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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 18 recites that the structure covered with photovoltaic elements has a variable surface area, however as disclosed surfaces 13 are able to tilt. This does not vary the surface area, and as such “variable surface area” is not enabled.
Claim 21 recites that “the software of which contains KI.” There is no mention of “KI” in the disclosure, so it is therefor unclear what the applicant is attempting to recite. Note that while there is no mention of artificial intelligence, the disclosure does mention machine learning. For the purposes of this action, “KI” will be interpreted as machine learning.
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 15, 16 and 19 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 15 recites the limitation "the point" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “the point of each submerged hull” refers to.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bow float" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “the bow float” refers to.
Claim 16 recites “with similar offset as the submerged hulls,” however the submerged hulls are not offset. It is unclear what this limitation is attempting to claim. As claim 16 depends from claim 13, this was likely intended to recite that the fins and transverse thrusters are positioned with similar offset as the narrowed portions.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the planking" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this action, claim 19 will be treated as though it depends from claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lang US 4,944,238.
Regarding claim 12, Lang discloses a watercraft comprising upper works that receive a structure,
wherein two partial hulls, which are spaced apart from one another transverse to a direction of travel, are arranged on an underside of the upper works 18, i.e. the wet deck, and essentially extend in the direction of travel of the watercraft over at least a portion of the upper works, and
wherein the partial hulls are respectively seated on a buoyancy body, which includes a float 22, 24 and a submerged hull 12, essentially is arranged in the direction of travel of the watercraft and extends over at least a portion of the upper works,
wherein the submerged hulls have characteristic narrowed portions in cross section, which are formed on the longitudinal extent of float profiles of the partial hull.
PNG
media_image1.png
175
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Lang Figures 2 and 1
Regarding claim 13, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang also discloses that the characteristic narrowed portions of the submerged hulls 12 are arranged offset to the floats 22, 24 in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 15 as best understood, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang also discloses that the point of each submerged hull 12 is designed in the form of a bulge 30 and arranged at a distance from the bow float of the partial hull.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaina WO 2020/016651.
Regarding claim 12, Kaina discloses a watercraft comprising upper works that receive a structure,
wherein two partial hulls, which are spaced apart from one another transverse to a direction of travel, are arranged on an underside of the upper works, i.e. the wet deck, and essentially extend in the direction of travel of the watercraft over at least a portion of the upper works, and
wherein the partial hulls are respectively seated on a buoyancy body, which includes a float 5 and a submerged hull 4, essentially is arranged in the direction of travel of the watercraft and extends over at least a portion of the upper works,
wherein the submerged hulls have characteristic narrowed portions 4.1, 4.2 in cross section, which are formed on the longitudinal extent of float profiles of the partial hull.
PNG
media_image2.png
283
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Kaina Figure 2
Regarding claim 13, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina also discloses that the characteristic narrowed portions 4.1, 4.2 of the submerged hulls are arranged offset to the floats 5 in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 15 as best understood, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina also discloses that the point of each submerged hull is designed in the form of a bulge (below 6) and arranged at a distance from the bow float of the partial hull.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina also discloses that the structure has a planking 2 with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements [0018].
Regarding claim 19 as best understood, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina also discloses that a planking 2 is arranged in an at least partially foldable or pivotable manner [0018].
Regarding claim 21 as best understood, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina also discloses that the watercraft includes a control and a stabilization system, the software of which contains KI [0011, claim 3].
Regarding claim 22, Kaina discloses a watercraft comprising:
upper works that receive a structure,
wherein two partial hulls, which are spaced apart from one another transverse to the direction of travel, are arranged on the underside of said upper works, i.e. the wet deck, and essentially extend in the direction of travel of the watercraft over at least a portion of the upper works, and
wherein the partial hulls are respectively seated on a buoyancy body, which includes a float 5 and a submerged hull 4, essentially is arranged in the direction of travel of the watercraft and extends over at least a portion of the upper works,
wherein the structure has a planking 2 with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements [0018].
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 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,944,238.
Regarding claim 14, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang does not detail the specific shape of the hulls, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hulls of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired fluid flow or internal space within the optimum envelope. 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. Put another way, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hulls of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired fluid flow or internal space within the optimum envelope, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 20, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang also teaches that at least one fin 35, 36 is arranged on the submerged hulls 12, but does not teach that the fin is movable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fins adjustable in order to customize the water flow for different scenarios, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) .
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,944,238 in view of Roodenburg US 6,688,248.
Regarding claim 16, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Lang also teaches that fins 35, 36 are positioned with similar offset as the submerged hulls. Lang does not teach transverse thrusters.
Roodenburg teaches a ship with two submerged hulls 8, 10 comprising transverse thrusters 42 at the front of the submerged hulls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Lang with transverse thrusters as taught by Roodenburg in order to improve the maneuverability of the vessel.
If applicant does not agree about the positioning of the fins or thrusters, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the fins and thrusters with similar offset as the submerged hulls in order to provide the desired leverage or handling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang also teaches that fins 35, 36 are positioned on both submerged hulls. Lang does not teach transverse thrusters.
Roodenburg teaches a ship with two submerged hulls 8, 10 comprising transverse thrusters 42 at the front of the submerged hulls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Lang with transverse thrusters on the submerged hulls as taught by Roodenburg in order to improve the maneuverability of the vessel.
Claims 18, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,944,238 in view of Perlo US 9,567,053.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang does not teach a planking with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements. Perlo teaches a marine vessel comprising a planking 15 with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Lang with collapsable photovoltaic cells as taught by Perlo in order to enable solar energy production when needed while maintaining the ability to store the photovoltaic elements when desired.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Perlo Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image3.png
299
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19 as best understood, Lang and Perlo teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Perlo also teaches that the planking 15 is arranged in an at least partially foldable or pivotable manner.
Regarding claim 22, Lang teaches a watercraft comprising:
upper works 18 that receive a structure,
wherein two partial hulls, which are spaced apart from one another transverse to the direction of travel, are arranged on the underside of said upper works, i.e. the wet deck, and essentially extend in the direction of travel of the watercraft over at least a portion of the upper works, and
wherein the partial hulls are respectively seated on a buoyancy body, which includes a float 22, 24 and a submerged hull 12, essentially is arranged in the direction of travel of the watercraft and extends over at least a portion of the upper works.
Lang does not teach a planking with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements. Perlo teaches a marine vessel comprising a planking 15 with variable surface area, which is essentially covered with photovoltaic elements 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Lang with collapsable photovoltaic cells as taught by Perlo in order to enable solar energy production when needed while maintaining the ability to store the photovoltaic elements when desired.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,944,238 in view of Seeley US 11,608,149.
Regarding claim 21 as best understood, Lang discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Lang does not teach that the watercraft includes a control and a stabilization system, the software of which contains KI. Seeley teaches a watercraft which includes a control and a stabilization system, the software of which incorporates machine learning (column 26, lines 29-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Lang with a machine learning stabilization system as taught by Seeley in order to better control the vessel during operation and ensure a smoother ride.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaina WO 2020/016651.
Regarding claim 14, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina does not detail the specific shape of the hulls, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hulls of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired fluid flow or internal space within the optimum envelope. 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. Put another way, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hulls of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired fluid flow or internal space within the optimum envelope, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaina WO 2020/016651 in view of Martin US 5,511,504 and Roodenburg US 6,688,248.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina does not teach that fins and transverse thrusters are positioned with similar offset as the submerged hulls.
Martin teaches a SWATH-type vessel 10 which has movable control fins 22-25 mounted on the pontoons 11, 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Kaina with controllable fins on the floats as taught by Martin in order “to provide improved control of roll and pitch, and also to counteract any heave or vertical movement of the vessel” (abstract).
Roodenburg teaches a ship with two submerged hulls 8, 10 comprising transverse thrusters 42 at the front of the submerged hulls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Kaina with transverse thrusters on the submerged hulls as taught by Roodenburg in order to improve the maneuverability of the vessel.
If applicant does not agree about the positioning of the fins or thrusters, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the fins and thrusters with similar offset as the submerged hulls in order to provide the desired leverage or handling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaina WO 2020/016651 in view of Martin US 5,511,504.
Regarding claim 20, Kaina discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kaina does not teach that at least one movable fin is arranged on the submerged hulls. Martin teaches a SWATH-type vessel 10 which has movable control fins 22-25 mounted on the pontoons 11, 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Kaina with controllable fins on the floats as taught by Martin in order “to provide improved control of roll and pitch, and also to counteract any heave or vertical movement of the vessel” (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hall US 5,301,624 teaches a SWATH vessel in which the floats are larger in the center and have controllable fins.
Brown US 4,020,777 teaches a SWATH vessel with transverse thrusters.
Farrell US D326,638 teaches a SWATH vessel in which the floats are larger in the center.
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