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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515 and Minecci US 9,975,614.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Teetzel Figure 5
Regarding claim 1, Teetzel teaches a projectile launcher assembly for launching a plurality of projectiles each containing life jackets to people that have fallen overboard from a maritime vessel, said assembly comprising:
a housing 140 being mounted to the deck of a maritime vessel 108, said housing being positioned adjacent to a stern of the maritime vessel (missile launch system 140, which may be provided at the stern of the vessel, column 7, lines 48-52), said housing having a plurality of launching fixtures (In certain embodiments, the rocket system 110 may be configured to be fired from a multiple tube (e.g., tri-tube) launch platform 140, column 10, lines 3-5), said housing being oriented such that said plurality of launching fixtures is directed toward the stern of the maritime vessel;
a plurality of projectiles 110, each of said projectiles being positioned within a respective one of said launching fixtures;
a launching unit E being positioned in said housing, said launching unit being in communication with each of said projectiles, said launching unit being actuatable into a launching condition to launch each of said projectiles outwardly from said respective launching wells thereby facilitating said plurality of projectiles to be dispersed into a body of water in which the maritime vessel is traveling;
a plurality of buoyancy vests (the flotation safety device 160 may be an inflatable vest or other garment, ring, belt, raft, and so forth, column 8, lines 58-60), each of said buoyancy vests being positioned within a respective one of said projectiles, each of said buoyancy vests being in a deflated condition thereby facilitating said buoyancy vests to be stored within said respective projectile, each of said buoyancy vest being inflatable when said projectiles are launched from said housing wherein said buoyancy vests are configured to facilitate the individual that has fallen overboard to wear one of said buoyancy vests to inhibit the individual from drowning (column 8, lines 36-57); and
a communication unit (communicating through network 44) being integrated into said housing, said communication unit being in remote communication with the control room 48 of the maritime vessel, said communication unit being in communication with said launching unit, said communication unit actuating said launching unit into said launching condition when said communication unit receives a launch command from the control room (cruise ship personnel can manually initiate launching a rocket 110 using the ship management system 48, column 11, lines 4-10).
Teetzel does not explicitly teach that the management system is in the control room or that the communication unit is in the housing, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the management system in the control room in order to enable easy access by crew, and the communication unit in the housing in order keep important components together and protected, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Teetzel is silent to the nature of the housing, and does not teach that the housing has a plurality of launching wells each extending into said housing. Sowers teaches a projectile launcher assembly 30 which comprises a housing 42 with a plurality of launching wells 40 each extending into said housing, wherein the housing 42 has a bottom wall and a rear wall, said rear wall having a first portion lying on a plane being perpendicularly oriented with said bottom wall, each of said launching wells 40 extending into said rear wall, each of said launching wells having a lower bounding surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel by forming the launch tubes into a housing as taught by Sowers in order to maintain the plurality of launch tubes into a single, cohesive unit for easier transportation and better durability.
Sowers does not teach that rear wall having a second portion angling forwardly from said first portion, each of said launching wells extending into said second portion, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the housing slanted of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired form factor or orient the launching wells to the optimal angle. 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.
Neither Teetzel nor Sowers teach that said assembly includes a plurality of mounts, each of said mounts being coupled to and extending downwardly from said bottom wall, each of said mounts having a leg extending downwardly from said bottom wall and a foot extending laterally away from said leg thereby facilitating said foot of each of said mounts to lie on a deck of the maritime vessel, each of said mounts having a hole extending through said foot thereby facilitating a plurality of fasteners to be extended through said hole in said foot of a respective one of said mounts and engage the deck to fasten said housing to the deck. Minecci teaches a projectile launching assembly which includes a plurality of mounts, each of said mounts being coupled to and extending downwardly from said bottom wall, each of said mounts having a leg extending downwardly from said bottom wall and a foot 62 extending laterally away from said leg thereby facilitating said foot of each of said mounts to lie on a deck of the maritime vessel, each of said mounts having a hole extending through said foot thereby facilitating a plurality of fasteners to be extended through said hole in said foot of a respective one of said mounts and engage the deck to fasten said housing to the deck (see Minecci figure 3d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel by adding mounts as taught by Sowers in order to securely mount the housing to the deck of a vessel.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515, Minecci US 9,975,614, Tseng US 8,967,132 and Yin US 9,795,814.
Regarding claim 3, Teetzel, Sowers and Minecci teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Teetzel also teaches that:
each of said projectiles 110 has a front end, a back end and an outer wall extending between said front end and said back end, said front end of each of said projectiles being open, said outer wall of each of said projectiles being continuously arcuate about an axis extending between said front end and said back end such that each of said projectiles has a cylindrical shape;
each of said projectiles has a cone A being attached to said front end for closing said front end; and
each of said projectiles has a plurality of fins 130 being hingedly attached to said outer wall, each of said fins being biased into a deployed position having each of said fins extending away from said outer wall of a respective projectile, each of said fins being urgeable into a collapsed position having said fins lying against said outer wall of said respective projectile thereby facilitating said respective projectile to be inserted into said respective well (column 7, lines 45-52).
Teetzel does not teach that said back end of each of said projectiles rests against said lower bounding surface of said respective launching well. Yin teaches a projectile launching assembly which comprises a multi-bore pneumatic launching system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel with a pneumatic launching system as taught by Yin in order to reduce explosive force, eliminate the need for shells and rocket motors, and provide an overall safer system. As modified, the back end of each of said projectiles rests against said lower bounding surface of said respective launching well.
Teetzel does not teach that said outer wall of each of said projectiles has a perforation extending between said front end and said back end (Teetzel is silent as to projectile separation). Tseng teaches a projectile launcher in which the lifebuoy housing 1 splits along a seam that extends between a front end and a back end (see Tseng figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the housing of Teetzel with a seam running from front to back as taught by Tseng in order to ensure efficient separation of the housing and proper life vest deployment. Note that while Tseng does not teach that the seam is a perforation, the examiner is taking official notice that a perforation is a well-known manner of ensuring an element will split where desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the housing of Teetzel with a perforation in order to ensure that the housing stays intact until separation is desired.
Regarding claim 7, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin and Tseng teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Teetzel also teaches that:
said assembly includes a plurality of inflation canisters 168, each of said inflation canisters being integrated into a respective one of said buoyancy vests 160, each of said inflation canisters storing a compressed gas, each of said inflation canisters being in fluid communication with said respective buoyancy vest, each of said inflation canisters releasing said compressed gas into said respective buoyancy vest when said inflation canisters receives an inflate command for inflating said respective buoyancy vest (column 8, lines 58-63);
each of said projectiles (as modified) splits open along said perforation in said outer wall of said projectiles when said buoyancy vest in each of said projectiles is inflated thereby facilitating said buoyancy vest to be released from said projectiles wherein said buoyancy vests are configured to be accessible to the individual that has fallen overboard.
Regarding claim 8, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin and Tseng teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Teetzel also teaches:
a plurality of water sensors, each of said water sensors being integrated into a respective one of said projectiles, each of said water sensors being electrically coupled to said inflation canister 168 that is integrated into said buoyancy vest which is stored in said respective projectile 110, each of said water sensors communicating said inflate command to said inflation canister when said water sensor is placed into contact with water such that said buoyancy vest in said respective projectile is inflated when said respective projectile lands in the water (Inflation and release of the inflatable bladder in the presence of water or salt water may occur via any of a variety of methods including sensing electronics, chemical reaction or sensing, or physical reaction (e.g., dissolution), and so forth, column 8, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 10, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin and Tseng teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Teetzel also teaches a plurality of radio beacons 164, each of said radio beacons being attached to a respective one of said buoyancy vests 160, each of said radio beacons being electrically coupled to said water sensor attached to said projectile in which said respective buoyancy vest is positioned, each of said radio beacons being actuated when said water sensor in said projectile in which said respective buoyancy vest is positioned senses water, each of said radio beacons transmitting a location signal when said radio beacons are turned on thereby facilitating a rescue team to receive said location signal to locate said radio beacons (column 9, lines 26-58).
Regarding claim 11, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin and Tseng teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Teetzel also teaches a plurality of strobe lights 162, each of said strobe lights being attached to a respective one of said buoyancy vests 160, each of said strobe lights being electrically coupled to said water sensor attached to said projectile in which said respective buoyancy vest is positioned, each of said strobe lights being actuated when said water sensor in said projectile in which said respective buoyancy vest is positioned senses water, each of said strobe lights emitting flashing light when said strobe lights are turned on thereby facilitating each of said buoyancy vests to be visually located at night (column 9, lines 26-58).
Teetzel does not explicitly teach that the control circuit is electrically coupled to a power source comprising an electrical system of the maritime vessel, however the examiner is taking official notice that it is well known that auxiliary equipment can utilize ship power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel & Yin by using electrical system of the maritime vessel in order to eliminate the need for a separate source of power for the launcher.
Claims 4, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515, Minecci US 9,975,614 and Yin US 9,795,814.
Regarding claim 4, Teetzel, Sowers and Minecci teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yin teaches a projectile launching assembly which comprises:
PNG
media_image2.png
293
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Yin Figure 3
a launch canister 5 storing a compressed gas, said launch canister being positioned within said housing, said launch canister having an outlet;
a pressure regulator 6 having an input and an output, said input being fluidly attached to said inlet of said launch canister, said pressure regulator releasing said compressed gas outwardly through said output at a pre- determined pressure;
a plurality of valves 7, each of said valves having an inlet and an outlet;
a supply hose 27, said supply hose being fluidly coupled between said output of said pressure regulator and said inlet of each of said valves thereby facilitating said inlet of each of said valves to receive said pressurized gas, each of said valves being in a normally closed condition to inhibit said compressed gas from being released from said outlet of each of said valves, each of said valves being actuatable into an open condition to facilitate said compressed gas to be released from said outlet of each of said valves (column 10, lines 50-66); and
a plurality of outlet hoses (whatever element connects the valves to the bores), each of said outlet hoses being fluidly coupled to said outlet of a respective one of said valves thereby facilitating each of said outlet hoses to receive said compressed gas when said valves are actuated into said open condition, each of said outlet hoses having an output nozzle being coupled to said lower bounding surface of a respective one of said launching wells such that said output nozzle on each of said output hoses releases said compressed gas into said respective launching well when said valves are actuated into said open condition thereby facilitating said compressed gas to launch said plurality of projectiles outwardly from said housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel with a pneumatic launching system as taught by Yin in order to reduce explosive force, eliminate the need for shells and rocket motors, and provide an overall safer system. Yin does not explicitly teach that the launch canister is in the housing, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the launch canister in the housing in order keep important components together and protected, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Yin does not teach a pressure regulator being fluidly attached to said outlet of said launch canister, however it would have been would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate an additional regulator after the launch canister in order to also ensure that the pressure to the valves is kept in a desirable range, 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, and 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 6, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci and Yin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Yin also teaches that each of said valves releases a pre-determined pressure of said pressurized gas into said respective launching well thereby facilitating each of said projectiles to be launched a unique distance from the maritime vessel with respect to each other wherein said plurality of projectiles is configured to land in the water in a distally spread pattern with respect to the maritime vessel thereby increasing the likelihood that at least one of said projectiles lands near the individual that has fallen overboard from the maritime vessel.
Yin does not explicitly teach that the pressure of said pressurized gas which varies from valve to valve, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set each valve to the optimum pressure for that bore or desired launch power, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci and Yin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Teetzel as modified by Yin also teaches that said communication unit comprises:
a control circuit being integrated into said housing, said control circuit receiving a launch input, said control circuit being electrically coupled to each of said valves, each of said valves being actuated into said open condition when said control circuit receives said launch input, said control circuit being electrically coupled to a power source comprising an electrical system of the maritime vessel; and
a launch transceiver being integrated into said housing, said launch transceiver being electrically coupled to said control circuit, said launch transceiver being in wireless communication with the control room of the maritime vessel, said control circuit receiving said launch input when said launch transceiver receives a launch command from the control room.
In this case, Teetzel teaches that the ship management system 48 (which as modified, is in the control room) is able to wirelessly communicate with the launch system 96 via network 44 (column 11, lines 4-10). Whatever components facilitate this wireless launch command can be interpreted as the control circuit and launch transceiver. Teetzel does not explicitly teach that the control circuit and launch transceiver are in the housing, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the control circuit and launch transceiver in the housing in order keep important components together and protected, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515, Minecci US 9,975,614, Yin US 9,795,814 and Montgomery US 9,074,843.
Regarding claim 5, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci and Yin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Neither Teetzel, Sowers nor Yin teach that each of said launching wells in said housing extends along an axis being oriented at a unique angle with said second portion of said rear wall with respect to each other thereby facilitating each of said projectiles to launched in a different direction with respect to each other wherein said plurality of projectiles is configured to land in the water in a laterally spread pattern with respect to the maritime vessel thereby increasing the likelihood that at least one of said projectiles lands near an individual that has fallen overboard from the maritime vessel. Montgomery teaches a multiple projectile launching assembly 10 in which each of said launching wells 16 extends along an axis being oriented at a unique angle with respect to each other thereby facilitating each of said projectiles to launched in a different direction with respect to each other wherein said plurality of projectiles is configured to land in a laterally spread pattern (column 3 line 48- column 4 line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the launcher of Teetzel with the wells oriented in unique angles as taught by Montgomery in order to “generate a substantially even distribution of projectile dispersion over a predetermined shape area” (column 4, lines 1-4) even without active projectile guidance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515, Minecci US 9,975,614, Tseng US 8,967,132, Yin US 9,795,814 and Bertagna US 2007/0241887.
Regarding claim 9, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin and Tseng teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Teetzel also teaches:
a plurality of projectile transceivers 164, each of said projectile transceivers being integrated into a respective one of said projectiles 110, each of said projectile transceivers facilitating said projectile transceivers to establish the physical location of said respective projectile, each of said projectile transceivers configured to be in wireless communication with a control room in the maritime vessel thereby facilitating a captain of the maritime vessel to track the physical location of each of said projectiles (column 9, lines 26-58); and
a plurality of projectile power supplies, each of said projectile power supplies being integrated into a respective one of said projectiles, each of said projectile power supplies being electrically coupled to said projectile transceiver and said water sensor in said respective projectile, each of said projectile power supplies comprising a battery (in this case, whatever powers the transceiver can be considered the battery).
Teetzel does not explicitly teach that each of said projectile transceivers are configured to be in wireless communication with a global positioning system. Bertagna teaches a life vest system 200 which comprises a transceiver 102 which is in communication with a global positioning system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Teetzel with communication with a global positioning system as taught by Bertagna in order to communicate precise location of the device [0016].
In an alternate interpretation, the projectile transceiver and the radio beacon and separate components. In such an interpretation, it would have been would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional transceiver dedicated to the projectile in order to also ensure that the projectile is also accurately reported, 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, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel US 10,956,803 in view of Sowers US 10,502,515, Minecci US 9,975,614, Tseng US 8,967,132, Yin US 9,795,814, Montgomery US 9,074,843 and Bertagna US 2007/0241887.
Regarding claim 13, Teetzel, Sowers, Minecci, Yin, Tseng, Montgomery and Bertagna teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 3-12. As claim 13 contains only limitations previously addressed with respect to claims 1 and 3-12, claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the Examiner should now produce at least one prior art reference in support of the assertion” of official notice (page 16), the examiner responds that no official notice was taken. The applicant is correct that if official notice is taken or if a rejection is based on personal knowledge of the examiner, and it is then traversed by the applicant, the examiner must provide prior art or an affidavit. However in this case, the disputed rejection was not based on official notice or personal knowledge, but instead on established case law. In this case, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), in which the court held that the configuration of a claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. As detailed above, the recited shape of the housing is likewise an obvious change to one of ordinary skill in the art, given that the applicant has not provided any evidence that the second angled portion of the housing is in any way significant. Unless the applicant can show clear criticality of this shape explained in the disclosure as originally filed, the rejection in view of the case law stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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