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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 14 recites “wherein each survival craft is operatively connected with each other survival craft by first wires.” Given the explanation in the remarks of 1/12/26 and the disclosure as originally filed, this will be interpreted to mean that each craft can communicate with each other craft via intermediate craft, not directly. Note that (as applicant points out in the remarks) current figure 5 depicts that each craft 5 is connect to adjacent craft via cable 22, while a single craft is connected to central control unit 16 via cable 21.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 2 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. It is further unclear if all crafts are individually connected with the central control unit, or through other units are previously 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, 10 and 17-19 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, and alternatively also in view of Benezra US 2020/0003529.
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 and wherein the survival crafts are operatively connected with the central control unit by means of a second wire. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional wire connections in order to provide redundancy and/or increase capacity, 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. As modified, one wire can be interpreted as the first wire (as the collective first wires operatively connect the crafts to each other) and the duplicate wire can be interpreted as the second wire (as the second wire operatively connects the crafts to the central control unit).
In an alternate interpretation, 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, and the crafts are operatively connected with the central control unit 303 by means of a second connection 307 [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.
Regarding claim 2, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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). In this interpretation, one of the control cables is considered to be connecting to the control unit. If applicant disagrees, then it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form all cables into a single cable in order to reduce complexity and simplify connection, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
In the alternative interpretation, Benezra teaches that the crafts 101 are wirely connected with the central control unit 303 with only one connection 307. 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 10, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 claim 17, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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.
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 (and alternatively also in view of Benezra US 2020/0003529) and Jung US 2014/0107862.
Regarding claim 3, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 6, 7, 15 and 16 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 (and alternatively also in view of Benezra US 2020/0003529) and d'Alayer de Costemore d'Arc US 5,480,313 (hereafter d’Arc).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. While Perez teaches that the cables rupture when the craft is released, it does not teach a craft cable break-away connector is arranged between each survival craft and the central control unit 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 in order to ensure complete and non-catastrophic cable separation while retaining the ability to reconnect if desired. Note that as all crafts are connected to the central control unit, this connection is also between the crafts.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Ibsen, Perez and d'Arc (or also in view of Benezra) 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.
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 (and alternatively also in view of Benezra US 2020/0003529) and Gaither US 2020/0079226.
Regarding claim 9, Ibsen and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Perez, together or also in view of Benezra, 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 and Gaither (or also in view of Benezra) 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 and Gaither (or also in view of Benezra) 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 and Gaither (or also in view of Benezra) 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 and Gaither (or also in view of Benezra) 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 employe, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended claim limitations, please see above. The device as taught still reads on the claims as written.
In response to applicant's argument that Benezra is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the current application, Ibsen, Perez and Benezra all pertain to a system of vehicles that are share a data connection while linked in a storage state, and can be separated and deployed. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the system of linking and sharing power/data between vehicles while stored as taught by Benezra could be applicable to a series of connected vehicles when stored as taught by Ibsen.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Benezra does not teach ‘first wires’ for craft-to-craft connection and a separate ‘second wire’ for the craft-to-controller connection. Instead, Benezra's inter-craft and craft-to-controller connections are part of the same integrated serial path” (page 11), the examiner disagrees. In this case, the distinction of “first” or “second” wire is nominal- any connection between individual crafts is the first wire, while the connection between any of the crafts and the controller is the second wire. If the data connection of Benezra is applied to Ibsen, the result will be one craft connected directly to the control unit (second wire) and individual connections between the crafts (first wires).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Wire)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First wires)]
PNG
media_image1.png
276
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
361
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Current Application Figure 5, Benezra Figure 3
Conclusion
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