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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/17/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-12, 15-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gasper US 10,179,628.
Regarding claim 1, Grasper teaches a vessel for floating in a body of water comprising:
a longitudinal hull 104 with an aft hull section comprising a separation line defined as a line extending in a transverse direction of the hull at which a water flow originally flowing along the hull is separated from the aft hull section above a minimum forward propulsion of the vessel and wherein the separation line further is defined by the aft hull section having an abrupt change of direction in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull,
an aft body 116 arranged at a distance from the aft hull section at a location between the water surface and 110% of a draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at a lightweight waterline, forming a passage between the aft body and the separation line,
wherein the aft body comprises:
a maximum width measured in a horizontal plane in the transverse direction of the hull,
a leading edge 122,
a trailing edge 124 and
a chord line defined by a straight line in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge,
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Gasper Figure 7)]
PNG
media_image1.png
400
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a leading edge distance defined by the smaller of:
a minimum distance measured in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between the leading edge and the aft hull section and
a minimum distance measured in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between two parallel lines, wherein the first line is a tangent line of the aft hull section immediately in front of the separation line and the second line is intersecting the leading edge,
a trailing edge distance defined by the minimum distance in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between the trailing edge and a water surface, and
an angle defined as the angle between the first line and the water surface measured in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull, wherein, when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at a draft at least deeper than minimum operational draft of the hull:
the aft body and the aft hull section is configured so that the leading edge distance is at least 0.9 times the trailing edge distance,
the angle is less than 20 degrees,
the separation line is located at or above the water surface,
the leading edge is situated less than 10% of the length of the chord line aft of the separation line,
the chord line is orientated parallel with the water surface or with a positive angle relative to the water surface and
the aft body and the aft hull section is configured such that, during forward propulsion of the vessel, the net force component exerted onto the vessel from the aft body in the direction of travel of the vessel is zero or negative in the full speed range the vessel is operating in (column 7, line 65- column 8, line 29).
Please note that if applicant disagrees with any of the dimensional limitations, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hull and aft body of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body and or the separation point/line higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that at least a part of the aft body 116 is located in front of the separation line (see figure 13). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper does not explicitly teach that the leading edge is situated at least half the length of the chord line in front of the separation line, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Gasper also teaches that the top surface 126 of the aft body 116 and the aft hull section is designed such that the minimum distance in a longitudinal vertical plane between said top surface and the aft hull section in front of the separation line remains constant or near constant (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft body 116 is designed to give a positive lifting force during forward propulsion of the vessel (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft body is designed such that, during forward propulsion of the vessel, the direction of a resulting water flow immediately downstream of the trailing edge due to a water flow passing a top surface 126 of the aft body 116 and a water flow passing an underside 128 of the aft body, is orientated parallel or near parallel to the water surface (when in the neutral position, shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that at least a part of the trailing edge 124 is located deeper than 35% of the draft when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at the operational draft (see figure 3). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper does not explicitly teach that the length of the chord line is at least equal to the draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at the operational draft. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the chord line to at least match the draft or be of whatever size was desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Likewise, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull draft of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 9, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft body 116 constitutes an integrated part of the vessel (as they are connected).
Regarding claim 10, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft hull section 104 located downstream the separation line is situated over the water surface during forward propulsion of the vessel.
Regarding claim 11, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the hull comprises a transom 104 located at or above the water surface when the vessel is laying still and floating in a body of water at the operational draft.
Regarding claim 12, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft body 116 is designed and positioned such that a part of a water flow flowing over a top surface 126 of the aft body is lifted above the water surface during forward propulsion of the vessel.
Regarding claim 15, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the aft body 116 and the aft hull section (are) configured so that the draft of the hull during forward propulsion of the vessel will be at least 80% of the draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water. Note that this will be true of some speeds, particularly those below planing speed.
Regarding claim 16, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the leading edge 122 is parallel with the water surface when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water at the operational draft (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 17, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper does not teach that the vessel is a multi-hull vessel, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multiple hulls for better balance or weight distribution, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the hull in separate sections in order to simplify manufacturing or increase damage tolerance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 18, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the maximum width of the aft body 116 measured in a horizontal plane in the transverse direction of the hull is at least 50% of the maximum width of the hull measured at the water surface in the transverse direction of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water at the operational draft (see figure 15). Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull widths of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 20, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper does not explicitly teach that the length of the chord line is at least 5% of the length between perpendiculars of the vessel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the chord line to be 5% of the hull length or of whatever size was desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Likewise, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 21, Gasper discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gasper also teaches that the vessel has a planing hull (abstract).
Claims 1-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Oossanen US 7,617,793 in view of Gasper US 10,179,628.
Regarding claim 1, van Oossanen teaches a vessel for floating in a body of water comprising:
a longitudinal hull 12 with an aft hull section comprising a separation line defined as a line extending in a transverse direction of the hull at which a water flow originally flowing along the hull is separated from the aft hull section above a minimum forward propulsion of the vessel and wherein the separation line further is defined by the aft hull section having an abrupt change of direction in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull,
an aft body 17 arranged at a distance from the aft hull section at a location between the water surface 8 and 110% of a draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at a lightweight waterline, forming a passage between the aft body and the separation line,
wherein the aft body comprises:
a maximum width measured in a horizontal plane in the transverse direction of the hull,
a leading edge 17A,
a trailing edge 17B and
a chord line defined by a straight line in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge,
a leading edge distance defined by the smaller of:
a minimum distance measured in a longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between the leading edge and the aft hull section and
a minimum distance measured in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between two parallel lines, wherein the first line is a tangent line of the aft hull section immediately in front of the separation line and the second line is intersecting the leading edge,
a trailing edge distance defined by the minimum distance in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull between the trailing edge and a water surface, and
an angle defined as the angle between the first line and the water surface measured in said longitudinal vertical plane of the hull, wherein, when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at a draft at least deeper than minimum operational draft of the hull:
the aft body and the aft hull section is configured so that the leading edge distance is at least 0.9 times the trailing edge distance,
the angle is less than 20 degrees,
the separation line is located at or above the water surface,
the leading edge is situated less than 10% of the length of the chord line aft of the separation line, and
the chord line is orientated parallel with the water surface or with a positive angle relative to the water surface.
Van Oossanen does not teach that the aft body and the aft hull section is configured such that, during forward propulsion of the vessel, the net force component exerted onto the vessel from the aft body in the direction of travel of the vessel is zero or negative in the full speed range the vessel is operating in. Gasper teaches a vessel for floating in a body of water comprising a longitudinal hull 104 with an aft hull section, and an aft body 116 arranged at a distance from the aft hull section, wherein the aft body and the aft hull section is configured such that, during forward propulsion of the vessel, the net force component exerted onto the vessel from the aft body in the direction of travel of the vessel is zero or negative in the full speed range the vessel is operating in (column 7, line 65- column 8, line 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of van Oossanen with the ability to position the aft body in a neutral position as taught by Grasper in order to eliminate the effect of the foil when desired.
Please note that if applicant disagrees with any of the dimensional limitations, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hull and aft body of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body and or the separation point/line higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that at least a part of the aft body 17 is located in front of the separation line (see figure 4A). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image2.png
198
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- van Oossanen Figure 4A
Regarding claim 3, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen does not explicitly teach that the leading edge is situated at least half the length of the chord line in front of the separation line, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Van Oossanen also teaches that the top surface of the aft body 17 and the aft hull section is designed such that the minimum distance in a longitudinal vertical plane between said top surface and the aft hull section in front of the separation line remains constant or near constant (see figure 4A).
Regarding claim 5, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft body 17 is designed to give a positive lifting force during forward propulsion of the vessel. In this case, van Oossanen teaches that the lift is upward (and forward), though the angle can be adjustable (column 8, lines 37-44). As modified by Gasper, the body can be set to any tilt, including one with an upward but not forward lift.
Regarding claim 6, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft body is designed such that, during forward propulsion of the vessel, the direction of a resulting water flow immediately downstream of the trailing edge due to a water flow passing a top surface of the aft body 17 and a water flow passing an underside of the aft body, is orientated parallel or near parallel to the water surface (when adjusted to the neutral position, as taught by Gasper).
Regarding claim 7, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that at least a part of the trailing edge 17b is located deeper than 35% of the draft when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at the operational draft (see figures 2-8). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the aft body higher/lower/forward/back in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen does not explicitly teach that the length of the chord line is at least equal to the draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in a body of water at the operational draft. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the chord line to at least match the draft or be of whatever size was desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Likewise, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull draft of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 9, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft body 17 constitutes an integrated part of the vessel (as they are connected).
Regarding claim 10, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft hull section 15 located downstream of the separation line is situated over the water surface during forward propulsion of the vessel.
Regarding claim 11, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the hull comprises a transom 15 located at or above the water surface when the vessel is laying still and floating in a body of water at the operational draft.
Regarding claim 12, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft body 17 is designed and positioned such that a part of a water flow flowing over a top surface of the aft body is lifted above the water surface during forward propulsion of the vessel (at least in some positions- see figures 5B and 6).
Regarding claim 14, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the hull is a displacement hull (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the aft body 17 and the aft hull section (are) configured so that the draft of the hull during forward propulsion of the vessel will be at least 80% of the draft of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water. Note that this will be true of some speeds, particularly low speeds.
Regarding claim 16, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the leading edge 17a is parallel with the water surface when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water at the operational draft (see figures 3B and 5A).
Regarding claim 17, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the vessel 12 is a multi-hull 41, 41’ vessel. In an alternative interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multiple hulls for better balance or weight distribution, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the hull in separate sections in order to simplify manufacturing or increase damage tolerance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 18, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen also teaches that the maximum width of the aft body 17 measured in a horizontal plane in the transverse direction of the hull is at least 50% of the maximum width of the hull measured at the water surface in the transverse direction of the hull when the vessel is floating motionless in the body of water at the operational draft (see figures 3B and 5A). Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull widths of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 20, van Oossanen and Gasper teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Oossanen does not explicitly teach that the length of the chord line is at least 5% of the length between perpendiculars of the vessel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the chord line to be 5% of the hull length or of whatever size was desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Likewise, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the aft body and hull of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or form factor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that no single configuration of Gasper meets the claim as written, the examiner partially disagrees. The overall configuration taught by Gasper is correct, but because the figures cannot be assumed to be at scale, it cannot be definitively proven that all relative dimensions are as claimed. Hence the rejection was made under 102/103. As detailed above, any change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Likewise, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In a related argument, the applicant argues that if the aft body of Gasper is swung into the neutral position, the chord would become “nearly horizontal.” The examiner responds that the rejection is not based on Gasper’s wing being swung into the neutral position, but that because the only difference is an obvious change of shape or location, Gasper could be easily modified such that when it is in the neutral position all other location limitations are met.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where applicant argues that Van Oossanen teaches a forward thrust component, the examiner replies that Gasper was relied upon for the teaching that an aft body can be modified to assume a neutral position when desired. As modified, the aft body could assume a position that meets the claim as written.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant argues that because Van Oossanen teaches that the aft body generates a forward thrust component, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify it to have a neutral position. The examiner clarifies that as modified (as stated above), the aft body can assume a neutral position- not that it would be in a neutral position at all times. One of ordinary skill in the art could see the benefit of allowing the foil to move, making the craft’s performance customizable to a wider range of scenarios.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights