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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pin designed to fit into the lifting chain plate” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (see 37 CFR 1.75(i)). Claim 1, for example, recites dozens of components is one multi-page, unbroken paragraph. There should be line breaks and indentations to differentiate separate recited components.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 25 recites “the groove being widen towards the front.” This should read -- the groove being wider towards the front—or similar.
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 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18-19 (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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lifting chain plate" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 14 and 15 recite limitations on the "anti-roll stabilisation system." However, this system is never positively recited. Claim 1 only positively recites “a device for removable attachment of an anti-roll stabilisation system.” It is therefore unclear how these limitations affect the recited components, or if the stabilisation system itself was intended to be positively recited. For the purposes of this action, the claims will be treated as though the "anti-roll stabilisation system" is positively recited.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “automatism” in claims 6, 9, 14 and 15 is used by the claim to mean “an automated control system,” while the accepted meaning is “an automatic or involuntary action.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 18-20 recite limitations on “the monohull surface ship intended to receive the anti-roll stabilisation system.” However, the surface ship is not positively recited. It is unclear how limitations on an unclaimed component affect the recited apparatus, or if the ship is a part of the invention. For the purposes of this action, limitations to unclaimed elements will not be addressed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 does not recite any limitations that are not already captured by parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 9,003,986 in view of Grall WO 2019/106314 and Zimmer US 10,786,703.
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches a wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship 100 with a tapered hull 102, the hull having a deck, and the ship can be configured as a monohull (figure 2) or as a trimaran (figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Jenkins Figures 1 and 2
Jenkins does not teach that the ship is motorized, the ship having a wheelhouse erected on said deck, the ship further including, under the hull, a ballasted keel intended to lower the ship's centre of gravity to stabilise the ship at least with respect to the roll, wherein the keel is removable and able be placed in several positions including a lower position, in which the ship's centre of gravity is lowered, and an upper or extracted position, in which the ship's centre of gravity is raised. Grall teaches a motorized wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship 1 with a tapered hull 2, the hull having a deck 4, wherein the ship can be configured as a monohull, the ship having a wheelhouse 9 erected on said deck, the ship further including, under the hull, a ballasted keel 5, 6 intended to lower the ship's centre of gravity to stabilise the ship at least with respect to the roll, wherein the keel is removable and able be placed in several positions including a lower position (figure 2), in which the ship's centre of gravity is lowered, and an upper or extracted position (figure 3), in which the ship's centre of gravity is raised. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins with a motor and movable keel as taught by Grall in order to enable the ship to move even with insufficient wind, and give more control over the center of gravity while still being able to minimize the draft.
PNG
media_image3.png
199
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Grall Figure 2
Jenkins does not teach that the ship can sail as a monohull or as a trimaran,
the hull including a device for removable attachment of an anti-roll stabilisation system intended to counter at least the roll,
the anti-roll stabilisation system including an elongated connection arm terminated at its two lateral ends by two floats, the connection arm including an attachment member, the attachment member being configured to be removably attached on the attachment device in order to transform the ship into a trimaran,
the two floats being arranged on the port and starboard sides of the hull respectively, and in that
wherein the ship is a monohull in the absence of the anti-roll stabilisation system,
the connection arm being configured to pass above the hull, on the deck, characterised in that
wherein the removable attachment device of the hull and the attachment member of the connection arm of the anti-roll stabilisation system are each made of two portions, a front portion and a rear portion, and for a connection arm passing above the hull and by the rear of the ship, the anti-roll stabilisation system includes, at the front of the connection arm,
a pin designed to fit into the lifting chain plate of the ship, positioned on the deck at the rear of the wheelhouse, the lifting chain plate and the pin forming a respective front portion of the two-portion attachment device and attachment member, and
the attachment device includes a straight tail, positioned at the rear of the lifting chain plate, and the attachment member includes an elongated groove positioned on the lower side of the connection arm of the anti-roll stabilisation system,
the groove being wider towards the front of the connection arm and narrowed towards the rear of the connection arm, the straight tail and the groove forming a respective rear portion of the two-portion attachment device and attachment member.
PNG
media_image4.png
297
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Zimmer Figure 9
Zimmer teaches a watercraft 200 that can sail as a monohull (figure 1) or as a trimaran (figure 9),
the hull including a device 25 for removable attachment of an anti-roll stabilisation system 300, 305, 306 intended to counter at least the roll,
the anti-roll stabilisation system including an elongated connection arm 306 terminated at its two lateral ends by two floats 300, the connection arm including an attachment member 305, the attachment member being configured to be removably attached on the attachment device in order to transform the ship into a trimaran,
the two floats being arranged on the port and starboard sides of the hull respectively, and in that
wherein the ship is a monohull in the absence of the anti-roll stabilisation system,
the connection arm being configured to pass above the hull, on the deck, characterised in that
wherein the removable attachment device of the hull and the attachment member of the connection arm of the anti-roll stabilisation system are each made of two portions, a front portion and a rear portion, and for a connection arm passing above the hull and by the rear of the ship, the anti-roll stabilisation system includes, at the front of the connection arm,
a pin designed to fit into the lifting chain plate 1 of the ship, positioned on the deck at the rear of the wheelhouse (as modified), the lifting chain plate and the pin forming a respective front portion of the two-portion attachment device and attachment member (fasteners can be bolted to the rail/plate- column 6, lines 45-48), and
the attachment member 305 includes a straight tail, positioned at the rear of the lifting chain plate, and the attachment device includes an elongated groove 114 positioned on the lower side of the lifting plate 1 of the anti-roll stabilisation system,
the straight tail and the groove forming a respective rear portion of the two-portion attachment device and attachment member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins with a detachable device to allow the device to function as a monohull or as a trimaran as taught by Zimmer in order to “provide an additional stability, if necessary” (column 9, lines 11-13).
Zimmer does not explicitly state that the pin is at the front of the arm at the rear of the wheelhouse, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the fastener at the front of the connection near the rear of the wheelhouse or wherever was desired in order to maximize accessibility or gain the desired mechanical advantage, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Zimmer does not teach that the attachment member includes the elongated groove while the plate comprises the tail, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reorient the devices in order to have the attachment features more easily accessible or simplify manufacturing or maintenance, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Zimmer does not teach that the groove is wider towards the front of the connection arm and narrowed towards the rear of the connection arm, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the groove widened of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to simplify alignment. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zimmer also teaches that the attachment member 305 of the connection arm 306 is median and is arranged along the arm at substantially equal distance from the two floats 300.
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Grall also teaches that the removable ballasted keel 5, 6 is translatable and may be lowered down under the hull 2, to the keel lower position, and be lifted up at least partly into a keel storage space of the wheelhouse 9, to the keel upper position.
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jenkins also teaches that the ship includes one or several of the following devices: radio control device enabling the ship to be directly radio-controlled, an automatism enabling the ship to directly perform missions in autonomy (it is an autonomous vehicle), at least one sensor 320 allowing in particular measurements, underwater communications, positioning, navigation, obstacle perception (column 7, lines 44-49). Jenkins does not teach that these systems are in the anti-roll stabilisation system, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add these systems to the outboard pontoons as well in order to increase the capabilities of the ship as a whole, since it has been held that 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) and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 9,003,986 in view of Grall WO 2019/106314, Zimmer US 10,786,703 and Riggs US 8,814,616.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 2. Neither Jenkins nor Zimmer teach that the anti-roll stabilisation system includes an electric power source and the floats include electric propulsion sets. Riggs teaches a catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 which includes an electric power source (batteries in the float not shown- column 13, lines 39-43) and floats 110 which include electric propulsion sets 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer with power and propulsion in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to generate more power when needed.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 4. Neither Jenkins nor Zimmer teach that the anti-roll stabilisation system includes sensors or controls. Riggs teaches a catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 which includes one or several of the following devices: radio control device enabling the ship to be directly radio-controlled, an automatism enabling the ship to directly perform missions in autonomy (it is an autonomous vehicle), at least one sensor 320 allowing in particular measurements, underwater communications, positioning, navigation, obstacle perception (column 10, line 19-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer with propulsion, sensors and control in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to generate more power when needed and enable the system to be autonomously guided to where it is needed.
Claims 5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 9,003,986 in view of Grall WO 2019/106314, Zimmer US 10,786,703 Riggs US 8,814,616, and Scott US 10,301,022.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Jenkins, Grall, Zimmer and Riggs teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 12. Neither Jenkins, Zimmer nor Riggs teach that the removable attachment device and the attachment member include electrical connectors that allow the transmission of at least electrical power between the ship and the anti-roll stabilisation system. Scott teaches a system of unmanned vehicles which include electrical connectors that allow the transmission of at least electrical power between the vehicles (column 5, line 44- column 6, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins, Zimmer and Riggs with electrical connections between components as taught by Scott in order to enable faster communication and power sharing capabilities.
Regarding claim 15, Jenkins, Grall, Zimmer, Riggs and Scott teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Neither Jenkins nor Zimmer teach that the anti-roll stabilisation system includes sensors or controls. Riggs also teaches that the catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 includes one or several of the following devices: radio control device enabling the ship to be directly radio-controlled, an automatism enabling the ship to directly perform missions in autonomy (it is an autonomous vehicle), at least one sensor 320 allowing in particular measurements, underwater communications, positioning, navigation, obstacle perception (column 10, line 19-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins, Grall and Zimmer with propulsion, sensors and control in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to generate more power when needed and enable the system to be autonomously guided to where it is needed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer US 10,786,703 in view of Riggs US 8,814,616.
Regarding claim 7, Zimmer teaches an anti-roll stabilisation system 300, 305, 306 intended to transform a monohull surface ship 200 into a trimaran, characterised in that wherein the anti-roll stabilization system is removable and includes an elongated connection arm 306 terminated at its two lateral ends by two floats 300, the connection arm including an attachment member 305, the attachment member being configured to be removably attached on an attachment device 1 of the monohull surface ship in order to transform the latter monohull surface ship into a trimaran, the anti-roll stabilisation system being able to float and being stable with the two floats in water.
Zimmer does not teach that the anti-roll stabilisation system able to sail by moving on its own, the floats having propulsion sets. Riggs teaches a catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 which includes an electric power source (batteries in the float not shown- column 13, lines 39-43) and floats 110 which include electric propulsion sets 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Zimmer with power and propulsion in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to generate more power when needed and/or enable fully electric travel.
Claims 7-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 9,003,986 in view of Riggs US 8,814,616 and Zimmer US 10,786,703.
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins teaches a wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship 100 with a tapered hull 102, the hull having a deck, and the ship can be configured as a monohull (figure 2) or as a trimaran (figure 1). Jenkins also teaches that that the anti-roll stabilization system includes an elongated connection arm terminated at its two lateral ends by two floats 116, 118, and the connection arm includes an attachment member (whatever feature connects the arm to the hull).
Jenkins does not teach that that the attachment member being configured to be removably attached on an attachment device of the monohull surface ship in order to transform the latter monohull surface ship into a trimaran, the anti-roll stabilisation system being able to float and being stable with the two floats in water. Zimmer teaches an anti-roll stabilisation system 300, 305, 306 intended to transform a monohull surface ship 200 into a trimaran, characterised in that wherein the anti-roll stabilization system is removable and includes an elongated connection arm 306 terminated at its two lateral ends by two floats 300, the connection arm including an attachment member 305, the attachment member being configured to be removably attached on an attachment device 1 of the monohull surface ship in order to transform the latter monohull surface ship into a trimaran, the anti-roll stabilisation system being able to float and being stable with the two floats in water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins with a detachable device to allow the device to function as a monohull or as a trimaran as taught by Zimmer in order to “provide an additional stability, if necessary” (column 9, lines 11-13).
Neither Jenkins nor Zimmer teach that the anti-roll stabilisation system able to sail by moving on its own, the floats having propulsion sets. Riggs teaches a catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 which includes an electric power source (batteries in the float not shown- column 13, lines 39-43) and floats 110 which include electric propulsion sets 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins and Zimmer with power and propulsion in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to generate more power when needed and/or enable fully electric travel.
Regarding claim 8, Jenkins, Zimmer and Riggs teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Jenkins and Riggs (column 10, line 19-43) also teach that the watercraft is remote controlled .
Regarding claim 9, Jenkins, Zimmer and Riggs teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Riggs also teaches autonomous control enabling the anti-roll stabilisation system to directly perform missions in autonomy (it is an autonomous vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stabilisation system of Jenkins and Zimmer with propulsion, sensors and control in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to enable the system to be autonomously guided to where it is needed.
Regarding claims 10, 16 and 17, Jenkins, Zimmer and Riggs teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 7, 8 and 9. Riggs also teaches that the catamaran-type anti-roll stabilisation system autonomous vehicle 100 includes at least one sensor 320 allowing in particular measurements, underwater communications, positioning, navigation, obstacle perception (column 10, line 19-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Jenkins Zimmer with sensors and control in the floats as taught by Riggs in order to enable the system to be autonomously guided to where it is needed.
Regarding claims 11 and 18-20, Jenkins, Zimmer and Riggs teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 10 and 7-9. Zimmer also teaches that the connection arm 306 of the anti-roll stabilisation system, which is intended to pass above the ship's hull by coming against the deck of said ship, includes a notch. Please note that multiple features could be considered a notch, such as the bend or interface with the floats 300 or connection device 305. Recall that limitations based on the unclaimed surface ship or the intended use of the device cannot factor into patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stone US 10,569,849 teaches an unmanned marine vessel with a tapered slot to engage a recovery mechanism.
Gordon US 11,008,076 teaches an unmanned marine vehicle with batteries and electric motors in its pontoons.
Grall US 11,319,037 is the US entry of Grall WO 2019/106314.
Hinkel US 9,302,741 teaches a retractable keel.
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