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 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 3, 9, 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.
Regarding claim 3, the parenthesis renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). (It is not clear if the parenthetical provides an alternative description.)
Claim 9 limitation “positioning unit” (synonymous with “means for positioning”) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronwright (US 20190016415 A1) in view of Chun (US 8215252 B1) and futher in view of Hofbauer (US 20080216728 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cronwright discloses a system for maintaining a predetermined roll angle (heel) [Examiner note: roll and heel are not interchangeable terms. Roll describes a dynamic motion, heel describes a static angle. Applicant means heel throughout; it’s likely the translator was neither a pilot nor sailor and was unaware of the distinction. But the confusion happens frequently enough a PHOSITA can figure it out.]of a hull of a marine vessel, the system comprising: a stabilisation element (Element 210, 122, 240) arranged below the waterline on an outer surface of the hull, the stabilisation element comprising a body having a pivotal connection (Element 210) to the hull, and control actuators (Claim 1). Crownright does not explicitly disclose a sensor unit providing first sensor data providing information relating to the movement and/or positioning of the marine vessel, a processing unit receiving the first sensor data and providing a first control output, and a human interface unit receiving a predetermined roll angle input from a user and providing a second control input to the processing unit, a control unit receiving the first control output and providing a first control input to the stabilisation element to counteract a rolling movement and/or positioning of the marine vessel.
Chun discloses a system for stabilizing a ship comprising a sensor unit (Element 42) providing first sensor data providing information relating to the movement and/or positioning of the marine vessel, a processing unit (Element 38) receiving the first sensor data and providing a first control output, a control unit receiving the first control output and providing a first control input to the stabilisation element to counteract a rolling movement and/or positioning of the marine vessel. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the sensors and processor of Chun to the system of Cronwright which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Crownright is provide a known means of control that can used with predictable results as a means to control the actuator. Chun does not explicitly disclose a human interface unit receiving a predetermined roll angle input from a user and providing a second control input to the processing unit.
Hofbauer discloses human interface unit receiving a predetermined roll angle input from a user and providing a second control input to the processing unit (helm, paragraph 68). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the interface of the helm to the system of Crownnwright in view of Chun which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Cronwright in view of Chun is that systems that can be or governed by the helm or in combination with an interrelated, or predetermined program in order to use a known control method for similar inventions to provide control.
Regarding Claim 2, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses the system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, where the system is configured to stabilise the roll of the marine vessel. (Cronwright, paragraphs 5, 6)
Regarding Claim 3, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the hydrodynamic keel may be a counterweight keel and/or a positive buoyancy keel (floatation body keel). (Cronwright, paragraph 121)
Regarding Claim 4, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the system may be at least part of an overboard recovery system. (It may permissively be part of the system, but in this case it is not.)
Regarding Claim 6, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the stabilisation element is configured to counteract a rolling movement of the hull of the marine vessel in relation to wave movement of the surrounding body of water that interacts with the hull. (Cronwright, paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 7, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control input controls an angular movement of the stabilisation element. (Cronwright, paragraph 79)
Regarding Claim 8, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the angular movement of the stabilisation element may be relative to a vertical axis and/or a longitudinal plane of the marine vessel. (Longitudinal, Fig. 1d.)
Regarding Claim 9, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a positioning unit providing a first positioning output which provided as input to the processing unit. (Chun, GPS, C4, L58)
Regarding Claim 10, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the system may be configured to be operated during speeds in a forward and/or backward direction that are lower than 5 knots, or lower than 3 knots, or lower than 1 knot. (The system is capable of operating at less than 5 knots. See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding Claim 11, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the system is an active stabilisation system, and where the system reacts to the movement of the marine vessel. (Chun, C1, L47.)
Regarding Claim 12, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the predetermined roll angle is in a starboard and/or a port direction. (This is the definition of roll. See Cronwright Fig. 1d)
Regarding Claim 13, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the sensor unit may be one or more of the following: gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, proximity sensor, magnetometer, barometer, roll sensor, pitch sensor, heave sensor, velocity sensor, or any kind of sensors that are capable of registering the motion of the hull of a marine vessel. (Chun, GPS, C4, L58)
Regarding Claim 14, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, wherein the predetermined roll angle is greater than 0 degrees in a starboard and/or a port direction of the hull, preferably wherein the predetermined roll angle is greater than 1 degree in a starboard and/or a port direction. (See Cronwright Fig. 1d.)
Regarding Claim 15, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a method for maintaining a predetermined roll angle of a hull of a marine vessel, the method comprising: providing a first sensor data providing information relating to the movement and/or positioning of the marine vessel (Chun, Element 42), receiving the first sensor data and providing a first control output (Chun, C5, L38), providing a human interface unit receiving a predefined roll angle input from a user and providing a second control input to the processing unit(Hofbauer, 68), receiving the first control output and providing a first control input (Chun, C5, L27) to a stabilisation element that is arranged below the waterline on an outer surface of a hull and having a body having a pivotal connection to the hull to counteract a movement and/or a positioning of the marine vessel.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronwright (US 20190016415 A1) in view of Chun (US 8215252 B1) and further in view of Hofbauer (US 20080216728 A1) and further in view of Sandrow (US 4964358 A)
Regarding Claim 5, Cronwright in view of Chun and further in view of Hofbauer discloses a system for stabilisation in accordance with claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the marine vessel is a marine vessel comprising a lifting crane and/or a lifting hoist.
Sandrow discloses wherein a boat discloses a lifting hoist. (Element 22) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add thehois of Sandrow to the boat of Crownnwright which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify to modify Cronwright is to rapidly and easily hoisting and launching a dinghy (small shore craft) relative to a larger vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 8 December 2025