However, Fincham does not explicitly disclose the inner surface faces the shore; the second section extends towards the opposite side as claimed.
Slater discloses a wave generator system wherein the inner surface (inner surface of 3104 facing 3100) faces the shore (3100); a second section (section of 3104 extending toward 3102) that extends away from the first section towards the opposite side (see Fig. 28; ¶ 0114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inner surface of Fincham, to face the shore as claimed, as taught by Slater, since it was known in the art that a wave generation mechanism can be bi-directional by flipping or turning the wave generation mechanism and/or foils physically to reverse their orientation (¶ 0114). In doing so, the combination meets the limitations of the inner surface faces the shore; a second section that extends away from the first section towards the opposite side as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the inner surface further comprises a third section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) that extends away from the second section towards the shore side (as modified by Slater above; the third section annotated in Fig. 9A above extends away from the second section; see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses a fourth section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) extending away from the third section and substantially parallel to the travel line (the fourth section annotated in Fig. 9A above extends away from the third section and is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foil shown in Fig. 9A above; see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 4, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses a plane of symmetry (the plane of symmetry located at α which bisects the foil; the foil is substantially symmetrical around the vertical axis, α, ¶ 0043-0044) extending perpendicularly from the travel line (see Fig. 8A-9B) and intersecting the inner surface at the junction (314) of the second and third sections (see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the foil is further constructed to be propelled in either direction (bi-directional, ¶ 0026) along the travel line.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the travel line is straight (see Fig. 1) or curved.
Regarding claim 7, Fincham discloses a wave generating system comprising:
a wave pool (100) with a shore (211) and water line (199);
a conveyance (118) crossing the wave pool (¶ 0025);
a wave generating foil (122, 300; ¶ 0053) constructed to be propelled along a travel line (116) by the conveyance (¶ 0025), the travel line defines a shore side (203) and an opposite side (201);
the foil comprising:
an inner surface (302, 312-314, 340) extending from a leading edge (304) to a trailing edge (306), the inner surface extends below and above the water line (¶ 0026);
the inner surface comprising:
a first section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) extending away from the leading edge (the first section annotated in Fig. 9A above extends away from the leading edge near 342) and substantially parallel to the travel line (the first section is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foil shown in Fig. 9A above; see Fig. 8A-9B);
a second section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) that extends away from the first section (the second section annotated in Fig. 9A below extends away from the first section; see Fig. 8A-9B).
However, Fincham does not explicitly disclose the inner surface faces the shore; the second section extends towards the opposite side as claimed.
Slater discloses a wave generator system wherein the inner surface (inner surface of 3104 facing 3100) faces the shore (3100); a second section (section of 3104 extending toward 3102) that extends away from the first section towards the opposite side (see Fig. 28; ¶ 0114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inner surface of Fincham, to face the shore as claimed, as taught by Slater, since it was known in the art that a wave generation mechanism can be bi-directional by flipping or turning the wave generation mechanism and/or foils physically to reverse their orientation (¶ 0114). In doing so, the combination meets the limitations of the inner surface faces the shore; a second section that extends away from the first section towards the opposite side as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the inner surface further comprises a third section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) that extends away from the second section towards the shore side (as modified by Slater above; the third section annotated in Fig. 9A above extends away from the second section; see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the inner surface further comprises a fourth section (annotated in Fig. 9A above) extending away from the third section and substantially parallel to the travel line (the fourth section annotated in Fig. 9A above extends away from the third section and is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the foil shown in Fig. 9A above; see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses a plane of symmetry (the plane of symmetry located at α which bisects the foil; the foil is substantially symmetrical around the vertical axis, α, ¶ 0043-0044) extending perpendicularly from the travel line (see Fig. 8A-9B) and intersecting the inner surface at a junction (314) of the second and third sections (see Fig. 8A-9B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the foil is further constructed to be propelled in either direction (bi-directional, ¶ 0026) along the travel line by the conveyance.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the conveyance travels in a straight path (path of 116, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 7.
Fincham further discloses the channel can be curvilinear such as an arc, semi-circle, or a circle (¶ 0022, 0028-0029); however, Fincham does not specifically disclose the conveyance travels in a curved path as claimed.
Slater disclose a wave generator system wherein the conveyance (moving mechanism, ¶ 0111) travels in a curved path (3006, see Fig. 27, ¶ 0106-0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the conveyance of Fincham, to travel in a curved path as claimed, as taught by Slater, since it was known in the art that a track of a wave generation system can be curved or provided with multiple curves (¶ 0106-0108) and that the track can be positioned and installed along an edge of the body of water, such as a reef, berm, beach, wall or jetty, or the like (¶ 0106-108).
Regarding claim 14, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the first section is curved (see annotated Fig. 9A above).
Regarding claim 15, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 7.
Fincham further discloses the first section is curved (see annotated Fig. 9A above); and the fourth section is curved (see annotated Fig. 9A above).
Additionally, Fincham discloses the channel can be curvilinear such as an arc, semi-circle, or a circle (¶ 0022, 0028-0029); however, Fincham does not specifically disclose the conveyance travels in a curved path as claimed.
Slater disclose a wave generator system wherein the conveyance (moving mechanism, ¶ 0111) travels in a curved path (3006, see Fig. 27, ¶ 0106-0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the conveyance of Fincham, to travel in a curved path as claimed, as taught by Slater, since it was known in the art that a track of a wave generation system can be curved or provided with multiple curves (¶ 0106-0108) and that the track can be positioned and installed along an edge of the body of water, such as a reef, berm, beach, wall or jetty, or the like (¶ 0106-108).
Regarding claim 16, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the shore is curved (¶ 0022 and 0028-0029 disclose the channel can be curvilinear such as an arc, semi-circle, or a circle; therefore, the beach regions making up the channel are also curved).
Regarding claim 17, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the wave pool comprises a sloped floor (208 and 210 are sloped, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, the combination above and specifically Fincham further discloses the slope floor has at least two different slopes (208 and 210 have different slopes, see Fig. 4).
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(s) 1-18 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,412. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 4-7, and 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,412.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lochtefeld (US 20130199433) is directed to the state of the art as disclosing an apparatus for adjusting and stabilizing a wave generator traveling through a body of water including a tow connector (15), hulls (5), and surfaces (6) to generate waves (92).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11AM-5PM.
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, David P Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/WILLIAM R KLOTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights