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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Stark et al. (US 3886884 A), cited by the applicant.
Stark et al. show a stabilized hydrofoil water craft comprising: a water-craft base member [10] having a top side and a bottom side; at least one hydrofoil mast [30] having proximal and distal portions, the proximal portion mechanically connected to the bottom side; a fuselage [33] having a main wing [26], the fuselage mechanically connected to the distal portion of the at least one hydrofoil mast; a rudder [12] configured for controlling a yaw angle of the water craft; an elevator [18, 34] rotatable around an axis thereof lying in a plane parallel to the water-craft base member; the elevator configured for controlling a pitch angle of the water craft; and a stabilization arrangement further comprising at least one sensor [36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45] configured for detecting a 3D orientation of the water-craft base member. The stabilization arrangement comprises an estimator configured for estimating a height of said water-craft base member over a water level and yaw, pitch and roll angles (see Fig 5, Fig 6a and Fig 6b), actuators [50, 52, 54] configured for manipulating the rudder and elevator (see Fig 3), and a controller (see Fig 5) for analyzing estimated values of yaw, pitch and roll angles and controlling the actuators; wherein, in response to a disturb roll inclination of the water craft from a predetermined setpoint, the controller generates a command to a rudder actuator for rotation of the rudder such that said rudder induces a correcting roll inclination compensating said disturb roll inclination of water craft.
Re claim 3, the controller is configured for compensating the disturb pitch and yaw inclinations from predetermined setpoint.
Re claim 4, the controller is configured to control at least one of speed and direction of movement of said watercraft.
Re claim 5, any of said roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction setpoints is controlled automatically or manually.
Re claim 8, a control unit is provided for manually controlling said roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction; said control effector is selected from the group consisting of at least a button, and a remote control (col. 1, lines 64-67).
Re claim 9, a control unit is provided for automatically controlling said roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction; said control effector is selected from the group consisting of a tilt sensing (attitude) type control device, a pressure sensor, a foot pedal, an optical sensor, a load cell, a processor configured to analyze elevator deflection, a remote control and any combination thereof (Fig 5).
Re claim 10, software means is provided for presetting at least one route and following said at least one route (col. 8, lines 55-62).
Re claim 11, a cross-section of said hydrofoil mast has a longitudinal axis significantly greater than a transverse axis of said hydrofoil mast.
Re claim 12, the main wing comprises at least one movable flap [28, 30], said at least one movable flap is configured for controlling a lift force applied to said stabilized hydrofoil water craft; the flap is rotatable about a longitudinal horizontal axis of said wing.
Re claim 13, the hydrofoil water craft is propelled by a member of a group consisting of: a jet-type configuration, by a propeller-type configuration, a paddle, a sail, a paddle wheel, a screw, a Voith Schneider Propeller (VSP), a kite and any combination thereof (col. 3, lines 41-44).
Re claim 14, the at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of: an attitude sensor, an acceleration sensor, a height sensor, a speed sensor, a location sensor, a yaw-angle sensor, a pitch-angle sensor, a roll-angle sensor and any combination thereof.
Re claim 16, the height sensor [36] is configured to measure a member of a group consisting of absolute height, height above sea level, depth below sea level and any combination thereof.
Re claim 16, the attitude sensor is configured to measure a member of a group consisting of pitch, roll, yaw and any combination thereof.
Re claim 17, the location sensor is selected from a group consisting of: magnetic compass, GPS, pedometer, inertial navigation (INS), and any combination thereof (see col. 8, lines 58-60).
Re claim 18, the speed sensor [35] is selected from a group consisting of: GPS, inertial sensor, marine pitot tube log, paddle wheel log, ultrasonic speed log and any combination thereof.
Re claim 19, the steps set forth in the method claim are encompassed in the construction and subsequent use of the watercraft described above.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wengreen et al. (US 10994815 B2) in view of Montague et al. (US 10597118 B2).
Wengreen et al. show a stabilized hydrofoil water craft (see Fig 39) comprising: a water-craft base member [4] having a top side and a bottom side; at least one hydrofoil mast having proximal and distal portions, the proximal portion mechanically connected to the bottom side; a fuselage having a main wing [73], the fuselage mechanically connected to the distal portion of the at least one hydrofoil mast; a rudder [23a] configured for controlling a yaw angle of the water craft; an elevator [23] rotatable around an axis thereof lying in a plane parallel to the water-craft base member; the elevator configured for controlling a pitch angle of the water craft; and a stabilization arrangement further comprising at least one sensor [24, 28] configured for detecting a 3D orientation of the water-craft base member. The stabilization arrangement comprises a computer [33] with an estimator for estimating yaw, pitch and roll angles, actuators [21a, 21b] configured for manipulating the rudder and elevator, and a controller/processor for analyzing estimated values of yaw, pitch and roll angles and controlling the actuators; wherein, in response to a disturb roll inclination of the water craft from a predetermined setpoint, the controller generates a command to a rudder actuator for rotation of the rudder such that said rudder induces a correcting roll inclination compensating said disturb roll inclination of water craft.
Wengreen et al. however do not disclose the stabilization arrangement as being configured for estimating and analyzing the height of the watercraft base member over a water level (claims 1 and 19), or the main wing comprising at least one movable flap (claim 12).
Montague et al. show a stabilized hydrofoil water craft comprising a fuselage [1908] with a main wing; and a height sensor for determining the height of the watercraft base member over a water level for maintaining a constant ride height (see col. 25, lines 34-50). The main wing comprises at least one movable flap [1902] (see Fig 19; and col. 36, lines 1-20). (Note: Montague also discloses a rudder – see col. 9, lines 46-57 and col. 38, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a ride height sensor in the stabilization arrangement of Wengreen et al., as taught by Montague et al. Providing the stabilization arrangement with a height sensor would have allowed the watercraft to be operated at a constant ride height, thereby enhancing operational safety and enjoyment of the user.
Re claim 2, although the type of software algorithm of the controller is not expressly disclosed, control algorithm based on PID control, linear-quadratic regulator control, fuzzy logic, machine learning, or feedback linearization are extremely well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a control algorithm from one of the above noted options, which would have resulted in an efficient and reliable system
Re claim 3, the controller is configured for compensating said disturb pitch and yaw inclinations from predetermined setpoint.
Re claim 4, the controller is configured to control at least one of speed and direction of movement of said watercraft.
Re claim 5, the roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction setpoints is controlled automatically or manually.
Re claim 6, the software means is configured to sense a center of mass [61] of a user relative to said watercraft.
Re claim 7, the center of mass provides at least one setpoint for controlling of at least one of direction of motion of said watercraft, speed and height of flight of the modified watercraft.
Re claim 8, a control unit is provided for manually controlling the roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction; said control effector is selected from the group consisting of a tiller, a joystick, a button, a wheel, a trigger, a touchscreen, a keyboard, a pressure sensor, a foot pedal, an optical sensor, a remote control and any combination thereof (see Fig 5).
Re claim 9, a control unit is provided for automatically controlling the roll, yaw, pitch, speed and direction; said control effector is selected from the group consisting of a tilt sensing (attitude) type control device, a pressure sensor, a foot pedal, an optical sensor, a load cell, a processor configured to analyze elevator deflection, a remote control and any combination thereof.
Re claim 10, the software means is configured for presetting at least one route and following said at least one route (col. 13, lines 51-57).
Re claim 11, a cross-section of said hydrofoil mast has a longitudinal axis significantly greater than a transverse axis of said hydrofoil mast.
Re claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the main wing of Wengreen et al. with at least one flap, as taught by Montague et al. Having such an arrangement would have allowed the stabilization system of Wengreen et al. to be more responsive to any destabilizing forces.
Re claim 13, the hydrofoil water craft is propelled by a member of a group consisting of: a jet-type configuration, by a propeller-type configuration, a paddle, a sail, a paddle wheel, a screw, a Voith Schneider Propeller (VSP), a kite and any combination thereof.
Re claim 14, the at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of: an attitude sensor, an acceleration sensor, a height sensor, a speed sensor, a location sensor, a yaw-angle sensor, a pitch-angle sensor, a roll-angle sensor and any combination thereof.
Re claim 15, the height sensor is configured to measure a member of a group consisting of absolute height, height above sea level, depth below sea level and any combination thereof.
Re claim 16, the attitude sensor is configured to measure a member of a group consisting of pitch, roll, yaw and any combination thereof.
Re claim 17, the location sensor is selected from a group consisting of: magnetic compass, GPS, pedometer, inertial navigation (INS), and any combination thereof.
Re claim 18, the speed sensor is selected from a group consisting of: GPS, inertial sensor, marine pitot tube log, paddle wheel log, ultrasonic speed log and any combination thereof.
Re claim 19, the steps set forth in the method claim are encompassed in the construction and subsequent use of the watercraft described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 8-19 based on Stark et al. (US 3,886,884)
Applicant's Arguments: Applicant has argued that Stark does not disclose a single-strut design that achieves 3-axis stabilization using only a rudder and an elevator. The roll stabilization in Stark is performed primarily by horizontal flaps, with the rudder playing a secondary, follow-through role, which demonstrates a two-step flap-and-rudder coordination rather than direct rudder-induced roll control. Stark fails to teach a rudder-only roll correction, let alone in a single-strut configuration.
Response: It is first noted that the claim does not require a single-strut design, as being argued by the applicant. In fact, claim 1 (line 3) and claim 19 (line 4) each recites the limitation “at least one mast” (emphasis added). Further, the claims do not necessarily require the roll stabilization to be performed exclusively by rudder alone, as implied in the arguments. Even if the rudder plays a secondary role in controlling roll, the rudder still contributes to the roll stabilization of the watercraft.
Rejection of claims 1-19 based on Wengreen et al. (US 10994815) in view of Montague et al. (US 10,597,118)
Applicant's Arguments: Applicant’s arguments are confusing because they begin by pointing out the deficiencies of the Stark reference, perhaps due to inadvertent cut-and-paste error. Applicant also stated that the rudder-induced roll stabilization described by Montague is technically flawed.
Applicant has further argued that Wengreen depends on rider-initiated weight distribution to control stabilization, which makes its system inherently reliant on rider weight shift, restricting applicability to manned operation. Applicant has pointed out that Wengreen’s Fig 40 illustrate contradictory rudder and fin actions, and therefore lacks a coherent yaw-roll strategy.
Response: The Montague reference has been used for teaching the use of a height sensor in the stabilization arrangement of Wengreen, which would have allowed the watercraft to be operated at a constant ride height for better safety and enjoyment considerations. Contrary to applicant's allegation, the Montague reference has not been used for teaching rudder-induced roll stabilization.
As for Wengreen, Fig 39 shows an embodiment in which the rudder 23a is used in conjunction with the elevator 23 to perform center of mass optimization for achieving 3-axis stabilization using only the rudder and elevator, which is intended to prevent the rider from falling off the board (see col. 38, lines 50-67). Therefore, Wengreen stabilization system does not necessarily depends on the rider-initiated weight distribution, as being argued by the applicant
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615