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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 05/08/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed.
Abstract
The abstract filed 05/08/2025 appears to be acceptable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent number 6216466 B1 combined with following reasons.
Re: Claim 1:
DOLEH discloses:
A wave-actuated water pump, comprising:
a buoyant hull (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: floating/buoyant hull 7 floating adjacent to an upper surface N2 of waterbody of seawater) adapted to float adjacent to an upper surface of a body of water;
a water reservoir (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: water reservoir 10) and a gas reservoir (See Figs. 1-3: col. 1 lines 40-45, claim 3, col. 3 lines 1-28: air reservoir in the upper portion of buoyant hull 7 is in fluid communication with water reservoir 10) in fluid communication with the water reservoir
a water-lifting tube (See Figs. 1-3: col. 1 lines 40-45, claim 3, col. 3 lines 1-28: water lifting tube WLT , see figure 1 as annotated by the examiner WLT) in fluid communication, via a first water-lifting tube aperture (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: see figure 1 as annotated by the examiner: first aperture A1), with the water reservoir (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: water reservoir 10), and, in fluid communication, via a second water-lifting tube aperture (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: a second water-lifting tube aperture A2 as annotated by the examiner in figure 1), with the body of water (See Figs. 1-3: body of water N1-N2 seawater) , a cross-sectional area of a portion of the water-lifting tube (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: see figure 1 as annotated by the examiner) near the first water-lifting tube aperture (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: see figure 1 as annotated by the examiner, aperture A1) being less than a cross-sectional area of a portion of the water-lifting tube near the second water-lifting tube aperture (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: a second water-lifting tube aperture A2 as annotated by the examiner in figure 1);
wherein the water-lifting tube (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: as annotated by the examiner WLT) is adapted to move water from the body of water (See Figs. 1-3: body of water N1-N2 seawater) into the water reservoir (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: water reservoir 10) in response to a wave motion (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: water reservoir 10) at the upper surface of the body of water (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: sea surface N2 to N1).
DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and the cross-sectional area of a portion of the water-lifting tube near the first water-lifting tube aperture being less than a cross-sectional area of a portion of the water-lifting tube near the second water-lifting tube aperture as shown in the drawing (See rejection above), although DLEH does not explicitly disclose that the drawings are according to scale, however selection of narrower cross section for inlet of water with a pressure according to the system requirement is an obvious design choice, it would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect a specific cross sectional area ratio near the first and second portions of water lifting tube would have been obvious design option depending on the system required pressure requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
1026
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: Claim 2:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 1, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising an effluent tube (See Figs. 1-3: water affluent tube 4) through which water flows out of the water reservoir (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-28: water reservoir 10).
Re: Claim 3:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 2, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and further comprising a water turbine (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: water turbine 11) fluidly connected to the effluent tube (See Figs. 1-3: water affluent tube 4) such that a flow of water through the effluent tube (See Figs. 1-3: water affluent tube 4) causes the water turbine to rotate (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: water turbine rotates using water in affluent tube 4).
Re: Claim 4:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 3, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 3, and further comprising an electrical generator (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: electrical generator 13) coupled to the water turbine (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: water turbine 11) such that a rotation of the water turbine causes the electrical generator to produce an electrical voltage (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52).
Re: Claim 5:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 2, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the effluent tube discharges water into the body of water (See Figs.1-3: col. 1 lines 7-11: water is free to move into and out of the hollow body via an aperture in the wall of the hollow body).
Re: Claim 6:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 2, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the effluent tube discharges water into the water-lifting tube (See Figs.1-3:col. 1 lines 7-11: water is free to move into and out of the hollow body via an aperture in the wall of the hollow body which includes affluent tube 4).
Re: Claim 7:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 1, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the gas reservoir is pressurized to a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: this typically a result of basic principle of flow of higher pressure gas towards lower pressure gas, therefore discharging the gas/air out of air/gas reservoir via 15, this discharge of air/gas is only possible when pressure of air/gas is greater than atmospheric pressure).
Re: Claim 8:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 1, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the gas is air (See Figs. 1-3: col. 3 lines 1-52: discloses air).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent number 6216466 B1 to DOLEH et al. in view of U.S Publication number 2011/0005443 A1 to CARACOSTICS et al. (CARACOSTICS).
Re: Claim 9:
DOLEH discloses:
The wave-actuated water pump of Claim 1, DOLEH discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the gas includes at least one of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Although DOLEH is silent regarding at least one of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide in a buoyant hull, however it is well known in the art that gases lighter than air may be used in such buoyant hulls, such a use of at least hydrogen gas is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2011/0005443 A1 to CARACOSTICS et al. (CARACOSTICS: ¶0043 discloses either air or nitrogen may be employed for maintaining buoyancy), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the air of DOLEH for the nitrogen of CARACOSTICS, because CARACOSTICS teaches that this configuration provides the benefit of load bearing buoyancy. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
March 12, 2026