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 Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims state that they depend from cancelled claim 6. For the purposes of this action, these claims will be treated as though they depend from claim 1.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites: “all survival crafts may be control by the master craft control unit.” This should read -- all survival crafts may be controlled by the master craft control unit—or similar.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 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 5 line 3 recites “the survival crafts are wirely connected with the central control unit with only one wire or cable.” It is unclear if this is the same second wire recited in parent claim 1, or the same “only one wire” recited in claim 5 line 2
Claim 7 line 2 recites “at least one unit cable break-away connector is arranged between the survival crafts and the central control unit.” It is unclear if this is the same “unit cable break-away connector…arranged in the second wire” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 15-19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibsen US 9,533,739 in view of Perez US 4,365,579, Benezra US 2020/0003529 and d'Alayer de Costemore d'Arc US 5,480,313 (hereafter d’Arc).
Regarding claim 1, Ibsen teaches a maritime evacuation system to be installed on a vessel or offshore facility, comprising:
a storage unit 7 to be installed on the vessel or offshore facility 1,
at least two survival crafts 5, each having a hull, predominantly made of non-rigid inflatable tubes and one or more shells 22, the survival crafts being configured to be stored in the storage unit in a deflated state,
each survival craft comprises an engine powered propulsion means 23,
the maritime evacuation system further comprising a central control unit being operatively connected with each engine powered propulsion means,
wherein the central control unit is configured to observe the condition of and test the readiness of each engine powered propulsion means at predetermined intervals so that it is continuously monitored if the maritime evacuation system meets the requirements for being ready for rescue (column 11, lines 50-57).
Ibsen does not explicitly teach that each craft comprises at least two engine powered propulsion means, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple propulsion means in order to enable greater maneuverability and redundancy, 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.
While Ibsen teaches “an electronic device which is electronically connected with the propulsion means and which is adapted to check whether the propulsion means are connected with a functioning power supply” (column 11, lines 50-57), Ibsen does not explicitly teach that the central control unit is physically connected to a plurality of survival craft by wires. Perez teaches a maritime evacuation system to be installed on a vessel or offshore facility, comprising:
at least two survival crafts 1, 2, each having a hull 31-33, the survival crafts being configured to be stored on the deck of the vessel 3,
the maritime evacuation system further comprising a central control unit being operatively connected with each survival craft;
wherein each survival craft is operatively connected with each other by wires 6, 7, and wherein the survival crafts are operatively connected with the central control unit by wires 6, 7.
Note that as both crafts communicate with the main ship, they can both be considered as communicating with a central control unit. Further, if each craft is connected to the control unit, then they are also connected together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen by enabling communication between the survival crafts and a central control unit with wires as taught by Perez in order to enable crew within the main vessel to assess the readiness of the survival craft from a central location within the vessel.
Neither Ibsen nor Perez teach that each survival craft is operatively connected with each other survival craft by first wires, each first wire extending between two survival crafts and enabling communication between said survival crafts, and wherein the survival crafts are operatively connected with the central control unit by means of a second wire, said second wire being distinct from said first wires and extending from at least one of the survival crafts to said central unit. Benezra teaches a storage and deployment system for at least two crafts 101, wherein each craft is operatively connected with each other by first connections 102, each first connection extending between two crafts and enabling communication between said crafts, and the crafts are operatively connected with the central control unit 303 by means of a second connection 307, said second connection being distinct from said first connection and extending from at least one of the crafts to said central unit [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen and Perez by operatively connecting the survival crafts with each other by first connections and operatively connecting one craft to the control unit by a second connection as taught by Benezra in order to ensure all crafts are connected without the need for multiple individual cable runs. Note that as taught, the connections would be made by wires as taught by Perez.
While Perez teaches that the cables rupture when the craft is released, it does not teach a unit cable break-away connector is arranged in the second wire; or that a craft cable break-away connector is arranged in said first wires between each survival craft for ensuring that the survival crafts can be separated and move independently in relation to each other after deployment. D’Arc teaches an automatic disconnect mechanism 10 for electrical terminal fittings, which separates the electrical fitting from a mating electrical fitting responsive to a pull on the cable (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen and Perez by with breakaway cable connectors as taught by d'Arc on the craft and unit cables in order to ensure complete and non-catastrophic cable separation while retaining the ability to reconnect if desired.
Regarding claim 2, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen also teaches that each engine powered propulsion means 23 is powered by electricity (column 11, line 49), one or more power supply is/are arranged in the survival craft for providing electricity to the engine powered propulsion means (as they would have to be to function), and the control unit is configured to observe the condition of and test the readiness of each power supply at predetermined intervals so that it is continuously monitored if the maritime evacuation system meets the requirements for being ready for rescue (column 11, lines 50-57). As modified by Perez above, the central control unit is operatively connected with each power supply.
Regarding claim 5 as best understood, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Perez also teaches that the survival crafts 1, 2 are wirely connected with the central control unit with only one wire or cable 6, 7 (note that Perez depicts the wires as one cable). Benezra also teaches that the second connection only comprises one connection between a selected one of the crafts 101 and the central control unit 303, such that the survival crafts are wirely connected with the central control unit with only one wire or cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen and Perez by operatively connecting the survival crafts with each other by first connections and operatively connecting one craft to the control unit by a single second connection as taught by Benezra in order to ensure all crafts are connected without the need for multiple individual cable runs. Note that as taught, the connections would be made by wires as taught by Perez.
Regarding claim 7 as best understood, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As detailed above, as taught by d’Arc, at least one unit cable break-away connector is arranged between the survival crafts and the central control unit for ensuring that the survival crafts can be separated from the central control unit at deployment of the survival crafts.
Regarding claim 10, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen also teaches one or more temperature altering devices 10. In this case, opening the door can alter the temperature inside the container.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. As taught, the break-away connectors are configured to break when the survival craft are moved out of storage or separated.
Regarding claim 17, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen also teaches that each survival craft 5 has a craft control unit, the craft control unit being configured to control the engine powered propulsion means 23 of the survival craft. Please note that whatever powers the propulsion means can be considered a craft control unit.
Regarding claim 18, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Perez also teaches that the first and second wires 6, 7 are configured to transport data and/or electricity (column 3, lines 23-30).
In the alternative interpretation, Benezra teaches that the first 102 and second 307 wires are configured to transport data and/or electricity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen and Perez by operatively connecting the survival crafts with each other by first connections and operatively connecting one craft to the control unit by a single second connection as taught by Benezra in order to ensure all crafts are connected without the need for multiple individual cable runs.
Regarding claim 19, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen also teaches a vessel 1 or offshore facility comprising a maritime evacuation system according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As detailed above, as taught by d’Arc, the unit cable break-away connector is configured to separate when the survival crafts are being moved out of the storage unit during deployment, and the craft cable break-away connectors are configured to break during inflation of each survival craft or during separation of one survival craft from another.
Regarding claim 23, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the survival crafts are configured to temporarily remain in communication with each other over the first wires during deployment after the unit cable break-away connector is separated and before the craft cable break-away connectors are broken.
Claims 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibsen US 9,533,739 in view of Perez US 4,365,579, Benezra US 2020/0003529, d'Alayer de Costemore d'Arc US 5,480,313 (hereafter d’Arc) and Jung US 2014/0107862.
Regarding claim 3, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen does not teach specifics of the functionality check. Jung teaches a maritime vessel 2 comprising sensors 14, 16 arranged to measure temperature of the vessel’s battery 8 in order to determine usability/readiness of the vessel [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen by utilizing temperature sensors to determine usability of the batteries as taught by Jung in order to ensure the battery system is at a correct temperature, and determine a more comprehensive picture of craft readiness. As modified, the control unit is operatively connected with the one or more sensors.
Regarding claim 8, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen does not teach indication means being configured to disclose whether the maritime evacuation system is ready for rescue. Jung teaches a maritime vessel 2 comprising sensors 14, 16 arranged to measure temperature of the vessel’s battery 8 in order to determine usability/readiness of the vessel [0019] which can then be presented on a display 24 on a control unit 30 [0038-39]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen displaying system readiness on the control unit as taught by Jung in order to enable system readiness to be easily checked remotely.
Regarding claim 9, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen does not teach specifics of the functionality check. Jung teaches a maritime vessel 2 comprising temperature sensors 14, 16 arranged at the power supply 8 in the vessel for measuring a temperature at the power supply in the survival crafts and/or a temperature of the power supply, the temperature sensor being operatively connected with the central control unit 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen by utilizing temperature sensors to determine usability of the batteries as taught by Jung in order to ensure the battery system is at a correct temperature, and determine a more comprehensive picture of craft readiness. As modified, the control unit is operatively connected with the one or more sensors.
Claims 9-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibsen US 9,533,739 in view of Perez US 4,365,579, Benezra US 2020/0003529, d'Alayer de Costemore d'Arc US 5,480,313 (hereafter d’Arc) and Gaither US 2020/0079226.
Regarding claim 9, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen does not teach specifics of the functionality check. Gaither teaches a battery management apparatus in which a temperature sensor 118 is arranged at the power supply 106 in a vehicle 102 for measuring a temperature at the power supply in the vehicle and/or a temperature of the power supply, the temperature sensor being operatively connected with a central control unit 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with a temperature control system (with temperature sensors) as taught by Gaither in order to monitor the battery and provide temperature correction as needed. As modified, the control unit is operatively connected with the one or more sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternative interpretation, Ibsen does not teach one or more temperature altering devices. Gaither teaches a battery management apparatus comprising one or more temperature altering devices 112. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with a temperature control system (with temperature altering devices) as taught by Gaither in order to monitor the battery and provide temperature correction as needed.
Regarding claim 11, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen does not teach that the storage unit comprises one or more fans or ventilators for circulating and/or blowing tempered air at designated positions in the storage unit. Gaither teaches a battery management apparatus comprising one or more fans or ventilators 128, 132 for circulating and/or blowing tempered air at designated positions (the battery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with a temperature control system (with fans/blowers) as taught by Gaither in order to monitor the battery and provide temperature correction as needed. Note that the crafts of Ibsen are in a designated position in the storage unit.
Regarding claim 12, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra, d'Arc and Gaither teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. As stated above, Gaither teaches that a fan or ventilator 128, 132 is configured to blowing tempered air in the vicinity of the power supplies 106 in the vehicle (which as modified is the survival craft) for controlling the temperature of the power supplies.
Regarding claim 13, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra, d'Arc and Gaither teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Ibsen does not teach that the central control unit is configured to maintain the power supply in the survival crafts at a predetermined temperature. As stated above, Gaither teaches a battery management apparatus configured to maintain the power supply in a vehicle at a predetermined temperature (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with a temperature control system (with temperature altering devices) as taught by Gaither in order to monitor the battery and provide temperature correction as needed.
Regarding claim 14, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra, d'Arc and Gaither teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Gaither teaches that “a normal operation temperature range for the battery...may be approximately between 10° C-45° C or a pre-configured temperature range set at the factory or by a technician” [0049] but does not explicitly teach that the predetermined temperature is between 0 to 35 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined temperature is between 0 to 35° C in order to tailor the environment to the particular power supply employed, 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 20, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra, d'Arc and Gaither teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Gaither teaches that “a normal operation temperature range for the battery...may be approximately between 10° C-45° C or a pre-configured temperature range set at the factory or by a technician” [0049] but does not explicitly teach that the predetermined temperature is around 20 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the temperature around 20 degrees Celsius in order to tailor the environment to the particular power supply employed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibsen US 9,533,739 in view of Perez US 4,365,579, Benezra US 2020/0003529, d'Alayer de Costemore d'Arc US 5,480,313 (hereafter d’Arc) and Daly US 9,957,045.
Regarding claim 21, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ibsen also teaches that each survival craft includes a craft control unit, but does not teach that at least one of said craft control units is configured to be a master craft control unit which can control the other craft control units before the survival crafts are separated so that all survival crafts may be controlled by the master craft control unit. Daly teaches a system of vehicles 2, 4 comprising control units 38, 40, and at least one of said craft control units is configured to be a master craft control unit which can control the other craft control units before the vehicles are separated so that all vehicles may be control by the master craft control unit (“Upon interconnection, the control systems perform a handshaking protocol that establishes one of the control systems 38 as master and the other control system(s) 40 as slave(s). Now the master control system controls all drones in the stack so they are coordinated and may share power as needed” column 4, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with control systems that can take control of multiple crafts as taught by Daly in order to ensure that crafts operate in a coordinated manner while attached.
Regarding claim 23, Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d'Arc teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternate interpretation, Ibsen does not teach that the survival crafts are configured to temporarily remain in communication with each other over the first wires during deployment after the unit cable break-away connector is separated and before the craft cable break-away connectors are broken. Daly teaches a system of vehicles 2, 4 comprising control units 38, 40, wherein the control units can remain in communication as long as the vehicles are connected (column 4, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the evacuation system of Ibsen with control systems that communicate between each other as taught by Daly in order to ensure that crafts operate in a coordinated manner while attached.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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). In this case, the applicant argues that Benezra relies on a stack of drones in rigid contact. However, Benezra is only relied upon for the teaching of communication architecture between linked vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how these teachings can be applied to a wide variety of crafts, including the survival crafts of Ibsen.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the applicant argues that Ibsen, Perez, Benezra and d’Arc pertain to such disparate subject matter that their use together must be hindsight based on the current disclosure. The examiner disagrees.
The primary reference Ibsen pertains to a cluster of smaller crafts docked to a larger craft. Perez also pertains to a series of smaller crafts docked to a larger craft.
Benezra pertains to communication architecture between a docked cluster of crafts. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how this would benefit a system of docked crafts such as Ibsen.
D’Arc teaches a generic automatically disconnecting fitting. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how this would benefit any system that is connected by cables, such as those of Ibsen and Perez.
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
Prosecution Insights