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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8, 18 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 (and all claims that depend therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without additional components, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 1 and 16 recite receiving steering and propulsion input from the same wheels, but the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention. Please note that in the elected embodiment (of figure 8), all 4 wheels of a land vehicle rest on propulsion interfacing units which comprise rollers to be rotated by the land vehicle’s wheels. Claims 1 and 16 proceed to also recite a “steering interfacing system employing the rotation of the wheel or wheels of the land vehicle in the yaw direction,” however it is unclear how the steering wheels would be allowed to yaw while still interfacing with the propulsion interfacing units. The claims broadly state that this is accomplished with no mechanical details, and no direction or examples are provider by the applicant in the disclosure as to how this could be accomplished. While such a system is theoretically possible, it would require complex linkages and/or systems that would be critical or essential to the practice of the invention but are not included in the claims. Further, there is no evidence of any explanation as to their nature in the disclosure to indicate that the applicant has possession of the claimed invention, and to develop a working system that meets the claims as written would require undue experimentation based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404.
Claim 17 recites a reversing system of the vehicle which employs a reversing bucket to redirect propulsion flow. However, the claim recites that the reversing bucket is engaged when it is detected that the wheels of the land vehicle are operating in a reverse direction. It is unclear how this is intended to function from a mechanical perspective- based on the disclosure, the wheels of the vehicle engage with the propulsion interfacing system to drive the boat propulsion system. That is, when the land vehicle is operated in a forward direction, the boat is propelled in a forward direction. Note that a reversing bucket requires a consistent output which it will then reroute in a different rejection. Based on the description of the propulsion interfacing system, if the vehicle was operated in reverse, the drive system (rollers 802, 803, wheel gearboxes 808, 809, shafts 806, 807, 808, 811, dual input gearbox 812 and propulsion shaft 814) would also operate in reverse. Despite this, claim 17 recites that the reversing bucket is moved into operational position when the land vehicle’s wheels are rotated in a reverse direction. It is unclear how the system operates if the reversing bucket is in a position of the stream of output water when the propulsion output shaft is rotating in the reverse direction as well. While a system that operates as recited is theoretically possible, it would require complex linkages, clutches and/or systems that would be critical or essential to the practice of the invention but are not included in the claims. There would need to be some form of reversing gearbox that could keep the output shaft turning in the same direction even when the land vehicle’s wheels are reversed in order for the reversing bucket to be effective, and there are no examples or direction to provide evidence in the disclosure that such a system is contemplated by the applicant. Development of a working system that meets the claims as written would require undue experimentation based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404.
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 1-5, 15, 16 and 17 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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 claims 1 and 16 (as detailed above), it is unclear how the steering system as recited is intended to function with the propulsion interfacing system as disclosed. In the interest of compact prosecution, for the purposes of this action the steering and propulsion interfacing system will be addressed separately, and concerns about how they operate in conjunction will be addressed once the 112(a) and (b) issues are resolved.
Claims 2-5 and 15 recite limitations about “the land vehicle.” As parent claim only recites the aquatic vehicle converter, it is unclear it the land vehicle is intended to be positively recited, or how limitations about the land vehicle affect the recited converter.
Regarding claim 5, line 12 recites “for each pair of the propulsion interfacing units that are in contact with the front wheels of the land vehicle…” seemingly indicating that propulsion interfacing units are required for the front wheels. However, line 2 recites that “the front wheels or rear wheels or both are driven wheels…” seemingly indicating that propulsion interfacing units are not required for the front wheels. It is unclear how many propulsion interfacing units are intended to be positively recited. For the purposes of this action it will be interpreted that the details of the front propulsion interfacing units are optional.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “a prescribed speed factor” in lines 20 and 19 (respectively). It is unclear if this is the same “prescribed speed factor” recited in parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 17 (as detailed above), it is unclear how the reversing system as recited is intended to function with the propulsion interfacing system as disclosed. In the interest of compact prosecution, for the purposes of this action the claim will be interpreted as a reversing bucket that is deployed when commanded. Concerns about how they operate in conjunction will be addressed once the 112(a) and (b) issues are resolved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 19 and 20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoo US 4,522,601.
PNG
media_image1.png
183
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Yoo Figure 3
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses an aquatic vehicle converter that employes a motor or engine powered multi-wheeled land vehicle to propel and steer a boat body, comprising:
a boat body 1 comprising propulsion and steering systems;
a propulsion interfacing system 9-12 that interfaces a driven wheel or wheels 7 of the land vehicle with the propulsion system 16 of the boat body, said propulsion interfacing system employing the rotation of the driven wheel or wheels of the land vehicle to rotate one or more output shafts 15 that are used to power the propulsion system of the boat body, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system causes the rotational speed of the output shaft or shafts to be greater than the rotational speed of the driven wheel or wheels of the land vehicle by a prescribed speed factor; and
a steering interfacing system 22-26 that interfaces the wheel or wheels 21 of the land vehicle used for steering with the steering system of the boat body, said steering interfacing system employing the rotation of the wheel or wheels of the land vehicle in the yaw direction that are used for steering to turn the aquatic vehicle converter using the steering system 27 of the boat body.
Note that the rollers 9 are significantly smaller that the driven wheels 7, indicating that the rotational speed of the output shaft or shafts will be greater than the rotational speed of the driven wheel or wheels. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the gear and propulsion systems of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired gearing ratios and power balance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
PNG
media_image2.png
203
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Yoo Figure 6
Regarding claim 2, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a front-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the front wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the bow of the boat body. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the wheel propulsion interfacing units near the bow of the boat in order to accommodate a front wheel drive land vehicle, since 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 3, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo also teaches that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a rear-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises a pair of rear wheel propulsion interfacing units 9-12 that respectively interface with the rear wheels 7 of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the stern of the boat body 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a four-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises: a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the front wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the bow of the boat body; and a pair of rear wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the rear wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the stern of the boat body. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units in order to take advantage of the extra power provided by a four-wheel drive vehicle, 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.
Regarding claim 19, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo also teaches that the boat body 1 comprises one of a single hull boat body, or a dual hull boat body, or a triple hull boat body.
Regarding claim 20, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach that the boat body comprises a portion thereof that is above the surface of the water which is made from a transparent material so as to create the appearance that the land vehicle is gliding across the surface of the water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form portions of the body from a transparent material in order to achieve the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Note that it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Maor US 2010/0181123, and alternatively also in view of Thomas US 3,003,606.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a front-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the front wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the bow of the boat body. Maor teaches an aquatic vehicle converter which comprises a propulsion interfacing system for all four wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by utilizing all four wheels as taught by Maor in order to utilize all available power input from the land vehicle.
In an alternate interpretation, if applicant intended to recite that all propulsion power is condensed into one output, then Thomas teaches a dual-input, single-output transmission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo and Maor with a dual-input, single-output transmission as taught by Thomas in order to reduce complexity and maintain a single propeller system.
Regarding claim 4, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a four-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises: a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the front wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the bow of the boat body; and a pair of rear wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the rear wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the stern of the boat body. Maor teaches an aquatic vehicle converter which comprises a propulsion interfacing system for all four wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by utilizing all four wheels as taught by Maor in order to utilize all available power input from the land vehicle.
In an alternate interpretation, if applicant intended to recite that all propulsion power is condensed into one output, then Thomas teaches a dual-input, single-output transmission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo and Maor with a dual-input, single-output transmission as taught by Thomas in order to reduce complexity and maintain a single propeller system.
Claims 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Hsu US 2022/0153398.
Regarding claim 5, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo also teaches that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a four-wheeled land vehicle in which the front wheels or rear wheels or both are driven wheels, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises:
two or more propulsion interfacing units 9-12 each of which interfaces with a different one of the driven wheels 7 of the land vehicle, each of said propulsion interfacing units comprising a pair of rollers 9 which are parallel to each other and oriented laterally in a deck of the boat body, one of said rollers is a drive roller, wherein the rollers are separated from each other in longitudinal direction and extend above a top surface of the deck to an extent that allows a drive wheel of the land vehicle, which is oriented longitudinally to the deck, to be in contact with both of the rollers; and
for each pair of the propulsion interfacing units that are in contact with the front wheels of the land vehicle, and for each pair of the propulsion interfacing units that are in contact with the rear wheels of the land vehicle, the drive rollers of the pair are laterally adjacent each other and at least one of the drive rollers of the pair of the propulsion interfacing units is connected to a drive wheel gearbox 14, or each of the drive rollers of the pair are connected to a different drive wheel gearbox, via a drive wheel gearbox input shaft, each of said drive wheel gearboxes comprising gears that make the drive wheel gearbox output shaft 15 form a right angle to the drive wheel gearbox input shaft or shafts 13.
PNG
media_image3.png
178
267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Yoo Figure 5A
Yoo does not teach that one of said rollers is a drive roller and the other roller is an idler. Hsu teaches an aquatic vehicle converter with a propulsion interfacing units in which one of the rollers 25 is a drive roller and the other roller 25’ is an idler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by making one roller an idler as taught by Hsu in order to reduce system complexity while sill receiving power from the wheel.
Yoo does not explicitly teach that each of said drive wheel gearboxes comprising gears that cause the rotational speed of a drive wheel gearbox output shaft to be greater than the rotational speed of the drive wheel gearbox input shaft or shafts by a prescribed speed factor, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the gear and propulsion systems of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired gearing ratios and power balance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 13, Yoo and Hsu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Yoo and Hsu also teach that the rollers 9 in each propulsion interfacing unit are smaller in diameter than the wheels 7 of the land vehicle resulting in the drive roller of a propulsion interfacing unit that is being rotated by the rotation of a driven wheel of the land vehicle being rotated at a speed greater than that of the driven wheel of the land vehicle, and (as taught) for each propulsion interfacing unit the increase in rotational speed associated with the drive roller followed by the increase in rotational speed of the output shaft of the drive wheel gearbox compared to the rotational speed of the input shaft or shafts of the drive wheel gearbox combine to produce the increase in rotational speed of the output shaft of the drive wheel gearbox in comparison to the rotational speed of the driven wheel of the land vehicle by said prescribed speed factor.
Regarding claim 14, Yoo and Hsu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Yoo does not teach that the prescribed speed factor corresponds to a 5-to-7-fold increase in rotational speed, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the gear ratio in order to obtain the optimum balance of torque and speed, 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.
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Hsu US 2022/0153398, Maor US 2010/0181123 and Thomas US 3,003,606.
Regarding claim 9, Yoo and Hsu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Yoo also teaches that there are two propulsion interfacing units 9-12 each of which interfaces with different one of the wheels of the land vehicle, and a length of each drive wheel gearbox input shaft is chosen to align the connected drive wheel gearbox in the lateral direction with the propulsion system 16.
Yoo does not teach that there are four propulsion interfacing units each of which interfaces with different one of the wheels of the land vehicle. Maor teaches an aquatic vehicle converter which comprises a propulsion interfacing system for all four wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by utilizing all four wheels as taught by Maor in order to utilize all available power input from the land vehicle.
Yoo does not teach that the propulsion interfacing system further comprises a dual input-single output gearbox. Thomas teaches a dual-input, single-output transmission for use in ships. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo and Maor with a dual-input, single-output transmission as taught by Thomas in order to reduce complexity and maintain a single propeller system.
As taught, a length of each drive wheel gearbox input shaft is chosen to align the connected drive wheel gearbox in the lateral direction with a different input of the dual input-single output gearbox. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange all the components in the proper position for the drive train to function, since 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 10, Yoo, Hsu, Maor and Thomas teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. As taught, each drive wheel gearbox is mounted so that the output shaft of the drive wheel gearbox is directed toward and connected to the input of the dual input-single output gearbox that the drive wheel gearbox is laterally aligned with. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange all the components in the proper position for the drive train to function, since 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 12, Yoo, Hsu, Maor and Thomas teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Yoo also teaches that the propulsion system 16 of the boat body has only one input, and (as taught) the dual input-single output gearbox has an output shaft that is aligned with and connected to the input of the propulsion system of the boat body.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Hsu US 2022/0153398, Maor US 2010/0181123, Thomas US 3,003,606 and McLaughlin US 10,457,369.
Regarding claim 11, Yoo, Hsu, Maor and Thomas teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Yoo does not teach that the propulsion interfacing system further comprises, for each drive wheel gearbox, an angle converter gearbox having an input and an output shaft forming a right angle, and wherein each drive wheel gearbox is mounted so that the output shaft of the drive wheel gearbox is directed toward the bottom of the boat body and connected to the input of the associated angle converter gearbox which is mounted so that the angle converter gearbox is vertically aligned with the input of the dual input-single output gearbox that the associated drive wheel gearbox is laterally aligned with, and wherein the output shaft of each angle converter gearbox is directed toward and connected to the input of the dual input-single output gearbox.
McLaughlin teaches a boat propulsion system which comprises an angle converter gearbox 200 having an input 230 and an output 240 shaft forming a right angle, which is mounted so that the output shaft of the angle converter gearbox is directed toward the bottom of the boat body and connected to the propulsion system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion interfacing system of Yoo with angle converting gearboxes as taught by McLaughlin in order to effectively route and package the various drive shafts without interfering with one another. Note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange all the components in the proper position for the drive train to function, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Hsu US 2022/0153398, Maor US 2010/0181123, and alternatively also in view of Thomas US 3,003,606.
Regarding claim 5, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo also teaches that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a four-wheeled land vehicle in which the front wheels or rear wheels or both are driven wheels, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises:
two or more propulsion interfacing units 9-12 each of which interfaces with a different one of the driven wheels 7 of the land vehicle, each of said propulsion interfacing units comprising a pair of rollers 9 which are parallel to each other and oriented laterally in a deck of the boat body, one of said rollers is a drive roller, wherein the rollers are separated from each other in longitudinal direction and extend above a top surface of the deck to an extent that allows a drive wheel of the land vehicle, which is oriented longitudinally to the deck, to be in contact with both of the rollers; and
for each pair of the propulsion interfacing units that are in contact with the front wheels of the land vehicle, and for each pair of the propulsion interfacing units that are in contact with the rear wheels of the land vehicle, the drive rollers of the pair are laterally adjacent each other and at least one of the drive rollers of the pair of the propulsion interfacing units is connected to a drive wheel gearbox 14, or each of the drive rollers of the pair are connected to a different drive wheel gearbox, via a drive wheel gearbox input shaft, each of said drive wheel gearboxes comprising gears that make the drive wheel gearbox output shaft 15 form a right angle to the drive wheel gearbox input shaft or shafts 13.
Yoo does not teach that one of said rollers is a drive roller and the other roller is an idler. Hsu teaches an aquatic vehicle converter with a propulsion interfacing units in which one of the rollers 25 is a drive roller and the other roller 25’ is an idler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by making one roller an idler as taught by Hsu in order to reduce system complexity while still receiving power from the wheel.
Yoo does not explicitly teach that each of said drive wheel gearboxes comprising gears that cause the rotational speed of a drive wheel gearbox output shaft to be greater than the rotational speed of the drive wheel gearbox input shaft or shafts by a prescribed speed factor, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the gear and propulsion systems of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired gearing ratios and power balance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Yoo does not teach that the (unclaimed) land vehicle (could be) a four-wheel drive four-wheeled land vehicle, and wherein the propulsion interfacing system comprises: a pair of front wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the front wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the bow of the boat body; and a pair of rear wheel propulsion interfacing units that respectively interface with the rear wheels of the land vehicle and which are located adjacent the stern of the boat body. Maor teaches an aquatic vehicle converter which comprises a propulsion interfacing system for all four wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo by utilizing all four wheels as taught by Maor in order to utilize all available power input from the land vehicle.
In an alternate interpretation, if applicant intended to recite that all propulsion power is condensed into one output, then Thomas teaches a dual-input, single-output transmission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo and Maor with a dual-input, single-output transmission as taught by Thomas in order to reduce complexity and maintain a single propeller system.
Claims 16 and 17 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo US 4,522,601 in view of Fujino US 11,235,849.
Regarding claim 16, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo also teaches that the steering interfacing system comprises a system 22, 23 for determining the degree of yaw rotation and direction of rotation of the wheels 21 of the land vehicle responsible for steering the vehicle, and which further computes a boat body steering degree and direction based on the degree of yaw rotation and direction of rotation of the steering-responsible wheels of the land vehicle; and a steering apparatus 24, 25, 26 that is connected to the steering system of the boat body and which is in communication with the steering device, and which operates the steering system to steer the boat body.
Yoo does not teach a sensor to determine steering angle, a digital computing device or an actuator to effect the steering. Fujino teaches a watercraft with a sensor 21 to determine steering angle, a digital computing device 100 and an actuator 10 to effect the steering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo with a steering by wire system as taught by Fujino in order to enable precise control or allow fine tuning of the system.
Neither Yoo nor Fujino teach that the sensor is a range finding device which is located adjacent one of the wheels of the land vehicle responsible for steering the vehicle, said range finding device being oriented to measure the distance between the range finding device and either the frontmost or rearmost edge of the wheel halfway up the wheel in the vertical direction. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a driven wheel measurement sensor for the steering wheel sensor in order to detect the vehicle steering angle in a manner completely external to the land vehicle, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the sensor to measure either the frontmost or rearmost edge of the wheel halfway up the wheel in the vertical direction in order to capture the point of the largest variation, since 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 17, Yoo teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yoo does not teach a reversing bucket system. Fujino teaches a water vehicle in which:
the boat body propulsion system comprises at least one water jet 3 and a reversing bucket 11 associated with each water jet, said reversing bucket rotating in front of a stream of water exiting a nozzle of the water jet when the boat body propulsion system is in a reverse direction mode thereby causing the stream of water to be redirected in a direction that slows or stops or reverses the direction of the aquatic vehicle converter; and wherein
the aquatic vehicle converter further comprises a reversing interface associated with each reversing bucket, comprising,
a reversing bucket motor 12 that is connected to a reversing bucket mechanism of the boat body propulsion system responsible for operating the reversing bucket, said reversing bucket motor driving the reversing mechanism to place the reversing bucket in front of the stream of water exiting a nozzle of the water jet when the boat body propulsion system is in the reverse direction mode, and place the reversing bucket out of in front of the stream of water exiting a nozzle of the water jet when the boat body propulsion system is not in the reverse direction mode,
one or more input sensors that detect when a reverse direction mode is desired, and
a computing device 14 which is in communication with the reversing bucket motor and the input sensor or sensors, and wherein whenever the computing device receives a signal from the input sensor or sensors indicating that the reverse direction mode is desired, the computing device sends a signal to the reversing bucket motor that causes said motor to drive the reversing mechanism to place the reversing bucket in front of the stream of water exiting a nozzle of the water jet, and whenever the computing device receives a signal from the input sensor or sensors indicating that the reverse direction mode is not desired, the computing device sends a signal to the reversing bucket motor that causes said motor to drive the reversing mechanism to place the reversing bucket out from in front of the stream of water exiting a nozzle of the water jet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle converter of Yoo with a jet drive and reversing bucket system as taught by Fujino in order to obtain a more powerful drive and a strong, reliable reversing system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Acocella US 1,568,307, Ozkok US 2,997,012 and Carroll US 3,987,748 all teach aquatic vehicle converters which transmit drive power from the land vehicle driven wheels and steering from the steered wheels.
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