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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07 August 2023. Claims 1-10 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-20 are currently amemeded.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). This application is a 371 of Application No. PCT/EP2022/053878 filed on 17 February 2022. The certified copy has been filed in parent French Republic Application No. FR2101536, filed on 17 February 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 August 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 2 reference number “50” (See at least: page 16 of 19, lines 18-19, “…the water wing 60 comprises at least one means of injection 50…” where fig. 2 shows two “60” with no “50”).
Fig. 3 reference number “49” (See at least: page 12 of 19, line 19, “…reduction in section 49…”).
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6 of 19, line 10 recite “…electric motor 30…” in two places and should be “…electric motor 35…” (See at least: page 9 line 12 for support of this change.).
Page 7 of 19, line 26 introduces “the waterline” without the associated reference number “70”. This should be “the waterline 70” to match page 16 of 19 lines 13-16 use.
Page 8 of 19, lines 8-9 recite “…Thus, the device 20…” and should be “…Thus, the device 40…”.
Page 11 of 19, line 23 introduces structure “…a calculator…” where this could be a mistranslation for a general purpose computer. Please clarify if the translation was correct or provide the appropriate translation of the structure.
Page 12 of 19, line 19 recite “…reduction in section 49…” where figure 3 does not have the reference number “49”.
Page 13 of 19, line 21 recite “…the hull 50…” this should be “…the hull 20…”.
Page 16 of 19, lines 18-19, “…the water wing 60 comprises at least one means of injection 50…” where fig. 2 shows two “60” with no “50”.
Page 17 of 19, line 11 recite “…setback 24 is visible in fig 3…” and should be “…setback 24 is visible in fig 4…”. This is not interpreted as an objection with the drawing fig. 3.
Page 19 of 19, line 25 recite “70: flotation line” should be “70: waterline” to match the use in the spec.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) do not recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: {underline and bold is for the word “means”, italics for functional language}
“...at least one first means of injection…” in claims 1-3 and 6. Is being interpreted as found on the spec page 13 of 19, line 16 “injector” or page 15 of 19, line 26-27 “nozzle”.
“…means of conveyance…” in claims 1-2 and 7-10. Is being interpreted as found on page 9 of 19, lines 24-29 “…a conduit. A conduit is taken to mean any type of means such as a pipe or a set of pipes linked together. Alternatively, or additionally, the means of conveyance 42 is a tube, preferably a flexible tube. The means of conveyance 42 may also be a set of tubes connected to each other. For example, a means of conveyance may be provided comprising a rigid tube and a flexible tube placed in series…”.
“...at least one second means of injection…” in claims 4-5. Is being interpreted as found on the spec page 13 of 19, line 16 “injector”; page 15 of 19, line 26-27 “nozzle”; or as shown in at least figs. 1-3 interpreted as a discharge port/hole.
“…means of recovery…” in claim 9. Is being interpreted as found on the spec page 12 of 19, lines 10-15 “…an opening 45 through which the apparent wind is collected. This opening 45 may be an intake opening to the outside air. According to one aspect, the means of recovery 43 comprises a tube or a pipe. This tube or pipe may be rigid or flexible…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to add the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses A device (See at least: Figs. 2 and 5) for reducing hydrodynamic drag (See at least: paras. [0009] “…This results advantageously in less friction between the water jet and the bottom of the ship with good distribution of the gases also carried along in the water…” and [0011] “…This results in an advantageous reduction of the friction at the sides of the ship too…”), of a vessel (See at least: Abstract “…fast seagoing ship…”) comprising:
a hull (See at least: fig. 1 showing the bottom 4 of the ship’s hull) comprising at least one first means of injection (chamber 21; See at least Fig. 5) of a fluid (See at least para. [0033] “…a water jet production unit having a chamber (21) for the supply of gas, in particular exhaust gas, to the water jet (25), with the gas being supplied in a low-pressure region of the chamber (21)…”) where gases and water are a fluid);
a fuel cell (See at least: para [0009] “…The exhaust gases of any power generation unit, e.g. a steam turbine unit or a diesel reformer of a fuel cell unit can thus be directed into the water…”), and
a means of conveyance (exhaust pipe 20; See at least: Fig. 5) of a first amount of air discharged by the fuel cell (See at least para. [0032] “…exhaust gases fed by the exhaust pipe 20…” in combination of para [0009] “…The exhaust gases of any power generation unit, e.g. a steam turbine unit or a diesel reformer of a fuel cell unit can thus be directed into the water…” and para. [0030] “… the rising air bubbles…”; where it is interpreted that the chemical reaction of the fuel cell did not scavenge all the oxygen for the exhaust gas to be still considered as air.) to the at least the one first means of injection, the at least one first means of injection being arranged to inject said first amount of air along a surface (lower bottom 4 of the ship ; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 5, para [0027] “…the housings of the water jets are designated with reference characters 1 and 2 and these are located in an incorporated section 3 of the lower bottom 4 of the ship.”) of the hull intended to be immersed.
Regarding claim 3, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses wherein the first amount of air is injected by the at least one first means of injection in the form of air bubbles (gas bubbles, air bubbles; See at least: para. [0029] “…the consequence that the mass of the gas bubbles exits in the wake of the ship…” and para. [0030] “…The influence of the rising air bubbles causes clearly identifiable distortion of the flow field…”).
Regarding claim 6, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses wherein the hull comprises an additional portion forming a setback (incorporated section 3; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0027] “…In FIG. 1 the housings of the water jets are designated with reference characters 1 and 2 and these are located in an incorporated section 3 of the lower bottom 4 of the ship. This position results in good inflow and outflow conditions for the water jets 1, 2…”) upstream of the at least one first means of injection (See at least: Fig. 1), relative to a direction of movement of the vessel (See at least: Fig. 1, where fig. 1 shows a bow/forward portion of the underside of a hull with flow arrows around “incorporated section 3” which is interpreted as the water flowing under the hull as the vessel is moving in the forward direction).
Regarding claim 10, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses a method for reducing the hydrodynamic drag (See at least: paras. [0009] “…This results advantageously in less friction between the water jet and the bottom of the ship with good distribution of the gases also carried along in the water…” and [0011] “…This results in an advantageous reduction of the friction at the sides of the ship too…”) of a vessel (See at least: Abstract “…fast seagoing ship…”), the method comprising:
conveying a first amount of air discharged by a fuel cell (See at least para. [0032] “…exhaust gases fed by the exhaust pipe 20…” in combination of para [0009] “…The exhaust gases of any power generation unit, e.g. a steam turbine unit or a diesel reformer of a fuel cell unit can thus be directed into the water…” and para. [0030] “… the rising air bubbles…”; where it is interpreted that the chemical reaction of the fuel cell did not scavenge all the oxygen for the exhaust gas to be still considered as air.) by a means of conveyance (exhaust pipe 20; See at least: Fig. 5) to a means of injection (chamber 21; See at least Fig. 5) comprised by a hull (See at least: fig. 1 showing the bottom 4 of the ship’s hull), and;
injecting the first amount of air by the means of injection along a surface (lower bottom 4 of the ship ; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 5, para [0027] “…the housings of the water jets are designated with reference characters 1 and 2 and these are located in an incorporated section 3 of the lower bottom 4 of the ship.”) of the hull intended to be immersed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1) in view of Katz (US 6356816 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose wherein the at least one first means of injection comprises a sealing element to limit or prevent the upwelling of an amount of water to the means of conveyance.
Katz in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one first means of injection (air injection system 14, valve 40; See at least fig. 2) comprises a sealing element (valve 40; See at least fig. 2) to limit or prevent the upwelling of an amount of water to the means of conveyance (See at least: col. 3 lines 32-34 “…The gas is metered out and controlled by the valve 40 in response to the signal on control line 36…” where the control line 36 is interpreted as opening and closing the valve 40 to provide the gas, and thereby also prevent the water from flowing back to the air injection system 14 as the valve 40 opens when control conditions are met to meter out the gas.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified exhaust pipe 20 of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with air injection system 14 with valve 40 of Katz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of obtaining an optimal mixture of injection (bubble size) and flow rate parameters for minimizing the drag of a marine vessel and thereby maximizing the vessel's fuel consumption efficiency (See at least: Katz col. 3 lines 19-21). Further motivation is the for benefit that a Signal processing system provides control methods to provide the optimum condition used by the system for reducing drag (See at least: Katz Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 7, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose comprising a command-control device for the air flow in the means of conveyance.
Katz in a similar field of endeavor, teaches comprising a command-control device (Signal processor system 28; See at least: figs. 1-2) for the air flow in the means of conveyance (See at least: col. 2 lines 55-64 “Signal processor 28 is responsive to application programs 30 which determine the rate of change of a chaotic radius (CR) which represents a differential radius (DR) having a range which controls the bubble size and the flow rate of fluid injected into the boundary layer. The application programs 30, by way of signal processor 28, provides signals on signal paths 32 and 34 which are routed to the air injection system 14 that responds to the commands thereon and controls the bubble size and the flow rate interjected into the boundary layer by way of path 36…” and col. 3 line 14 “…a prescribed fluid (i.e., air) injection…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified exhaust pipe 20 of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with a signal processor system 28 controlling the air injection system 14 with valve 40 of Katz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit provide control methods to provide the optimum condition used by the system for reducing drag through the use a signal processing system (See at least: Katz Abstract last sentence). Further motivation is the benefit is to obtain an optimal mixture of injection (bubble size) and flow rate parameters for minimizing the drag of a marine vessel and thereby maximizing the vessel's fuel consumption efficiency (See at least: Katz col. 3 lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 8, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose wherein the means of conveyance comprises at least one air flow sensor.
Katz in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the means of conveyance comprises at least one air flow sensor (either (1) sensor 20 and control line 36 or (2) air injection system 14; See at least: figs. 1-2 and col. 2 lines 46-47 “…the sensor 20 detects the flow rate of the boundary layer…” and col. 3 line 32-34 “…The gas is metered out and controlled by the valve 40 in response to the signal on control line 36…” where interpreted that either (1) the sensor 20 is connected to the valve 40 through control signals where control line 36 based on sensor 20 changes the valve 40 position or (2) the valve 40 being “metered out” indicates a flow meter is associated with the line and is represented in the drawings as part of “the air injection system 14”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified exhaust pipe 20 of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with a signal processor system 28 with sensor 20 controlling the air injection system 14 with valve 40 (or that of air injection system 14 with means to “meter out”) of Katz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit provide control methods to provide the optimum condition used by the system for reducing drag through the use a signal processing system (See at least: Katz Abstract last sentence). Further motivation is the benefit is to obtain an optimal mixture of injection (bubble size) and flow rate parameters for minimizing the drag of a marine vessel and thereby maximizing the vessel's fuel consumption efficiency (See at least: Katz col. 3 lines 19-21).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 112238921 A).
Regarding claim 4, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose wherein the hull comprises a water wing intended to be immersed and wherein said water wing comprises at least one second means of injection arranged to inject at least a portion of the first amount of air.
Zhang in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the hull (See at least: fig. 1, where it is the hull for the hydrofoil ship) comprises a water wing (See at least: fig. 1-7) intended to be immersed (See at least: fig. 1 showing different waterlines based on operation of the hydrofoil ship) and wherein said water wing comprises at least one second means of injection (See at least: figs. 1-7 showing different points of air release on either the hydrofoil or the strut; where figs. 4 and 7 best show “V-shaped jet groove”) arranged to inject (“V-shaped jet groove”) at least a portion of the first amount of air (waste/exhaust gas; See at least: translation copy page 3 of 15, 8th para. on the page starting with “…Further, one of the gas source…” where the waste/exhaust gas is inlet to the air pump).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fast seagoing ship, especially a naval ship of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with features of struts, hydrofoil, air pump and hollow flowpath of air to the V-shaped jet groove of Zhang’s super-air bubble water wing ship with a reasonable expectation of success{Connecting exhaust pipe 20 of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with a branch line to the suction of Zhang’s air pump as taught by Zhang}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing the infrared signal characteristic of a military ship to better hide it from infrared detection (See at least: Zhang translation copy page 3 of 15, 8th para. on the page starting with “Further, one of the gas source of the ship high pressure air pump, can be from the ship fuel power discharge of the waste gas, the exhaust gas discharged and the air above the deck, the air inlet of the air pump is introduced through the air pipeline, the exhaust gas is used as one of the air source of the air pump; Such a solution for military ship, can obviously reduce the infrared signal characteristic of the ship, realizing better hiding effect of the infrared.”). Further motivation is the benefit increasing the speed of the ship (See at least: Zhang translation copy page 1 of 15, Abstract “…The sailing speed of the ship can be easily surpassed the normal hydrofoil ship with the same magnitude…”).
Regarding claim 5, Abdel-Maksoud et al. Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose wherein the at least one second means of injection of the water wing is arranged to inject the portion of the first amount of air along a vertical surface of the water wing.
Zhang in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one second means of injection of the water wing is arranged to inject the portion of the first amount of air along a vertical surface of the water wing (See at least: figs. 1-7, where the figs 2-7 are a mix of strut and hydrofoil components and all air exiting those parts in the figs. show to be on a forward vertical surface).
Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 4 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1) in view of Sumizaki et al. (JP 2010264969 A).
Regarding claim 9, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Abdel-Maksoud et al. does not disclose comprising a means of recovery of a second amount of air from an apparent wind of the vessel, said means of recovery being capable of conveying the second amount of air to the means of conveyance.
Sumizaki et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches comprising a means of recovery of a second amount of air from an apparent wind of the vessel (gas tube/air cylinder 17; See at least: Figs. 1-3 and translation copy page 4 of 8 first full para. “…Further, the bubbles discharged to the bottom of the ship are made to have a size of φ1.0 to φ2.0 at the nozzle at the tip of the air cylinder (17) entering from the bow…”), said means of recovery being capable of conveying the second amount of air to the means of conveyance (gas tube/air cylinder 17; See at least: Figs. 1-3 and translation copy page 4 of 8 first full para. “…Further, the bubbles discharged to the bottom of the ship…” and is interpreted as the other side of the Gas tube 17, air cylinder 17).
However, Sumizaki et al. does not teach claim 1’s a means of conveyance of a first amount of air discharged by the fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fig. 5 of Abdel-Maksoud et al. with a piping connection of the gas tube/air cylinder 17 of Sumizaki et al. {Connected upstream of exhaust pipe 20 of Abdel-Maksoud et al.’s fig. 5 with any applicable piping system components to make the connection, for example a control valve and T-joint.} with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the amount of air bubbles on the bottom of the ship and reducing the resistance of water on the ship (See at least: Sumizaki et al. page 3 of 8, 4 para. under header “ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS”, “…In addition, the technology that creases air bubbles on the bottom of the ship and reduces the resistance of water…”).
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Han et al. (CN 110962991 A) teaches a method and device for reducing wave-making resistance and friction force of ship during sailing using venturi ejectors (See at least figs. 1-9).
Ahmadzadehtalatapeh et al., A Review on the Drag Reduction Methods of the Ship Hulls for Improving the Hydrodynamic Performance [online]. IJMT, 2015 [retrieved on 2025-11-26]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://ijmt.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-541-1&slc_lang=en&sid=1>. Teaches air lubrication and different ship hull designs such as hybrid lifting body ships (ships with foils) and catamaran hulls are known methods for reducing drag.
Choi et al., Development and demonstration of PEM fuel-cell-battery hybrid system for propulsion of tourist boat [online]. sciencedirect.com, 2016 [retrieved on 2025-11-26]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915028438>. Teaches a ferry with a fuel cell where the residual air from the fuel-cell modules is directly vented to the outside of the boat through the holes at the sides of the boat (See at least page 5 of 9 right col. last sentence above “testing and demonstration”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615