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 file on 26 September 2025. Claim 1-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application.
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.
Claim 6-7, 12, 18-19 and 24 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.
The term “an up or down position” in claims 6 and 18 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “up” and “down” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The spec. para. [0028] best describes the action of the rails 311A, 311B. In the spec. the rails are adjustable, where in the “up position” the rails hold the unmanned vehicle to the frame. However, the “down position” is not clear if one of the following is true: (1) the “down position” will hold the unmanned vehicle to the frame, as understood to be adjustable to a different size unmanned vehicle, OR (2) the “down position” will not hold the unmanned vehicle to the frame. Additionally, it is not clear as to the action or mechanism the Examiner should be looking for such as sliding, pivoting, removable or hinged as it is not discussed nor shown in the figures. Finally, the figures only show the rails in a horizontal direction position, where “up” and “down” are directionals in the vertical direction, adding to this confusion. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment {i.e. do not add the mechanism as discussed above, as it is only an example of why this is indefinite}, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04. The Applicant may amend this to recite “a first position” and “a second position”.
The term “the up position” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. See above rejection for claims 6 and 18 for statement of why and correction to either “the first position” or “the second position” to match that of claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected based on the claim 18 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 12 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The limitation of “a latching mechanism that has a latch” is unclear in view of the Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s fig. 15 shows that latch “1515” is attached to the UUV “1505” and therefore is not considered structure of “A launch and recovery vehicle” as claimed in at least claim 1; which recites “to carry an item”. The omitted structure is that “a latching mechanism that has a latch” is attached to “an item” and not “the vehicle of claim 1”. Where the current claim language is not clear to the Examiner if the prior art should show “a latching mechanism that has a latch” connected to “A launch and recovery vehicle”. Therefore, the embodiment of “a latching mechanism that has a latch” is a modification of “an item”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be as follows: “…further comprising which is positioned perpendicular to a lengthwise position of the frame and is attached to either interior side of the frame.”.
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 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12-16, 18, 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (GB 2442214 A) in view of Robb (US 7021228 B2) further in view of Langenfeld (US 9676318 B2) and further in view of Gibson et al. (US 7712429 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses A launch and recovery vehicle (multi role landing craft. (MRLC); See at least fig. 1 and page 15 of 19 description of fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (side walls 1 and main deck 2; See at least fig. 1 and page 15 of 19 reference numbers) having a plurality of connected materials that collectively form a rigid body (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the side walls 1 and main deck 2 form a rigid body; and page 16 of 19, 3rd para “Fig I presents a profile of the Multi Role Landing Craft (MRLC) with side walls (1) to the main deck (2). These sides' walls (1) provide torsional stiffness to the main deck and give stability when the MRLC has its main deck (2) submerged to accept or discharge floating loads.”) wherein the frame is elongated (See at least: fig. 12 for elongated shape where the length {fwd to aft}of the main deck is longer than the width {port to starboard}) and has a set of wheels (tracks 17 or metal wheels 18; See at least figs. 7-9 where figs. 8-9 best show “wheels”) to carry an item (equipment or loads; See at least: page 13 of 19, “summary of invention”, first para. “…taking loads of over 1000 tonnes…”.);
wherein the frame is pulled or towed on the set of wheels when the frame is located on a solid surface (See at least: page 16 of 19, last para. “…The shallow water drive system-metal wheels (18) are towered and in position for propulsion through soft mud, sand, land and snow but can retract back into recess (12) in an emergency…”);
wherein the frame can be immersed into water to retrieve the item (See at least: fig. 11), which is in the water (water 23; See at least: page 17 of 19, second to last para. “…Fig 11 presents a view of the MRLC submerged with main deck (2) under water (23) and side walls (1) providing stability. With bow ramp (3) lowered to accept a floating load.”);
the frame having a portion that is a middle area (main deck 2; See at least: fig. 1) with a semi-circular or similar shape at one end to hold the item in the portion of the frame ({Examiner notes: the invention of Turner is not limiting for the use of the main deck space such that, the main deck is available for outfitting to a specific use.});
a capture mechanism that includes a pair of rails that run along each side of the frame, the capture mechanism secures the item to the frame; and
the frame having at least one tank for ballasting and deballasting (a ballasting system; See at least: page 12 of 19, 3rd para. from the bottom of the page “As the MRLC is a semi submersible barge with it a ballasting system so that marine barges with supplies can be loaded on to the MRLC in deeper water, and brought ashore for discharge or repair with Out the need for a purpose built dock.” {The Examiner interprets ballasting system to include a tank, piping, pumps, electrical power and a control system to perform the submerging as show in fig. 11. However, provides the prior art of Robb in this rejection to positively identify the components of a ballasting system.}) wherein when ballasting occurs and the launch and recovery vehicle is in the water, the launch and recovery vehicle sinks in the water, and when deballasting occurs and the launch and recovery vehicle is in the water, the launch and recovery vehicle rises toward a water surface in the water (See at least: page 12 of 19, third to fifth para. from the bottom of the page “The outline design of the MRLC is similar to a floating dry dock and this has an immediate number of advantages. The side walls allow the craft to be submerged on a controlled bases so equipment can be floated onto or off the deck and then transported either ashore or offshore. Equipment such as small boats can be brought ashore for repair without the need of a special dock or a long haul back to a dock facility. As the MRLC is a semi submersible barge with it a ballasting system so that marine barges with supplies can be loaded on to the MRLC in deeper water, and brought ashore for discharge or repair with out the need for a purpose built dock…” and fig. 11).
However, Turner does not disclose wherein the frame is pulled or towed on the set of wheels when the frame is located on a solid surface…
the frame having a portion that is a middle area (main deck 2; See at least: fig. 1) with a semi-circular or similar shape at one end to hold the item in the portion of the frame ({Examiner notes: the invention of Turner is not limiting for the use of the main deck space such that, the main deck is available for outfitting to a specific use.});
a capture mechanism that includes a pair of rails that run along each side of the frame, the capture mechanism secures the item to the frame; and…
the frame having at least one tank for ballasting and deballasting…
Robb in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the frame (10 central hull, 12 outboard hulls, 14 main frame and 16 heavy frame; See at least: Figs 1, and 6-7) is pulled or towed (32 towing tongue: See at least: fig. 1 and 13) on the set of wheels (28 pneumatic-tired wheels; See at least: fig. 1) when the frame is located on a solid surface (road; See at least: col. 7 line 25-26, “…road tow configuration the ferry is adapted to be towed on a road by a tow vehicle…”)…
the frame having at least one tank (water-ballast tanks 94 and 102; See at least: fig. 4) for ballasting and deballasting (See at least: col. 18 lines 56-60 “water is pump-adjusted into selected water-ballast tanks 94 and 102 (FIG. 4) to adjust fore/aft trim and port/starboard list. This feature is considered in particular to be highly beneficial for transporting heavy loads such as tanks, machinery, oil-rig equipment, etc., over waterways.”)…
However, Robb does not teach the frame having a portion that is a middle area (central hull 12; See at least fig. 2) with a semi-circular or similar shape at one end to hold the item in the portion of the frame ({Examiner notes: the invention of Rob is not limiting for the use of the central hull space such that, the central hull is available for outfitting to a specific use.}););
a capture mechanism that includes a pair of rails that run along each side of the frame, the capture mechanism secures the item to the frame; and…
Langenfeld in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a capture mechanism (step-and-guide apparatuses 12; See at least figs. 1-2) that includes a pair of rails (step-and-guide board 52; See at least: figs. 2-3 where fig. 3 shows “52” and as it is a part of “12” shown in fig. 2 confirms a pair of “52”.) that run along each side of the frame (frame 14; See at least figs. 1-2), the capture mechanism secures the item (boat 26; See at least fig. 1 and fig. 7 showing ) to the frame (See at least: figs. 8 and 10 and col. 7 lines 57-59 “The rub pad 78 prevents the hull of the boat from rubbing against the metal components of the step-and-guide apparatuses 12); and…
However, Langenfeld does not teach the frame having a portion that is a middle area (See at least: fig. 2) with a semi-circular or similar shape at one end (See at least: fig. 2 and 8 showing a “V” shape matching the boat hull’s design.)to hold the item (boat 26; See at least: figs. 1-2) in the portion of the frame…
Gibson et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the frame (rigid hollow members 106 lateral members 110 and contoured support members 112; See at least: fig. 6) having a portion that is a middle area (See at least fig. 6, where UUV 12 is supported in the middle area/portion of elongate sabot 104) with a semi-circular or similar shape at one end (contoured support members 112; See at least: fig. 6 and col. 7 lines 1-3 “bottom support members 112 on both of members 106 are contoured to fit against or accommodate the shape of the selected UUV 12. Contoured support members 112,” where fig. 6 shows a circular shaped UUV 12 therefore “112” is interpreted to be semi-circular to contour to the shape of the UUV 12.) to hold the item (UUV 12; See at least figs. 6) in the portion of the frame…
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 Multi Role Landing Craft (MRLC) of Turner with 32 towing tongue of Robb with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, 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 Multi Role Landing Craft (MRLC)’s main deck 2 of Turner with step-and-guide apparatuses 12 of Langenfeld and contoured support members 112 of Gibson et al. 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 providing transportation options and towing capability to move the MRLC of Turner to its operational location (See at least: Robb col. 20 lines 1-11 “…highly beneficial aspect of the invention illustrated for example by the combination of features and specifications described above, the present road towed ferry complies with vehicle/trailer regulations for length, width, height, weight, and axle spacing on all interstate highways, national network highways, and most public roads. In a further highly beneficial embodiment, the dimensions and the weight of the ferry may also be constructed to meet the requirements for air transport by C-130 or C-17A aircraft and used to transport heavy construction and mining equipment and military vehicles.”). Further motivation is the benefit it to outfit the MRLC’s main deck with guide boards or rails to assist personnel with guiding or aligning a water vehicle during load transfers (See at least: Langenfeld col. 10 lines 50-60 “…a boat trailer step-and-guide apparatus that includes a number of step-and-guide boards or rails that are pivotably mounted to the frame of the boat trailer, such that they are rotatable to a number of distinct positions. When rotated to a down position, the step-and-guide boards function as steps that aid an operator in boarding and exiting the boat while on the water or while resting on the trailer on land. When rotated to an up position, the step-and-guide boards function as boat trailer guides that aid in aligning a boat on the frame during a loading of the boat thereon.”). Further motivation is the benefit it to outfit the MRLC’s main deck with a cradle to support a UUV during launch and revery (See at least: Gibson et al. fig. 6 and col. 7 lines 3-5 “Contoured support members 112, and lateral members 110, cradle and support UUV 12 on carriage 20 and while UUV 12 is being launched and recovered.”).
Regarding claim 2, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gibson et al teaches wherein the item is an unmanned underwater vehicle (unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV 12; See at least: fig. 6 and Abstract).
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Turner discloses wherein the frame can hold up to at least an equivalent of 20,000 pounds (See at least: Abstract “1000 tonnes or more” where 1 metric ton is about 2,000 pounds). Additionally, Robb teaches wherein the frame can hold up to at least an equivalent of 20,000 pounds (at least 16 tons or 19 tons; See at least: abstract).
Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Turner discloses wherein the frame can withstand a momentum ({Examiner notes: Momentum is mass in motion where weight is mass under gravitational acceleration. To relate momentum to weight; the weight must be divided by a change in time to stop a motion of the object.}) of at least an equivalent of 26,000 pounds (See at least: Abstract “1000 tonnes or more” where 1 metric ton is about 2,000 pounds; {Examiner notes: The rating of 2,000,000 pounds is sufficient safety factor to account a mass in motion with equivalence of 26,000 pounds.}) from the item.
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Langenfeld teaches wherein each rail of the pair of rails moves in an up or down position (up position or trailer position; See at least: fig. 3 and col. 6 lines 38-44 “According to an exemplary embodiment, two detents are formed in the up-stop bracket 44—a primary detent 64 that positions the step-and-guide arm 50 in the up position when the latch 68 is received therein and a secondary detent 66 that positions the step-and-guide arm 50 in what is termed to be a “trailer” position when the latch 68 is received therein”) and locks (latch 68; See at least fig. 3) in either position.
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gibson et al. teaches wherein the portion includes a cradle (contoured support members 112; See at least: fig. 6 and col. 7 lines 3-5 “Contoured support members 112, and lateral members 110, cradle and support UUV 12 on carriage 20 and while UUV 12 is being launched and recovered.”) to support the item.
Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gibson et al. teaches wherein the frame (rigid hollow members 106 lateral members 110 and contoured support members 112; See at least: fig. 6) attaches to a water vehicle (ship 15; See at least: fig. 11) and is pulled or towed (pad eye 102, coupling hook 100, frame member 114 and line 98; See at least fig. 11) by the water vehicle when the frame is located in the water (See at least fig. 11).
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 attaching the coupling hook 100 and frame member 114 to pad eye 102 connection of Gibson et al. with attaching the coupling hook to towing tongue 32 of Robb {The combination MRLC of claim 1}, 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 reducing hazardous involvement of support personnel by using a ship’s winch and hook to connect to the MRLC with towing tongue 32 for a controlled recovery of the MRLC (See at least: Gibson et al. col. 9 lines 15-26 “Referring to FIG. 14, after connection of line 98 to pad eye 102, ship 15 moves slowly forward to separate UUV 12 from it and thereby greatly reduces the possibility of danger to personnel and damage during recovery of UUV 12. This separation reduces these hazards that have otherwise plagued recovery of UUVs using conventional retrieval procedures and contemporary equipment. Line 98 is securely connected to pad eye 102 via hook 100 and UUV 12 is towed to trail behind ship 15 in an aligned fashion during its approach to frame member 114 of sabot 104, see FIG. 15. No unnecessary hazardous involvement of support personnel is called for with system 10 of the invention.”).
Regarding claim 12 {See at least: 112(b) rejection above for reason of amending claim 12 below.}, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Langenfeld teaches further comprising (A winch and cable system 24; See at least: fig. 1) which is positioned perpendicular to a lengthwise position of the frame and is attached to either interior side of the frame (See at least: fig. 1 where it shows a centered position interior of frame 14 and perpendicular to each side member 20 of the frame 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 have modified the MRLC of Turner with winch and cable system 24 and centered internal position of Langenfeld 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 applying a pulling force to the item being loaded to the main deck (See at least: Langenfeld col. 4 lines 21-24 “A winch and cable system 24 is affixed to the frame 14 at a front portion therein, with the winch and cable system 24 allowing for a pulling force to applied to a boat 26 (FIG. 1) being loaded onto the trailer 10.”).
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner notes that claim 13 is a method claim relating to the structure and limitations as provided in at least claim 1, such that claim 1 and 13 are similar. The method of claim 13 can be derived though the prior art as shown in the claim 1 rejection above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 21, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 24, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 12 above.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Robb, in view of Langenfeld, in view of Gibson et al. and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 110294005 A).
Regarding claim 5, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above
However, Turner does not disclose nor does Robb, Langenfeld or Gibson et al. teach wherein a material of the portion is flexible to avoid damaging the item.
Chen et al. in a similar field of endeavor (CPC B62B), teaches wherein a material (two ribs 11 of the arc groove 10; See at least: figs. 1-2) of the portion is flexible (elastic; See at least: text copy page 3 of 7, second to last para, “Furthermore, to ensure stable support of the pipe fitting, a impact buffering pipe piece is mounted in the notch, which avoids damage to the pipe, the supporting part is a rib made of elastic rubber, and the length of the rib extending along the axial direction of the arc-shaped notch, or the support part is a bulge is made of elastic rubber.”) to avoid damaging the item (See citation above).
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 contoured support members 112 of Gibson et al. with elastic ribs 11 of Chen et al. 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 providing an impact buffering piece to avoid damage to the item being supported (See at least: Chen et al. text copy page 3 of 7, second to last para. {full citation above})
Regarding claim 17, Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are allowed.
Claim 7 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 19, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…when the pair of rails is in the up position, the pair of rails touch the item such that the pair of rails and the portion hold the item and secure the item in the frame. …”. The closest prior art of Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. does not teach that the step-and-guide board 52 of Langenfeld physically touch, hold or secure the boat (See at least: Langenfeld col. 10 lines 57-60 “When rotated to an up position, the step-and-guide boards function as boat trailer guides that aid in aligning a boat on the frame during a loading of the boat thereon” therefore are interpreted as not touching or not secure by the Examiner). Gibson teaches nose clamp 116 and arc-shaped members 120 to secure the UUV 12 to the sabot 104 (See at least: fig. 6) however neither of the securing methods of Gibson are rails. See the selection of figs. from the prior art below:
PNG
media_image1.png
799
1303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 22, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s “…wherein each of the set of wheels has a capability to spin perpendicularly 360 degrees relative to its planar rotation.”. The closest prior art of Turner in view of Robb in view of Langenfeld and further in view of Gibson et al. does not teach what is known in the art as caster wheels as both the inventions of Turner and Robb are vehicles for land or road use. See below in section “Additional Relevant Prior Art” where material carts such as the invention of Hooper et al. (US 20180265113 A1) show caster wheels. However, the Examiner finds it improper to combine or substitute caster wheels with the wheels of at least, Turner and Robb.
PNG
media_image2.png
677
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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:
Adams et al. (US 3448712 A) teaches a float for docking and towing seacraft (See at least: figs. 1-2). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Payne (US 3465533 A) teaches a load lifting and carrying apparatus that moves a ship with wheels on land (See at least: fig. 1). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Chaffin (US 3672634 A) teaches a load lifting and transporting apparatus with lockable caster wheels 10 via pin 7 (See at least: fig. 3). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 10-11 and 22-23.
Soehnlen (US 3740075 A) teaches a dredge apparatus having a wheel carriage assembly (See at least: fig. 4). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Watson (US 4033600 A) teaches custom fitted boat guides for boat trailers that are adjustable (See at least: fig. 1).
Des Roches (US 5195767 A) teaches an adjustable boat trailer guide rail assembly includes a pair of transverse slide assembly (See at least: fig. 2 which best shows how the guide rail assembly moves up and down the upright post 38 into different lockable postions via locking means such as bolt 46). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 6 and 18.
Orndorff (US 6682804 B2) teaches a fender protective structure having an inner layer of resilient plastic/elastomer (See at least: fig. 1).
O’Neil et al. (US 6682804 B2) teaches a laden ship is transported across a shallow portion of a watercourse by a submergible floating vessel where the floating vessel may be moved by towing (See at least: fig. 1).
Towley (US 20070000425 A1) teaches a structure used in a body of water that uses ballast tanks 40 and is towable on land with wheels 36 (See at least: fig. 1). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Granlind (US 8505948 B2) teaches a boat transportation carriage and especially to a carriage having self propelling means which can support and transport boats having a displacement of at least 75 tons (See at least: figs. 1-3). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Hooper et al. (US 20180265113 A1) teaches an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) transport cart comprising: a wheeled frame with swiveling caster wheels 33 and rigid caster wheels 35 (See at least: fig. 1).
Grall et al. (FR 3109567 A1) teaches a recovery system for autonomous underwater or surface vehicles that can be towed (See at least: fig. 4-5).
Zhang et al. (CN 111114417 A) a platform car for large UUV (See at least: Fig. 1 and 4(a)). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
Naito (WO 2004063002 A1) teaches a self-propelled platform for a small watercraft (See at least fig. 8). This is relevant to at least the Applicant’s claims 1 and 13.
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 8:00 am - 4:00 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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615