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 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 4-7 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 written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The motor is on the rear strut in the current embodiment shown in Fig. 15, it is not on a retractable strut that fulfills the limitations of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Giroux (US 20230382496 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Giroux discloses a watercraft comprising:
at least one hydrofoil (87);
at least one retractable strut (52), wherein the at least one hydrofoil is attached fixedly to the at least one retractable strut;
a rotating joint(57) attaching the at least one retractable strut to a hull of the watercraft;
wherein the at least one retractable strut is rotatably attached to the rotating joint at a first end of the at least one retractable strut and attached fixedly to the at least one hydrofoil at a second end of the at least one retractable strut; and (See Fig. 9.)
an actuator (124, see paragraph 143) connected to the at least one retractable strut, the actuator configured to cause the at least one retractable strut and the at least one hydrofoil to swing between a deployed position extended below the hull and a retracted position in which the at least one retractable strut and the at least one hydrofoil are received within corresponding slots formed in the hull (See Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 2, Giroux discloses a watercraft of Claim 1, wherein the actuator is a hydraulic or electric linear actuator connected rotatably to the at least one retractable strut via a lever arm. (paragraph 143)
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.
Claim 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroux (US 20230382496 A1) in view of Rosen (US 20220380002 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Giroux discloses the watercraft of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one sensor enabled to detect at least one object or measurement, the object or measurement selected from a list consisting of shallow water, rocks, obstacles substantially under the water, obstacles near the surface of the water, obstacles floating in the water, other watercraft, fish, water pressure, depth below the surface of the water, and speed.
Rosen discloses a watercraft comprising at least one sensor (sonar paragraph 35) enabled to detect at least one object or measurement, the object or measurement selected from a list consisting of shallow water, rocks, obstacles substantially under the water, obstacles near the surface of the water, obstacles floating in the water, other watercraft, fish, water pressure, depth below the surface of the water, and speed. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the sonar of Rosen to the watercraft of Giroux which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Giroux, as disclosed by Rosen, is to make it safer.
Regarding Claim 12, Giroux in view of Rosen discloses the watercraft of Claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is a scanning sonar module. (Rosen paragraph 35)
Regarding Claim 13, Giroux in view of Rosen discloses the watercraft of Claim 11, further comprising a hull, wherein the at least one sensor is mounted fixedly as part of one of the at least one retractable strut, the hydrofoil, the hull or the aileron. (Rosen, paragraph 37)
Regarding Claim 14, Giroux in view of Rosen discloses the watercraft of Claim 11, further comprising a control system enabled to accept data from the at least one sensor and analyze the data of the object or measurement to determine if the object or measurement is a source of potential damage to the watercraft and take an appropriate action to avoid the source of potential damage. (Rosen, paragraph 37)
Regarding Claim 15, Giroux in view of Rosen discloses the watercraft of Claim 11, wherein the at least one hydrofoil further comprises:
accept data from the at least one sensor;
analyze the data; and
as a result of the analysis make a change to at least one of a motor speed (Rose, paragraph 35) and a shape of the at least one hydrofoil through the actuation of the at least one aileron.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-10, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 2 Sept 2026
Prosecution Insights