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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 Sept 205 has been entered.
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, 7-14, 18-20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouille (FR 2995278 A1) in view of Ulgen (US 20190106179 A1) and further in view of Bell (US 3015298 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Rouille discloses a motorised outrigger stabilised watercraft comprising: a main hull (Element 210) extending in a fore-aft direction; a single outrigger (Element 220) arranged to stabilise the main hull, extending substantially parallel to the main hull and spaced laterally from the main hull, the outrigger comprising a first portion (Element 221) arranged to be submerged below the waterline during operation and a second portion (Element 223) arranged to float during operation, the outrigger further comprising a joining portion (Element 222) joining the first portion to the second portion, the joining portion having a width perpendicular to the fore-aft direction which is less than a width of the first portion; and at least one hydrofoil on the main hull (See Fig. 4.);wherein the width of the joining portion is less than a width of at least part of the second portion. (See Fig. 2.) the outrigger further comprising at least one hydrofoil disposed at (approximately) the midships position (See Fig. 4.)t Rouille does not explicitly disclose at least one hydrofoil located at or proximate the stern of the main hull. Rouille does not explicitly disclose the at least one dynamically adjustable hydrofoil disposed at the midships position, the at least one dynamically adjustable hydrofoil being arranged to apply a variable force to the outrigger and to control roll of the watercraft.
Ulgen discloses at least one hydrofoil located at or proximate the stern of the main hull. (See Fig. 1.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add at the hydrofoil of Ulgen to the stern of Rouille which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Rouille, as disclosed in Ulgen paragraph 10, “is to provide an effective trim control and fuel economy” which furthers Rouille’s goal of providing “stability vis-à-vis the pitch” axis (See first paragraph under description).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to shift the outrigger hydrofoil of Rouille to the midships position which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Rouille is that distance from midships is the lever arm which is a result effective variable for controlling the trim around the pitch axis. (See first paragraph of Description of Rouille.)
Bell discloses at least one dynamically adjustable hydrofoil disposed at the midships position, the at least one dynamically adjustable hydrofoil being arranged to apply a variable force to the outrigger and to control roll of the watercraft. (See Fig. 2, Fig. 4) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the foil on the outrigger of Roullie with the dynamically adjustable hydrofoil of Bell which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Rouille, as disclosed by Bell, is to control the motion of the vehicle (Bell, C1, L14) which is a stated goal of Roullie.
Regarding Claim 2, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the hydrofoil is dynamically adjustable and arranged to apply a variable force to the main hull. (See Ullgen paragraph 83)
Regarding Claim 3, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the outrigger is a small waterplane area hull (SWATH, Rouille see first paragraph under description).
Regarding Claim 7, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising an arm connecting the outrigger to the main hull. (Rouille, best seen Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 8, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the first portion has substantially the same length as the second portion in the fore-aft direction. (Rouille, best seen Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 9, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the length of the outrigger parallel to the fore-aft direction is between 25% and 80% of the length of the main hull. (Rouille, best seen Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 10, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the extent of the outrigger in the fore-aft direction is between the stern and a point 80% of the total length of the main hull forward of the stern. (Rouille, best seen Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 11, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the hydrofoil is mounted aft of the stern. (See Ulgen Fig.1.)
Regarding Claim 12, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 2, wherein the dynamically adjustable hydrofoil mounted at or proximate the stern of the main hull is arranged to be adjusted such that the hydrofoil supports between 0% and 30% of the total displacement of the vessel. (This is descriptive of the arrangement shown in Ulgen for at least some speeds. See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding Claim 13, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the hydrofoil comprises a main hydrofoil body and a trailing edge flap arranged to move relative to the main body to thereby vary the force applied to the main hull and/or the angle of attack of the hydrofoil is adjustable to thereby vary the force applied to the main hull. (The angle of attack is adjustable in Ulgen.)
Regarding Claim 14, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the hydrofoil is retractable the span of the hydrofoil is larger than the beam of the main hull; the hydrofoil is further joined to the outrigger; or the hydrofoil is arranged to control the trim of the watercraft and/or to compensate for changes in loading of the watercraft. (The arrangement shown in Ulgen compensates for changes in loading.)
Regarding Claim 18, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the main hull comprises a plurality of hydrofoils. (See Ulgen Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 19, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the outrigger further comprises at least one hydrofoil. (Best seen Rouille Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 20, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 19, wherein the hydrofoil located on the outrigger at least one of: is dynamically adjustable and arranged to apply a variable force to the outrigger; is located at or proximate the stern of the first portion; extends toward the main hull (Best seen Rouille Fig. 2.); or is arranged to control roll of the watercraft.
Regarding Claim 20, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses the watercraft according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the main hull supports 70% or more of the total static displacement of the watercraft- and the outrigger supports 30% or less of the total static displacement of the watercraft. (See Rouille Abstract)
Regarding Claim 25, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 2, further comprising a control system arranged to dynamically adjust the hydrofoil. (Ulgen At least Element 5.)
Regarding Claim 26, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses a watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising a motorised propulsion device arranged to propel the watercraft, wherein the motorised propulsion device is positioned forward of the hydrofoil in the fore-aft direction. (See Rouille Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 28, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses watercraft according to claim 9, wherein the length of the outrigger parallel to the fore-aft direction is between 30% and 75% of the length of the main hull. (See Rouille Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 29, Rouille in view of Ulgen and further in view of Bell discloses watercraft according to claim 12, wherein the hydrofoil supports between 0% and 20% of the total displacement of the vessel. (This is descriptive of the arrangement shown in Ulgen for at least some speeds. See MPEP 2114.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the hydrofoil shown near midships is not clear what it is meant to represent. Applicant neglected to propose a definition of hydrofoil, in particular, how the cross section relates to the claimed subject matter. Applicant’s drawing show a level of detail of such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could understand what is being claimed. They are not materially clearer than the drawings Rouille, but instead rely on a person of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that wing-like structures projecting from the hull are hydrofoils and their function is inferred. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See MPEP 2144.01. In any event, a new reference Bell is used which clearly shows the cross section has been applied which has a clear cross section, and is shown at midsips in Fig. 6 and 7. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 2 October 2025