DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An amendment after Non-Final Rejection was filed by applicant on 12/21/2025.
Claims 1 and 15 are amended.
Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are remaining in the application.
The amended Specification is accepted unless otherwise noted in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature limitation: “by means of a drive flange with a hydraulic joint and/or with a pneumatic actuator and/or with an electromagnetic actuator” must be shown (it is suggested that such be shown with appropriate reference characters corresponding to these feature(s) in the specification) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant states in the remarks section of the amendment that sufficient support for such newly claimed subject matter is provided with the written description for Fig. 5 which shows a rotor sail [181] with a drive flange [182] and hydraulic joint [183]; however, no pneumatic actuator and electromagnetic actuator are shown in the drawings, and no embodiment is shown in the drawings that show a drive flange with hydraulic joint and a pneumatic actuator and an electromagnetic actuator in any one specific arrangement.
Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature(s) consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The Specification does not refer to the drawings regarding all of the feature(s) indicated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The newly added claimed features to claim 1 reciting “by means of a drive flange with a hydraulic joint and/or with a pneumatic actuator and/or with an electromagnetic actuator” cannot be found in the Specification as filed, nor is such described as that newly recited in the claims. Claimed features should be fully consistent with features disclosed and described in the Specification as filed. In addition, terminology and/or nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure, which includes the Abstract, Specification and Claims.
The amendment filed on 12/21/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The Specification as filed does not support an embodiment that includes a drive flange with hydraulic joint and a pneumatic actuator and an electromagnetic actuator in any one specific arrangement as claimed. See also para. 12 above. Amended claim 1 includes newly added subject matter that is not fully supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Specifically, the Specification as originally filed does not fully support an embodiment that includes a drive flange with hydraulic joint and a pneumatic actuator and an electromagnetic actuator in any one arrangement as is newly claimed, nor does such disclosure fully support how such features would be used to facilitate function/operation. Applicant’s general disclosure that other actuators such as mechanical, linear, pneumatic and electromagnetic, and others may be used, is not sufficient for fully supporting an embodiment that includes all of these features as claimed. Such disclosure merely indicates that certain features may be substituted with various other known features/components in the art. Applicant is required to remove this new matter in response to this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 includes newly added subject matter that is not fully supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Specifically, the Specification as originally filed does not fully support an embodiment that includes a drive flange with hydraulic joint and a pneumatic actuator and an electromagnetic actuator in any one arrangement as is newly claimed, nor does such disclosure fully support how such features would be used to facilitate function/operation. Applicant’s general disclosure that other actuators such as mechanical, linear, pneumatic and electromagnetic, and others may be used, is not sufficient for fully supporting an embodiment that includes all of these features as claimed. Such disclosure merely indicates that certain features may be substituted with various other known features/components in the art. Applicant is required to remove this new matter in response to this Final Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The use of the phrase “and/or”, as added to newly amended claim 1, does not make clear that which is included or excluded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 4-9, 11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: CN 216762122 U (LI, ZHI et al.). Except for the specifically newly claimed arrangement added to amended claim 1, D3 discloses all claimed features, including a rotor sail system for a water vessel (ship), one or more rotor sails rotatably [31] coupled to the water vessel with the rotor sail configured to be multiaxially tiltable (see Figs. 1-8 and corresponding written description) to provide a specific propulsive power, drive flange [2], joint [111], end plate [52], sailing regimes (orientation angles), fin [41], thermal management system (openings), at least partially stowable (interpreted as capable of being either at least partially lowered, disassembled, removed and/or stored), form (cylindrical), electrocomponent (electrical control system or controller), mechanocomponent (rotor sail mechanical components including joint), data transmissions provided by signals and instructions via control system, modules (interpreted as parts, segments or components of various sizes). D3 does not specifically disclose an embodiment that includes a drive flange with hydraulic joint and/or a pneumatic actuator and/or an electromagnetic actuator in any one specific arrangement as claimed. However, such features are known in the art and would be capable of being used individually or in combination to facilitate use and function of the device as desired, and would be considered to work equally well as those of other known components described in various embodiments that are fully supported in applicant’s disclosure, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The method step of claim 18 is considered inherent in the function and use of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such features as desired to facilitate main propulsion, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: CN 216762122 U (LI, ZHI et al.), in view of D1: US 4602584 A (North et al.). D3 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, with the exception of the claimed propeller. However, D1 discloses such a feature for main propulsion. In addition, D1 further discloses that the rotary sail is for auxiliary propulsion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such a feature to facilitate main propulsion, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: CN 216762122 U (LI, ZHI et al.), in view of D2: Jang (US 11473557 A). D3 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, with the exception of the claimed array of solar cells provided on a surface of at least one of said rotor sails. However, D2 discloses such a feature for additional energy generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such a feature to improve upon the energy generation capability of the device, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been fully considered but are essentially moot due to applicant’s amended claims and the resulting new and/or modified grounds of rejection presented in this Final Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
If not for the new matter rejection above, claims 12, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
27. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3617
04/10/2026