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 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.
Claims 12-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12-14: Each of these claims recite “each cord or loop”, however, no loop has been introduced. These claims all depend on claim 6, however, a loop is introduced in claim 9. Thus, it appears they should depend on claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean et al. (“Jean”; US 2008/0267712), in view of Rainey (US 2015/0192102).
Regarding claim 1: Jean discloses a wave energy apparatus for extracting energy from waves generated by a body of water (Fig. 1, paragraph 0004), the apparatus including an elongate flexible body (12), which defines a channel (32) therein having a longitudinal axis (30, Fig. 1-3), and a plurality of resiliently deformable elements (36) disposed along the tubular body (Fig. 3); wherein the elongate flexible body is inextensible in a radial direction (Fig. 1 and 2); the elongate flexible body is open at each end; each resiliently deformable element is axially spaced from the adjacent resiliently deformable elements (Fig. 3); each resiliently deformable element is secured to the body at two or more anchor portions (at 14 and 22), wherein the anchor portions for each resiliently deformable element are circumferentially spaced from each other (Fig. 3, 180 degrees apart); each of the resiliently deformable elements has a non-extended configuration in which the respective anchor portions of the tubular body are spaced from the longitudinal axis of the channel by a first spacing (Fig. 2), and an extended configuration in which the anchor portions of the tubular body are displaced radially outwards and are spaced from the longitudinal axis of the channel by a second spacing (Fig. 1 and 3), wherein the second spacing is greater than the first spacing; and wherein the cross- sectional area of the tubular body when the resiliently deformable elements are in their extended configuration is greater than the cross-sectional area of the body when the resiliently deformable elements are in their non-extended configuration (Fig. 1-3).
Jean does not explicitly disclose an elongate flexible tubular body.
However, Rainey discloses an elongate flexible tubular body (Fig. 5, paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Jean to be tubular, as disclosed by Rainey, in order to allow for more directions for expansion.
Regarding claim 2: Jean discloses anchor portions for each resiliently deformable element are equally spaced around the circumference of the tubular body (in that they are 180 degrees from one another at the top and bottom).
Regarding claim 3: Jean discloses wherein there are two, three, four or five anchor portions for each resiliently deformable element (in this case, 4).
Regarding claim 4: Jean discloses each resiliently deformable element includes one or more resiliently deformable cords or bands (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 5: Jean discloses each resiliently deformable element includes one or two resiliently deformable cords or bands (given the open “comprising” language, each pair of bands can be one deformable element that comprises 2 cords or bands).
Regarding claim 6: Jean discloses each resiliently deformable element comprises an elastic cord (the “synthetic stretchable material” is interpreted to be elastic).
Regarding claim 7: Jean discloses the elastic cord defines opposed ends and each opposed end is secured to a respective anchor portion defined by the tubular body (shown in Fig. 3, each cord is attached to 14 and 22).
Regarding claim 8: Jean discloses wherein each end of the elastic cord is flared outwards (as the cords widen at the attachment points to 14 and 22) and is bonded or welded to the respective anchor portion (they are inherently bonded).
Regarding claim 16: Jean discloses the apparatus further includes a buoyance member (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 17: Jean discloses the buoyancy member is located within the elongate flexible tubular body (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 18: Jean discloses the apparatus further includes an energy converter which converts the energy extracted by the change in the cross-sectional area of the elongate flexible tubular body into electrical energy (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 19: Jean discloses a wave energy apparatus according to Claim 18 (see above), but does not explicitly disclose a fluid is compressed or pressurised by the increase or decrease in the cross-sectional area of the elongate flexible tubular body, and the compressed or pressurised fluid drives the energy converter.
However, Rainey discloses a fluid (26, Fig. 3) is compressed or pressurised by the increase or decrease in the cross-sectional area of the elongate flexible tubular body (shown in Fig. 5, paragraph 0077), and the compressed or pressurised fluid drives the energy converter (38, paragraph 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Jean to have the compressed fluid generator of Rainey in order to generate additional electricity.
Regarding claim 20: Jean modified by Rainey disclose the compressed fluid driving the generator, Rainey further discloses the elongate flexible tubular body is located within an outer, non-distensible tube (32, 32’), wherein the outer tube defines one or more fluid channels outside of the elongate flexible tubular body and the or each fluid channels are compressed when the cross-sectional area of tubular body increases (shown by the arrows in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21: Jean modified by Rainey disclose the compressed fluid driving the generator, Rainey further discloses the energy converter is coupled to the elongate flexible tubular body and the water within the tube is pressurised as a result of a bulge wave passing down the tube, and the pressurised water drives the energy converter (paragraphs 0009-0011).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean and Rainey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogden et al. (“Ogden”; US 2024/0344495).
Regarding claim 15: Jean modified by Rainey disclose the elongate flexible tubular body, but does not explicitly disclose the elongate flexible tubular body is formed from a coated fabric.
However, Ogden discloses an elongate flexible tubular body (140) is formed from a coated fabric (paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elongate flexible tubular body to be made of a coated fabric, as disclosed by Ogden, in order to allow if to be effectively expandible (paragraph 0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the wave energy apparatus of claim 9, specifically comprising:
each resiliently deformable element includes a continuous loop of elastic material;
the respective anchor portions each include an anchor element,
wherein the anchor elements are secured to the anchor portions of the tubular body and the continuous loop of elastic material is coupled to each of the respective anchor elements, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
