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. Status of Claims T his Office Action is in response to the application file on February 17, 2023 . Claim s 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2021/057037 , filed on March 18. 2021 . Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority as the Application Data Sheet claim Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Germany) Patent Application No. DE 10 2020 121 847.8 filed August 20, 2020. The Examiner notes this this original application when viewed with the PCT application is missing embodiments and features found in figs. 10-11 of the PCT application. The Examiner notes for claiming the benefit of nonprovisional applications, a continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 201.08. Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. (See MPEP § 211.05) . Additionally, the Examiner notes that a WPO co-pending application Hofmann et al. ( WO 2024153819 A2 ) titled “Control assembly for a hydrofoil craft” claims the control arrangement for a hydrofoil watercraft. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 17, 2023 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following: Fig. 2 has an arrow/pointer without an associated reference character . (See fig. 2 mark up below). Fig. 9 has reference character “50” with arrow/pointer to the seam line. Spec. page 37 lines 30-31 recite “…The drive assembly 400 is coupled to the mast assembly at a position between end portions 51 and 53 of the mast assembly 50…” where figs. 8-9 do not show “51”. Previously the seam line was “55” referring to a middle section couple. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets that “50” IS CORRECT and just is referring to the mast assembly and is not intending to be either “51” or “55” in Fig. 9 and that the arrow/pointer to the seam line of what was “55” was not intended. 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 2, line 21, “ inleet ” should be “inlet” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "outer housing portion" in line 6. Where claim 1 lines 4-5 recites “an outer housing portion”. It is not clear if this is the same or a new outer housing portion as the claim language is missing “the” or “said” before “outer housing portion”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “said outer housing portion” to be consistent with the claim language used. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example", in line 8, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 5 is rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Claim 6 line 12-13 recites “and wherein in addition or alternatively…” and is not clear in view of the preceding claimed embodiments use of the claim language “and/or” ; s uch that the additional embodiments that are listed after “and wherein in addition or alternatively…” disclose the dimensions though do not apply to the embodiment of “wherein a safety member is provided which blocks and access…” found in line 10. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “and /or wherein in addition or alternatively…”. Claims 7-8 are rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Claim 9 recites the limitation "said rear end portion (183)" in line 3. Where the claim set does not recite “a rear end portion (183)”. It is not clear what this part is since it has yet to be introduced. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “a rear end portion (183)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10-13 are rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Claim 14 recites the limitation " a propulsion device (200) " in line s 3 -4 . Where claim 1 lines 5-6 already recites “a propulsion device (200) ” . It is not clear if this is a different or the same propulsion device (200). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “said propulsion device (200)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Claim 16 recites the limitation " an attachment portion (310) " in line 3. Where claim 1 lines 10-11 already recites “an attachment portion (310) ”. It is not clear if this is a different or the same attachment portion (310) . For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “said attachment portion (310) ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-1 9 are rejected based on the previous rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Claim 20 recites “wherein the tail unit a stabilization member” in line 1-2; where the claim language is unclear as it is missing key words or phrases for it to make sense. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be “wherein the tail unit comprises a stabilization member . . .” . Regarding claim 20, the phrase "optionally", in line 2, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(h). The Examiner notes that the spec. page 35 , lines 9-14 recite “… The tail unit 300 may also be referred to as stabilizing portion and according to the embodiment, comprises a stabilizing member 301. According to an example, the stabilizing member 301 c omprises a wing 302 , more precisely a horizontal wing as is shown in Figure 2, for instance. In addition or alternatively, a vertical wing may be provided…”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will look for a wing or fin in the prior art as both the wing and stabilizing member are the same item as shown in fig. 2 and will interpret the claim language as “…further comprises a wing .. . ”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-4, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki et al. (EP 3581482 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Aoki et al. discloses a fuselage assembly (100 ) ( underwater propulsive device 20 ; See at least: figs. 1-9 ) configured to be attached to a mast assembly (50) (strut 3 ; See at least figs. 1-3, 5, 8-9 and 13-14 ) of a powered hydrofoil watercraft (1) (watercraft 1 ; See at least figs. 1 and 13-14 ) , wherein said fuselage assembly (100) comprises a mast assembly fixation section (106) (base portion 59 ; See at least fig. 8 where the strut 3 meets the barrel portion 32 ) and an outer housing portion (170) (stern portion 34 ; See at least fig. 3 ) which accommodates a propulsion device (200 ) (propeller 23 ; See at least fig. 3 and 6 ) , and which outer housing portion (170) at least partially limits an outer dimension of a flow channel (161) ( figs. 6-7; See at least water inlet 29 , second compartment 28 and water jet outlet 30 ) through which water is transported during operation of said hydrofoil watercraft (1), wherein said flow channel (161) is formed such that its cross sectional area is reduced towards an outlet side of said flow channel (161), and (See at least: para. [0074] “… the cross-sectional area of a channel of water flowing from the water inlet 29 to the water jet outlet 30 gradually decreases from the water inlet 29 toward the propeller 23 , becomes uniform at the position of the propeller 23, and then further decreases near the water jet outlet 30…”) wherein ( I ) said outer housing portion (170) comprises an attachment portion (310) (internal threads 5 8; See at least figs 7-9 ) on which a tail unit (300) (stern hydrofoil 44 ; See at least figs. 2 and 9 ) , is formed or attachable (attached; See at least para. [0061]) thereto and/or wherein (II) said propulsion device (200) is accommodated in said outer housing portion (170) such that a user is prevented from touching said propulsion device (200). (See at least: figs. 5 -9 ; filter 39 {para. [0084] -[ 0085] prevents foreign matter from entering } straightening vanes 73 and ring 52 with flat plate 53 where the figs. show all the listed parts prevent access or create a standoff distance to/from the propeller 23 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said outer housing portion (170) is configured for detachably fixing said tail unit (300) to the same, (See at least: fig. 9 showing the stern hydrofoil 44 is detachable or attachable and para. [0061])) or wherein alternatively said outer housing portion (170) and said tail unit (300) are integrally formed. (not shown as this is a “or” statement) . Regarding claim 3 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses further comprising a wing attachment section (105) (bow hydrofoil 43 ; See at least fig. 1-4 ) and a front wing (112) (right wing 46 , left wing 47 ; See at least figs. 4 and 9 and para. [0052] ) attached to said wing attachment section (105), wherein said wing attachment section (105) provided at a front portion (101) ( Seen at least: Fig. 1 where the bow hydrofoil 43 uses “bow” in the nautical meaning of “ the forward end of a vessel or airship ” ) of said fuselage assembly (100) and is configured to detachably mount said front wing (112). (See at least fig s . 8- 9 and para [ 0052 ] -[ 0053 ] which show features of how the right wing 46 and the left wing 47 attach or detach). Regarding claim 4 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said tail unit (300) and/or said front wing (112) mounted wherein said tail unit (300) and/or said front wing (112) mounted on said fuselage assembly (100) are configured to be transferable between a use state in which said tail unit (300) is able to exert a stabilizing function ( See at least figs. 1-4 and 13-14; para. [0062] “… The stern hydrofoil 44 is configured to reduce tilts of the watercraft 1 in the bow direction and the stern direction during traveling in order to stabilize traveling of the watercraft 1 .. . ” ) and/or said front wing (112) is positioned to generate a lifting force, ( See at least figs. 1-4; para. [0056] “… the bow hydrofoil 43 is configured to generate upward lift by traveling of the watercraft 1 .. . ” ) and a stowing state, wherein in said stowing state a mast assembly profile and a profile of said tail unit (300) and/or of said front wing (112) are arranged substantially in one plane, wherein said tail unit (300) and/or said front wing (112) are rotatable about a rotational axis, for example a longitudinal middle axis (Al) (cylinder axis direction; para [0044]) of said fuselage assembly (110) or an axis parallel to said longitudinal middle axis (Al), such that said tail unit (300) and/or said front wing (112) are rotatable about 90 ˚ between said use state and said stowing state. (See at least: figs. 1-8 where the fig. 8 best shows that both the stern portion 34 and the bow portion 31 to be able to be disassembled such that rotation of about 90˚ about the barrel portion 32 can occur, where fig. 9 shows the bow hydrofoil 43 would then be reinstalled therefore the invention of Aoki et al. is configurable with all wings (54, 55, 46 and 47 ) aligning in the same directional plane of the strut 3 ). Regarding claim 13 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said mast assembly fixation section (106) is provided on a top side (See at least fig. 8 showing the base portion 59 on the top side) of said fuselage assembly (110), wherein in addition or alternatively said mast assembly fixation section (106) comprises a mounting recess (107) ( screw holes not shown; See at least para. [0067] ) in which a fuselage assembly fixation portion (54) (flange 8; S ee at least fig. 8) of said mast assembly (50) can be inserted and locked ( See at least: para [006 7 ] where locking is by screws ) , wherein said mast assembly fixation section (106) is designed for a positive locking (screws; See at least: para [0067]) or an integral connection of said mast assembly (50) with said mast assembly fixation section (106). Regarding claim 14 , Aoki et al discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses a n integrated propulsion unit (See at least fig. 3) for a powered hydrofoil watercraft comprising the fuselage assembly (100) according to claim 1 (See at least: Claim 1 rejection above for all corresponding parts disclosed by Aoki et al. ) , an electric motor (motor 22; See at least: fig. 3 para [0070] where the para. recites “ an AC motor ” ) provided in said fuselage assembly (110) and a propulsion device (200) provided in said outer housing portion (170), ( See at least claim 1 rejection above as “a propulsion device (200)” is covered there ) said electric motor being operatively connected to said propulsion device (200) by means of a drive shaft (203) (power transfer shaft 24; See at least: fig. 3 and para. [0071]) accommodated in said inner housing portion (180) or wherein said propulsion device (200) is directly coupled to an output shaft of said electric motor. Regarding claim 15 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses A hydrofoil watercraft (1) (watercraft 1; See at least figs. 1 and 13-14) , comprising a board assembly (10) (flotation unit 2; See at least: figs 1 and 13-14) , a mast assembly (50) (strut 3; See at least: figs 1 and 13-14) coupled to a lower portion (12) (See at least: figs 1 and 13-14 showing the lower portion {not labeled}) of said board assembly (10) (See at least: para [0030] “…. The upper end of the strut 3 is fixed to the lower surface of the flotation unit 2…”) , and the integrated propulsion unit according to claim 14 (See at least: Claim 14 rejection above for all corresponding parts disclosed by Aoki et al.) , wherein a front wing (112) (right wing 46, left wing 47 ; see at least fig. 2 ) and the tail unit (300) (stern hydrofoil 44; S ee at least fig. 2 ) are attached to said fuselage assembly (100) of said integrated propulsion unit. (See at least fig. 2) . Regarding claim 16 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said detachable fixation is achieved by means of positive locking ( s crews 57; See at least para [0061] and fig. 9) , and wherein said outer housing portion (170) comprises an attachment portion (310) (internal threads 58; See at least para [0061] and fig. 9) for detachably attaching said tail unit (300). Regarding claim 18 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. wherein the tail unit comprises an attachment flange (See at least fig. 9 for countersunk or counterbore surface) having a threaded opening (internal threads 58: See at least fig. 7 and 9 and para. [0061]) . Regarding claim 19 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said wing attachment section (105) and/or said attachment portion (310) are individually rotatable about said rotational axis or (See at least: figs. 1-8 where the fig. 8 best shows that both the stern portion 34 and the bow portion 31 to be able to be disassembled such that rotation of about cylinder axis direction of the barrel portion 32 can occur) wherein said mast assembly fixation section (106) is configured such that said fuselage assembly is rotatably coupled to said mast assembly (50). Regarding claim 20 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein the tail unit a stabilizing member (301) (flat plate 53, right wing 54, left wing 55; See at least: para. [0057] and fig. 9) optionally wherein the stabilizing member is a stabilizing wing (302 ) (right wing 54, left wing 55; See at least: para. [0057] and fig. 9) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. ( EP 3581482 A1 ) . Regarding claim 5 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said outer housing portion (170) comprises an upstream end portion (177) (See at least figs. 7-8 in the area near water inlet 29 ) defining an inlet opening (178) (water inlet 2 9; See at least figs. 7-8 ) and wherein said housing portion (170) comprises a downstream end portion (179 ) (See at least figs. 7-8 in the area near water jet outlet 30 ) which comprises a nozzle section (172) (See at least figs. 7-8 ; para [0074] “… then further decreases near the water jet outlet 30. Thus, a flow velocity of water flowing from the water inlet 29 to the water jet outlet 30 by rotation of the propeller 23 increases with a decrease in cross-sectional area of the channel , and is at maximum near the water jet outlet 30 …” which is understood to be a nozzle) with an outlet opening (191) (See at least figs. 7-8 water jet outlet 30) , wherein a cross sectional area of said inlet opening (178) is larger than a cross sectional area of said outlet opening (191 ), ( See at least figs. 7-8; para [0074]) wherein said cross sectional area at said outlet opening (191) is at least 5% smaller than said cross sectional opening of said inlet opening (178) and (See at least figs. 7-8; para [0074]) wherein said cross sectional area at said outlet opening (191) is 90% to 80% the size of said cross sectional area of said inlet opening (178), (See at least figs. 7-8; para [0074]) wherein in addition or alternatively said nozzle section (172) is detachably configured (See at least; fig. 8 where the stern portion 34 containing “the nozzle” is shown detached) and is made from a plastics material (see at least para. [0043] “… are not limited to a specific material…”) . Aoki et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific sizing , percentages differences of the cross-sectional area, lists all the materials that could be selected, or show an additional parting line in the stern portion 34 . However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to used Aoki et al.’s para . [0074 ] “ ... decrease in cross-sectional area of the channel…” to have developed a design allowing proper thrust velocity to propel a user on a hydrofoil that is sized in the ranges; to have selected a material such as “…plastics (ABS resin) …” (see at least: Aoki et al. para [0092] for selection related to the inner case 74); or have added additional parting lines in parts to allow further disassembly; as disclosed by the Applicant . Applicant has not disclosed that specific sizing or percentages differences of the cross-sectional area; that plastic material, or additional parting lines; provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with the decreasing cross-sectional area, stainless steel material, and single construction stern unit because the law of conservation of mass is a known concept to create a velocity jet stream with materials that can withstand the pressure and temperature range of the design application and a simple construction for ease of manufacturing the invention . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the watercraft 1 of Aoki et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Regarding claim 7 , Aoki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said flow channel (161) is formed between said outer housing portion (170) and an inner housing portion (180) (lid portion 33) which is suitable for supporting said propulsion device (200), and/or (See at least: fig. 7-8) wherein said flow channel (161) is formed as a ring channel (See at least: fig. 8) extending about said longitudinal middle axis (Al) and circumferentially surrounding said inner housing portion (180) with its cross section in a direction perpendicular to said longitudinal middle axis (Al) defining a ring and/or (See at least: fig. 7-8) wherein said inlet opening (178) is formed between said upstream end portion (177) and an outer surface section (181) (projecting part 37; See at least: fig. 7-8) of said inner housing portion (180), and/or wherein said inlet opening (178) is formed as an annular inlet opening (See at least: fig. 10 for annular shape) or an elliptical inlet opening, and/or wherein said flow channel (161) is configured such that an inlet angle (184) (See at least fig. 7 for the angle formed by projecting part 37 and para. [0075]) smaller than 20˚ is realized at said inlet opening (178). (Examiner notes the angle formed by projecting part 37 is a range that would include “ smaller than 20˚ ” as para. [0075] states “…outer peripheral surface of the projecting part 37, however, is not limited to such a shape {shown in fig. 7}. For example, the outer peripheral surface of the projecting part 37 may be curved to bulge outward .” and would include the shape of the Applicant’s inlet angle (184) though Aoki et al. does not explicitly disclose this angle is smaller than 20˚ ). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. ( EP 3581482 A1 ) in view of Vermeulen (US 10308336 B1) . Regarding claim 6 , Aoki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein said outer housing portion (170) and said propulsion device (200) accommodated therein are configured and ( See at least: fig. 7 ) arranged with respect to each other such that it is not possible to reach said propulsion device (200) with a human extremity , wherein (See at least: figs. 5 -9 ; filter 39 {para. [0084] -[ 0085] prevents foreign matter from entering } straightening vanes 73 and ring 52 with flat plate 53 where the figs. show all the listed parts prevent access or create a standoff distance to/from the propeller 23 ) a length of said outer housing portion (170) and/or (See at least: figs. 6-7) the size of said inlet opening (178) and/or (See at least: figs. 6-7) the size of said outlet opening (191) and/or (See at least: figs. 6-7) the position of said propulsion device (200) in said outer housing portion (170) and/or (See at least: figs. 6-7) a dimension of said flow channel (161) are adjusted and/or positioned such that said propulsion device ( 200) cannot be reached by means of a human extremity through said inlet opening (178) and said outlet opening (191) and/or (See at least: figs. 6-7) wherein a safety member ( filter 39 , straightening vanes 73 , ring 52 with flat plate 53 : See at least figs. 1-9 ) is provided which blocks an access for human extremities, wherein said safety member is provided downstream ( straightening vanes 73 , ring 52 with flat plate 53) or upstream (filter 39) of said propulsion device (200) and a stator (174) (straightening vanes 73) , and ( See at least figs. 1-9 ) wherein in addition or alternatively said length of said flow channel (161) between said inlet opening (178) and said propulsion device (200) is at least 30mm , and/or wherein in addition or alternatively a height or width of said inlet opening (178) is equal to or smaller than 30mm , and/or wherein in addition or alternatively a length of said stator (174) in flow direction of said flow channel (161) is equal to or larger than 5mm and/or wherein in addition or alternatively said size of said outlet opening is equal to or smaller than 30mm. However, Aoki et al. does not disclose that it is not possible to reach said propulsion device (200) with a human extremity . (The Examiner notes that Aoki et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific sizing or dimensions of height, width and length , however the claim language use of “ and/or ” and “ in addition or alternatively ” reads that these are additional embodiments where only one of all the listed embodiments need to be in the prior art; where a safety member is being shown in the prior art ) . Vermeulen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is not possible to reach said propulsion device (200) with a human extremity. (See at least: figs. 1-4; col. 1 lines 51-55 where the problem is known “Access to the impeller/propeller is often uninhibited, which presents a safety hazard to a user especially for a watercraft where a user is consistently proximate the propulsion system such as but not limited to a powered surfboard…” ) Vermeulen uses techniques of an internal impeller 60, a nozzle 4, an impeller guard 62 to protect the user through the use of shielding the internal impeller from the user with the use of blocking parts or standoff distances while in use and a sliding standby technique to completely block access making the internal impeller 60 “ inaccessible” when not in use . Aoki et. al uses the known techniques of the internal propeller 23, straightening vanes 73, ring 52 with flat plate 53 and filter 39 taught by Vermeulen to keep the user safe . Where the filter 39 makes the inlet “inaccessible” to a user as the mesh size is too small for a human extremity and is an improvement on the standby technique of Vermeulen. The straightening vanes 73, ring 52 with flat plate 53 all provide standoff distances or blocking parts ( which are known in the art as; guards , shrouds, mesh, cages… ) as taught by techniques of Vermeulen. Therefore, it would have been obvious t hat one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have applied the known technique s of Vermeulen in the same way to the underwater propulsive device 20 of Aoki et. al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make use these known techniques for the benefit of preventing incidental access to the impeller/propeller by the user while using or handling the underwater propulsive device (See at least: Vermeulen col. 1 lines 51-55 ). Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. ( EP 3581482 A1 ) in view of Reuter et al. (WO 0220347 A2) . Regarding claim 8 , Aoki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. However, Aoki et al. does not disclose … circumferentially distributed struts (190) arranged around said longitudinal middle axis (Al) so that said outer housing portion (170) is held cantilevered on said inner housing portion ( 180)… Reuter et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein said outer housing portion (170) (housing 1 ; See at least fig. 1 ) is connected to said inner housing portion (180) ( existing cap 16 ; See at least fig. 1 ) via circumferentially distributed struts (190) (front part 2a ; also called the fixed guide grille 2a ; see at least fig. 2 and machine translation copy page 5 of 7 second full para on the page ) arranged around said longitudinal middle axis (Al) (over the entire operating range ; see at least machine translation copy page 5 of 7 second full para on the page ) so that said outer housing portion (170) is held cantilevered (See at least fig. 2) on said inner housing portion (180), said struts (190) at least partially extending in the longitudinal direction of said fuselage assembly (110) and bridging said inlet opening (178) (housing inlet part 3, and flow channel 26; see at least fig 1. where the inlet is around the existing cap 16) , wherein said struts (190) are aerodynamically formed (fixed blades) so as to reduce turbulences (rough orientation of the flow flowing to the drive is achieved) and comprise a wing shape (fixed blades) ( See at least: machine translation copy page 5 of 7 second full para on the page “… This front part 2a of the guide device 2 is a guide grill with fixed blades , which are set in such a way that a rough orientation of the flow flowing to the drive is achieved over the entire operating range. It serves for stabilization of the housing 1 in the inflow region ” where best to the Examiner’s understanding is that the guide grille 2a is that of claim 2 “ aerodynamically shaped struts in front of… the one or more impellers …” as also discussed on machine translation copy page 3 of 7 s ixth full para on the page “…struts as guide devices…” ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the underwater propulsive device 20 of Aoki et al with the driving mechanism (100) consisting of guide grille 2a of Reuter et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of minimizing flow losses thereby increasing efficiency of the design. (See at least: Reuter et al. machine translation copy page 3 of 7 s ixth full para on the page “… This axis can be connected upstream and downstream of the rotor to the nozzle (the nozzle inner jacket) via aerodynamically shaped struts. It is particularly advantageous to design these struts as guide devices (pre-guide and guide wheel) in order to minimize flow losses . ...”). Regarding claim 9 , Aoki et al. in view of Reuter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses wherein at least a portion of said outer housing portion (170) and said rear end portion (183) (support portion 71; See at least fig. 7) of said inner housing portion (180) are fixedly coupled (para. [0076] “…joined to the inner peripheral surface of the stern portion 34…”) to each other thereby defining a propulsion section (160) (See at least fig. 9 where this is the stern portion 34, lid portion 33 with all internal parts) of said fuselage assembly (100), and wherein in addition or alternatively said propulsion section (160) is detachably coupled ( See at least fig. 8 showing stern portion 34 and lid portion 33 separated from the barrel portion 32 ) to a front portion (101) (bow portion 31, barrel portion 32, bow hydrofoil 43; fig. 9) of said fuselage assembly (100). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (JP 2020111332 A) in view of Schibli (US 20190106190 A1). Regarding claim 10 , Aoki et al teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. However, Aoki et al. does not disclose … a flap mechanism… Schibli in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a flap mechanism ( closable flaps 1376, 1377 with hinges 1375.1, 1375.2, 1376.1, 1376.2; See at least figs. 13A- 13D; para. [0123]) for selectively opening and closing said inlet opening (178) ( closable water inlet ports 1387 ; See at least fig. 13B and para [0122]) , wherein said flap mechanism is designed such that a negative pressure (a negative pressure zone P2; See at least: fig. 13C and para. [0123]) generated by said propulsion device (200) (device 1300) automatically actuates said flap mechanism, ( See at least: fig. 13C and para. [0123]) ) wherein said flap mechanism comprises one or more flaps (See at least : figs. 13A-13D showing more than one) which are pre-biased in the closing direction (See at least: figs. 13A-13C and para. [0123] “…Doors or flaps 1376, 1377 can further be operatively connected to a spring or leaflet to body 1312 of device 1300 to assist in the closing or opening of doors or flaps 1376, 1377), and which flaps (closable flaps 1377) are moved into an opened position against the pre-biasing force when there is a corresponding negative pressure and are automatically moved into a closed position driven by the pre-biasing force when there is no sufficiently large negative pressure. (See at least: figs. 13A-13D; paras. [0123] -[ 0124]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the underwater propulsive device 20 of Aoki et al with the propulsion device 1300 consisting of closable flaps 1376, 1377 of Schibli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing drag on the watercraft when the propulsion device is not powered (See at least: Schibli para [0122] “…when propulsion device 1300 is not powered, it is preferable to reduce a drag of watercraft to a maximum...”). Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (JP 2020111332 A) in view of Montague ( US 20180072383 A1) . Regarding claim 11 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Aoki et al. discloses further comprising a front portion (101) (bow portion 31 , barrel portion 32, bow hydrofoil 43 ; fig. 9 ) adapted to sealingly (where the first compartment 27 has a waterproof structure: See a least fig. 6 and abstract) receive an electric motor (motor 22; See at least: fig. 3 para [0070] where the para. recites “an AC motor”) , However, Aoki et al. does not disclose wherein said electric motor thermally coupled to a casing … (See at least: Fig. 12; cooling water passage) . Montague in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein said electric motor (the power system to include the motor: See at least para. [0125]) thermally coupled to a casing (110) (housing 1302; See at least fig. 13 para [0113]) of said front portion (101) for cooling purposes, (See at least para. [0125] “ In some implementations, a propulsion pod that houses part of the power system (e.g., motor, gearbox, motor controller, etc.) can be made of a material such as aluminum that dissipates heat, so that the whole propulsion pod acts as a heat sink, cooling the inside components as the jetfoiler passes through water. Alternatively, the propulsion pod may be made from carbon fiber or a similar material and have a heat sink panel, similar to the propulsion pod 1300 of FIG. 13. ” ) wherein optionally a motor housing of said electric motor also forms a part of said casing (110) of said front portion (101) in such a manner that said motor housing gets in contact with water on its outer side, such that a direct cooling of said electric motor is possible. (See at least : para. [0128] “ … the motor system 1508, that is made of aluminum or a similar material so that the whole pod acts as a heat sink. . .”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the underwater propulsive device 20 of Aoki et al with a heat sink panel or materials that dissipates heat of Montague with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of cooling the inside components of the underwater propulsive device as it passes through wate r (See at least: Montague para [012 5 ] “… cooling the inside components as the jetfoiler passes through water ...”). Regarding claim 12 , Aoki et al. in view of Montague teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. However, Aoki et al. does not disclose wherein said front portion (101) is … Montague in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein said front portion (101) is further adapted to receive a controller (motor controller 1506 ; See at least: para. [0128] and fig. 15A ) couplable to said electric motor, said controller being thermally coupled to said casing (110) (access panel 1502; See at least: para. [0127] and fig. 15A : where the access panel is part that makes up the external housing ) of said front portion (101) for cooling purposes, wherein said front portion (101) optionally comprises a controller receiving space separated and sealed from an electric motor receiving space. (See at least: para [0128] “ … The motor controller 1506 can also be located inside the propulsion pod, aft of the motor of the motor system 1508…” and fig. 15A ) Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. ( EP 3581482 A1 ) in view of NPL ( Structural support ; Clevis Fastener ). Regarding claim 17 , Aoki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. However, Aoki et al. does not disclose wherein the positive locking (screws 57; See at least para [0061] and fig. 9) is a latching plug and socket connection having a dovetail geometry or being realized by pins. The screw in the application of Aoki et al. acts as a structural support to allow rotation of the stern hydrofoil 44 this is known in the art as a pinned or hinged support (See NPL Structural support chart “varieties of support”). A threaded clevis pin has a partial threaded shank on one end and a formed head on the other where the formed head has a lip to act as a stop when threading the pin. Where the clevis allows for rotation around the clevis pin. (See at least: NPL Clevis Fastener section “clevis pin”) Where the stern hydrofoil 44 of Aoki et al. is similar to the function of the clevis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (clevis pin) for another (screw of Aoki et al. ) , and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the threaded clevis pin would allow for the rotation of stern hydrofoil 44 around the clevis pin. Additional Relevant Prior Art The prior art mad e of record and not relied upon is considere d pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited: Structural S upport [online]. Wikipedia.org, 2020 [archived on 2020-01-24]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20200124003435/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_support>. Clevis Fastener [online]. Wikipedia.org, 2019 [archived on 2019-06-01]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20200124003435/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_support>. Van Houdt (WO 8809286 A1) teaches a fin (10) that moves around a pivot shaft (9) (See at least: figs. 2-3 for the movement which shows in the same line/plane with a support (4). Lee ( KR 20030011380 A ) teaches a device which has the propeller internal to the device so that it is safe for the users such as children when using the device. (See at least: fig 3 showing techniques used in the design to keep the user safe). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6651 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /E.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615