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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 11, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Wilson (US 8955452). With respect to claims 1-2, 17, Wilson discloses the claimed method and apparatus including a boat with a deck having a front end, a rear end, sides and an underdeck (note column 3, lines 40-45; Figures 1-2), a motor (column 1, line 21) supported on the rear end portion of the deck, at least two longitudinally extending, laterally spaced pontoons (note column 3, lines 40-45; Figures 1-2), mounted on the underdeck and being separated from one another by a space and a longitudinally extending planning panel 140 located in the space and having a downwardly facing surface that is configured to ride along the surface of the water when the boat is underway, the planning panel extending at least 75% of the width of the space(note column 3, lines 40-45; Figures 1-4). With respect to claims 7-9, 15, 19, note Wilson, Figures 1-2, 10-12. With respect to claim 11, the system follows from the apparatus of Wilson. With respect to claim 16, the method follows from the apparatus of Wilson.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8955452) in view of Curtis (US 7950340). With respect to claims 3, 12, Wilson does disclose three pontoons. Curtis teaches three pontoons 6, 8 (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Wilson with three pontoons as taught by Curtis with a high likelihood of success for improved stability and buoyancy and thus improved safety. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some years of experience in the marine field, multi hull boats and hydrofoils and advanced degrees.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8955452) in view of Currie (US 1081489). With respect to claims 4-6, Wilson does disclose steps with a rear panel closer to the underdeck than a front end panel. Currie teaches stepped foils with a rear panel closer to an underdeck than a front end panel (Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Wilson with steps in the manner taught by Currie with a high likelihood of success for improved economy via reduced drag. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some years of experience in the marine field, multi hull boats and hydrofoils and advanced degrees.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8955452) in view of Repin (RU 2744812 C1). With respect to claims 10 and 20, Wilson does disclose openings. Repin teaches hydrofoil openings 122, 130 (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Wilson with hydrofoil openings as taught by Repin with a high likelihood of success for improved efficiency. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some years of experience in the marine field, multi hull boats and hydrofoils and advanced degrees.
Claims 4 and 13-14 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. It is unclear how the rear end portion of the planing panel is closer than a front end portion in view of front end panel 170 being the uppermost panel (Figure 7A).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cathers et al (US 3141436) shows a foil device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615