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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/25 has been entered.
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 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon US 11,008,076 in view of Broughton US 12,110,087, and alternately also in view of Hayashi US 2022/0073179, Faust US 1,861,338 and Teetor US 3,085,536.
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a multihull module, comprising:
a plurality of power floats 30 disposed on a vehicle 300, wherein a number of the power floats is at least two;
an actuation interface controller coupled to the power floats and configured to control the power floats; and
a vehicle controller coupled to the actuation interface controller and configured to provide a control signal to the actuation interface controller,
wherein the actuation interface controller controls the power floats according to the control signal (please note that the vehicle is able to control the power floats, and therefore whatever components make this possible can be considered to be an actuation interface controller and/or a vehicle controller, and the any signal that enables this control can be considered a control signal);
a float body configured to provide buoyancy (column 7 line 62-column 8 line 8);
a propulsion system 40 disposed at a stern of the float body, wherein the propulsion system comprises a propeller 42;
wherein the propulsion system is a multi-steering propulsion system (as the vehicle is able to steer in multiple directions).
Gordon does not teach that the module comprises four power floats, however would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add at least four power floats in able to increase stability, payload or control, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Gordon Figure 3
Gordon also teaches that the power floats comprise a first power float and a second power float, but does not explicitly teach that the first power float and the second power float are disposed along a traveling direction of a hull, and the first power float is disposed in front of the second power float, wherein a distance between the second power float and the first power float is greater than a preset length, so that the second power float is disposed outside a wake influence area of the first power float when the multihull module is moving forward. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate one power float in front of another spaced apart in order to obtain greater stability, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that wake influence area is dependent on speed, and is almost non-existent when the vehicle is moving slowly. Please also note that while Gordon does not teach that the preset length is determined based on a ship hydrodynamic simulation analysis to position the second power float in an area outside the wake influence area, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Gordon does not teach a transverse propulsion system disposed on a hull of the float body. Broughton teaches a marine vehicle comprising a transverse propulsion system 117, 118 disposed on a hull of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with a transverse propulsion system as taught by Broughton in order to enable precise turning and steering.
In an alternative interpretation, Gordon does not explicitly teach an actuation interface controller coupled to the power floats and configured to control the power floats; and a vehicle controller coupled to the actuation interface controller and configured to provide a control signal to the actuation interface controller, wherein the actuation interface controller controls the power floats according to the control signal. Hayashi teaches a marine vehicle comprising:
an actuation interface controller 31, 4 coupled to the power floats and configured to control the power floats; and
a vehicle controller 32 coupled to the actuation interface controller and configured to provide a control signal to the actuation interface controller,
wherein the actuation interface controller controls the power floats according to the control signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with the control architecture of Hayashi in order to ensure proper distributed control of the power floats.
In an alternative interpretation, Gordon does not teach that the module comprises four power floats, the first power float and the second power float are disposed along a traveling direction of a hull, and the first power float is disposed in front of the second power float, wherein a distance between the second power float and the first power float is greater than a preset length, so that the second power float is disposed outside a wake influence area of the first power float.
Faust teaches a multihull module comprising at least four power floats 1 disposed on a vehicle, wherein the power floats comprise a first power float and a second power float, the first power float and the second power float are disposed along a traveling direction of a hull, and the first power float is disposed in front of the second power float, wherein a distance between the second power float and the first power float is greater than a preset length, so that the second power float is disposed outside a wake influence area of the first power float when the multihull module is moving forward. Please note that wake influence area is dependent on speed, and is almost non-existent when the vehicle is moving slowly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with one power float in front of another as taught by Faust in order to provide greater stability to the vehicle. Please also note that while Faust does not teach that the preset length is determined based on a ship hydrodynamic simulation analysis to position the second power float in an area outside the wake influence area, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
In an alternative interpretation, Gordon does not teach that the preset length is determined based on a ship hydrodynamic simulation analysis to position the second power float in an area outside the wake influence area. Teetor teaches a multihull module comprising four power floats, wherein the power floats comprise a first power float 35a and a second power float 35b, the first power float and the second power float are disposed along a traveling direction of a hull, and the first power float is disposed in front of the second power float, wherein a distance between the second power float and the first power float is greater than a preset length, so that the second power float is disposed outside a wake influence area of the first power float when the multihull module is moving forward (column 6, lines 58-63), wherein the preset length is determined based on a ship hydrodynamic simulation analysis to position the second power float in an area outside the wake influence area. Please note that in order to determine that the rear motors are outside of the wake area of the first motors, some form of hydrodynamic simulation must have been performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon by locating power floats outside the wake area of other power floats as taught by Teetor in order to avoid wake interference and obtain more predictable steering results.
PNG
media_image2.png
300
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Teetor Figure 9
Regarding claim 2, Gordon and Broughton, together or also in view of Hayashi, Faust and/or Teetor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Hayashi also teaches that the actuation interface controller 31, 4 is coupled to the power floats (engines) in a wireless manner, and is coupled to the vehicle controller 32 in a wired manner (The communication lines may represent wired communication or wireless communication [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Gordon and Broughton, together or also in view of Hayashi, Faust and/or Teetor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Hayashi also teaches:
a power distributor 5, 28 coupled to the actuation interface controller 31, 4 and the vehicle controller 32,
wherein the power floats (engine) are coupled to the power distributor in a wired manner, and a battery unit 34 of the power floats output a first power P11 signal to the power distributor,
wherein the power distributor outputs a plurality of second power signals (from 28 to 22) to a plurality of motor units 22 of the power floats (engine) according to the first power signals to drive the motor units of the power floats.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (4th Power Signal)][AltContent: textbox (3rd Power Signal)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Actuation Interface Controller)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Power Signal)][AltContent: textbox (Power Distributor)]
PNG
media_image3.png
467
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Hayashi Figure 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with the control architecture of Hayashi in order to ensure proper distributed control of the power floats.
Regarding claim 4, Gordon and Broughton, together or also in view of Hayashi, Faust and/or Teetor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Hayashi also teaches that the power distributor 5, 28 outputs a third power signal to the actuation interface controller 31, 4, and outputs a fourth power signal to the vehicle controller 32, wherein the third power signal is different from the fourth power signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with the control architecture of Hayashi in order to ensure proper distributed control of the power floats.
Regarding claim 10, Gordon and Broughton, together or also in view of Hayashi, Faust and/or Teetor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gordon also teaches that the multihull module is an unmanned ship, and is configured to be provided with an unmanned aerial vehicle 24 and an underwater detection vehicle 48 (column 1, lines 36-39).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon US 11,008,076 in view of Broughton US 12,110,087, and alternately also in view of Hayashi US 2022/0073179, Faust US 1,861,338 and/or Teetor US 3,085,536, and further in view of Jesewitz US 2022/0169349.
Regarding claim 5, Gordon and Broughton, together or also in view of Hayashi, Faust and/or Teetor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Hayashi also teaches that the third power signal and the fourth power signal are respectively DC signals.
Neither Gordon nor Hayashi teach that the power distributor further outputs a fifth power signal, wherein the fifth power signal is an AC signal. Jesewitz teaches a marine vehicle which comprises multiple batteries 520 which are controlled by a power distributor 500, wherein the vehicle also comprises an inverter 530 for generating an AC power signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multihull module of Gordon with an AC inverter as taught by Jesewitz in order to enable the use of AC powered equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the newly added limitations that “the preset length (between the power floats) is determined based on a ship hydrodynamic simulation analysis to position the second power float in an area outside the wake influence area,” the examiner has two responses.
First, as previously stated, the wake area could be very small or large, depending on vehicle speed. In the configuration taught by Faust there will be a range of speeds in which the second power float is outside a wake influence area of the first power float. Note that it is not recited a rear float is outside of the wake influence area of a front float for all possible speed cases, as the wake area continuously enlarges with increases in speed (unless the vessel achieves a planning state, which the current invention is not configured to do). As such, and without further limitation, the claim must be interpreted to say that there is a limited speed range in which a rear float is outside of the wake influence area of a front float. As stated above, in the arrangement taught by Faust, there is inherently some speed range at which this is true.
Second, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. That is, for an apparatus claim, the manner in which the spacing was decided is irrelevant when the prior art of record teaches the recited spacing.
In the interest of compact prosecution, a new teaching has been added above. Teetor teaches that in a multihull module with multiple propulsion systems, the propulsion systems should be located out each other’s wake areas.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615