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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “to actuate the at least one adjustable surface the at least one rudder to control...” This was likely intended to recite -- to actuate at least one adjustable surface or the at least one rudder to control...—or similar, and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of this action. 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, 11 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 5, line 3 recites “actuate the at least one adjustable surface...” It is unclear if “the at least one adjustable surface” is referring to the “adjustable surface” on the first wing or the second wing.
Regarding claim 11, line 3 recites “to actuate the at least one adjustable surface the at least one rudder to control...” It is unclear if “the at least one adjustable surface” is referring to the “adjustable surface” on the first wing or the second wing.
Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a brand of wireless communication protocols and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-3, 6-10, 11, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai US 2023/0043812 alone, or alternatively in view of Ostanin US 2021/0147040.
PNG
media_image1.png
251
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Yanai Figure 5
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Yanai teaches a training hydrofoil system for connection with a watercraft comprising:
a first wing 117 including at least one adjustable surface/aileron (not shown in figure 5, see “Main Wing Flaps” in figure 3);
a second wing 128 including at least one adjustable surface/elevator 124;
a fuselage 122 extending longitudinally and the first wing and the second wing connected to the fuselage and extending latitudinally relative to the fuselage, the fuselage including an attachment feature for attaching to the watercraft;
at least one sensor 301, 114;
an electronic control unit 113, 306 capable of actuating at least one adjustable surface to modify a course of the watercraft; and
a power source 112.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Yanai Figure 3
Please note that while main wing flaps are not shown in figure 5, Yanai teaches that main wing flaps 134 can be used to augment control. If applicant does not agree that these are taught in the same embodiment, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai figure 5 with main wing flaps as taught by Yanai figure 6 in order to achieve greater control or “strengthen the control lift produced by the tail elevator” [0098].
Yanai does not teach that the power source and the electronic control unit are positioned in the fuselage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the power source and the ECU in the fuselage in order to make them easier to service or enable the use of more watercraft/board configurations, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In an alternative interpretation, Ostanin teaches a power unit 100 that is attachable to the underside of a watercraft, comprising a power source 301 and an electronic control unit 300 are positioned in the fuselage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai by locating the power source and the electronic control unit in the fuselage with the motor and control surfaces as taught by Ostanin in order to make the entire system easier to replace or maintain, or allow the system to be used with a wider variety of watercraft/board configurations.
Regarding claim 2, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches that the power source is a battery 112.
Regarding claim 3, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches at least one sensor 301, 114, the at least one sensor being at least one of a LIDAR sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, a gyroscope, and an ultrasonic sensor [0056].
Regarding claim 6, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches that the first wing 117 is positioned towards a leading portion of the system relative to the second wing 128, the first wing configured to provide lift to the system [0060].
Regarding claim 7, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Yanai also teaches that the at least one adjustable surface of the first wing includes two ailerons, one aileron positioned along trailing portions of the first wing on each side of the fuselage, but does not explicitly teach that the ailerons are configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit. Examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known in the art to enable independent rotation of ailerons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with independently controllable ailerons in order to provide more precise control and stabilization.
Regarding claim 8, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches that the second wing 128 is positioned towards a trailing portion of the system relative to the first wing 117, the second wing configured to provide horizonal stabilization to the system.
Regarding claim 9, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Yanai also teaches that the at least one adjustable portion of the second wing includes two elevators, one elevator positioned on each side of the fuselage, but does not explicitly teach that each elevator is configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit. Examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known in the art to enable independent rotation of elevators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with independently controllable elevators in order to provide more precise control and stabilization.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Yanai also teaches a vertical stabilizing fin 129 positioned at a rear end of the fuselage 122 with at least one rudder 123 positioned thereon, the at least one rudder configured to rotate based on input from the ECU to provide vertical stabilization to the system.
Regarding claim 11, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches that the sensor 301 is configured to communicate with the electronic control unit 306 to determine a stabilization pattern and a modified course of the watercraft and to actuate the at least one adjustable surface and/or the at least one rudder to control a roll, pitch, and yaw of the watercraft [0021].
Regarding claim 12, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai does not teach that the attachment feature is a quick-connect attachment configured to receive a strut. Ostanin teaches that the power unit 100 is attached via a quick-connect attachment 102. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with a quick-connect attachment as taught by Ostanin in order to make the entire system easier to replace or maintain, or allow the system to be used with a wider variety of watercraft/board configurations.
Regarding claim 15, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai does not teach that the electronic control unit and the power source are positioned in separate waterproof compartments within the fuselage. Ostanin teaches a power unit 100 that is attachable to the underside of a watercraft, comprising a power source 301 and an electronic control unit 300 are positioned in waterproof compartments within the power unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai by locating the power source and the electronic control unit in a waterproof housing in the fuselage with the motor and control surfaces as taught by Ostanin in order to make the entire system easier to replace or maintain, or allow the system to be used with a wider variety of watercraft/board configurations while protecting them from water damage.
Neither Yanai nor Ostanin teach that the electronic control unit and the power source are positioned in separate compartments, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place components is separate housings in order to simplify maintenance and/or replacement and add a further layer of water protection, 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. Also as noted above, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 13.The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 19, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Yanai also teaches actuating at least one rudder 123 on a vertical stabilizer 129 based on the orientation of the hydrofoil, the vertical stabilizer positioned on a rear end of the fuselage 122 and orthogonally extending from the fuselage.
Regarding claim 20, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Yanai also teaches determining a stabilization correction based on the orientation of the hydrofoil and rotating at least one of the aileron, elevator, and rudder to stabilize the hydrofoil [0012, 0021].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai US 2023/0043812 in view of Hanson US 2021/0318682, and alternatively in view of Ostanin US 2021/0147040.
Regarding claim 4, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai also teaches that the sensor is configured to determine at least a depth of the system in water, an angle of the watercraft corresponding to a roll, pitch, and yaw axis, and a velocity of the watercraft, and to communicate a corresponding output to the electronic control unit (see Yanai figure 3).
Yanai does not explicitly teach that the sensor is configured to determine surface conditions of the water. Hanson teaches a watercraft control system which comprises environmental sensors 4614 which determine surface conditions and communicate the output to an orientation control unit 4603. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with environment sensors as taught by Hanson in order to account for outside factors and influences in the orientation control.
Regarding claim 5, Yanai and Hanson, together or alternatively in view of Ostanin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Yanai also teaches that the sensor 301 is capable of communicating with the electronic control unit 306 to provide data to the electronic control unit and the electronic control unit is capable of using the data to actuate the at least one adjustable surface 307 to modify the course of the watercraft [0012, 0021].
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai US 2023/0043812 in view of Tian US 10,486,771, and alternatively in view of Ostanin US 2021/0147040.
Regarding claim 7, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Yanai also teaches that the at least one adjustable surface of the first wing includes two ailerons, one aileron positioned along trailing portions of the first wing on each side of the fuselage, but does not explicitly teach that the ailerons are configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit. Tian teaches a training hydrofoil system for connection with a watercraft comprising:
a first wing 121 including at least one adjustable surface/aileron 123, 124;
a second wing 132’ including at least one adjustable surface/elevator 133’, 134’;
a fuselage 131’ extending longitudinally and the first wing and the second wing connected to the fuselage and extending latitudinally relative to the fuselage, the fuselage including an attachment feature for attaching to the watercraft;
at least one sensor 150;
an electronic control unit 160 capable of actuating at least one adjustable surface to modify a course of the watercraft;
a power source (column 10, lines 19-21);
wherein the at least one adjustable surface of the first wing includes two ailerons, one aileron positioned along trailing portions of the first wing on each side of the fuselage and configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit (column 6, lines 15-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with independently controllable ailerons as taught by Tian in order to provide more precise control and stabilization.
Regarding claim 9, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Yanai also teaches that the at least one adjustable portion of the second wing includes two elevators, one elevator positioned on each side of the fuselage, but does not explicitly teach that each elevator is configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit. Tian teaches a training hydrofoil system for connection with a watercraft comprising:
a first wing 121 including at least one adjustable surface/aileron 123, 124;
a second wing 132’ including at least one adjustable surface/elevator 133’, 134’;
a fuselage 131’ extending longitudinally and the first wing and the second wing connected to the fuselage and extending latitudinally relative to the fuselage, the fuselage including an attachment feature for attaching to the watercraft;
at least one sensor 150;
an electronic control unit 160 capable of actuating at least one adjustable surface to modify a course of the watercraft;
a power source (column 10, lines 19-21);
wherein the at least one adjustable surface of the first wing includes two ailerons, one aileron positioned along trailing portions of the first wing on each side of the fuselage and configured to independently rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit (column 6, lines 15-26);
wherein the at least one adjustable portion of the second wing includes two elevators, one elevator positioned on each side of the fuselage and each elevator configured to rotate based on a signal from the electronic control unit (column 7, lines 31-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with independently controllable elevators as taught by Tian (in regards to the ailerons) in order to provide more precise control and stabilization.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai US 2023/0043812 in view of Montague US 2021/0347442, and alternatively in view of Ostanin US 2021/0147040.
Regarding claim 16, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Yanai also teaches that the actuators for each of the at least one aileron, at least one elevator, and at least one rudder 307 are in communication with the electronic control unit 306. Yanai does not teach that the actuators are servos. Montague teaches a hydrofoil watercraft 104 which comprises wings 116 which have servo-actuated control surfaces [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with servo actuated control surfaces as taught by Montague in order to enable precise feedback of actuator positions, providing more comprehensive control.
Regarding claim 17, Yanai and Montague, together or alternatively in view of Ostanin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Yanai also teaches that the electronic control unit communicates to the at least one actuator wirelessly [0096], but does not teach Bluetooth. Montague teaches a hydrofoil watercraft 104 which comprises wings 116 which have servo-actuated control surfaces [0032] that communicate with the ECU via Bluetooth [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with Bluetooth communication as taught by Montague in order to utilize a proven commercial standard and avoid potential interference.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai US 2023/0043812 in view of Brennan US 9,533,740, and alternatively in view of Ostanin US 2021/0147040.
Regarding claim 15, Yanai alone or alternatively in view of Ostanin teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yanai does not teach that the electronic control unit and the power source are positioned in separate waterproof compartments within the fuselage. Brennan teaches a watercraft in which various equipment modules are housed in separate waterproof compartments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yanai with separate drybox enclosures as taught by Brennan in order to “minimize the effects of a possible leak” (column 6, lines 7-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Langelaan US 9,359,044 teaches a hydrofoil watercraft in which components are housed in waterproof compartments.
Hagen US 11,731,741 teaches a hydrofoil watercraft with various independent control surfaces.
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