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
Claims 1 and 4-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims alternate between the spellings of “stabilisation” and “stabilization,” occasionally within the same claim. While either is acceptable, a single spelling should be used consistently. 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 7, 11 and 18-20 (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 7 line 1 recites “an anti-roll stabilisation system configured to transform the motorized, wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship of claim 1 from the monohull sailing configuration to the trimaran sailing configuration.” However, the “motorized, wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship” recited in claim 1 already comprises “an anti-roll stabilization system” (line 12). It is unclear if the limitations recited in claims 7-20 are intended to further limit the previously recited “an anti-roll stabilisation system” or if this is a separate “anti-roll stabilization system.”
Claims 7 and 18-20 recite limitations based on “the motorized, wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship” and its wheelhouse. 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.
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. In this case, 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), and an anti-roll stabilization system 116, 118.
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 an attachment device for removable attachment of an anti-roll stabilisation system configured 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,
wherein in the trimaran sailing configuration, the anti-roll stabilisation system is attached to the hull and the two floats being arranged on the port and starboard sides of the hull respectively, the connection arm being configured to pass above the hull, on the deck, and in that
wherein in monohull configuration the anti-roll stabilisation system is separated from the hull,
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 100/200 that can sail as a monohull (figure 1) or as a trimaran (figure 9),
the hull including an attachment device 25 for removable attachment of an anti-roll stabilisation system 300, 305, 306 configured 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,
wherein in the trimaran sailing configuration, the anti-roll stabilisation system is attached to the hull and the two floats being arranged on the port and starboard sides of the hull respectively, the connection arm being configured to pass above the hull, on the deck, and in that
wherein in monohull configuration the anti-roll stabilisation system is separated from the hull,
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;
wherein the connection arm is configured to pass above the hull and by the rear of the motorized, wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship, the anti-roll stabilisation system includes a pin at the front of the connection arm and an elongated groove 114 positioned on the lower side of the lifting plate 1 (fasteners can be bolted to the rail/plate- column 6, lines 45-48).
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.
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.
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, wherein the connection arm is configured to pass above the hull and by the rear of the motorized, wave-piercing, autonomous surface ship, the anti-roll stabilisation system includes a pin at the front of the connection arm and an elongated groove 114 positioned on the lower side of the lifting plate 1 (fasteners can be bolted to the rail/plate- column 6, lines 45-48).
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.
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. As taught, a notch could come against the rear end of the ship’s wheelhouse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant argues that the movable keel of Grall is inapplicable to the vessel of Jenkins. The applicant points to benefits of Jenkins’ keel to demonstrate that the keel must be deployed (page 24). However, there several benefits of a movable keel for any vessel. First we must acknowledge that that there are a wide variety of sea state and sailing conditions (including many degrees to which wind must be countered), and the same keel configuration would not always be required. A movable keel could provide benefits including passage through shallow water or easier maintenance during periods when the full deployment is not necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits the movable keel of Grall would bring to the vessel of Jenkins.
In response to applicant's argument that the vessel of Jenkins could not readily accept the movable keel of Grall, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the physical reconstruction required to adapt new equipment without completely departing from the independent teachings. As such, neither reference “teaches away” from the other- recall that “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits the movable keel of Grall would bring to the vessel of Jenkins.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In particular, the applicant points to the rowing apparatus/vehicle of Zimmer, stating that it cannot be considered an autonomous vehicle. In this case, Zimmer is only being relied upon for the teaching of how an anti-roll stabilization system (a pair of pontoons) can be attached to a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this particular configuration can be applied to a wide variety of vehicles, including those that do not comprise a rowing apparatus.
The applicant later argues that because the anti-roll stabilization system of Zimmer attaches to support member 1, it does no attach to the hull 200. Again, Zimmer teaches how to attach an anti-roll stabilization system (a pair of pontoons) to a vehicle. If it helps, the rowing apparatus 100, the support member 1 and the hull 200 can all be considered parts of the vehicle. Alternatively, it could be said that the stabilization system 300 is attached to the hull 200 by the rowing apparatus 100 and/or the support member 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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
Prosecution Insights