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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 2 is allowable. The restriction requirement between species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/5/26, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 2/5/26 is withdrawn. Claim 6, directed to a specific roller arrangement is no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 13 and 15 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.
Claims 13 and 15 recite that the system operates “without friction phenomena between said flexible flap and said envelope.” As friction can never be completely eliminated, this limitation is not enabled by the disclosure. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the system can overcome any working friction.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 11 and 15 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.
Claims 7, 11 and 15 recite the limitation "said flexible shutter." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 recites “shutter means,” “shutter member” and “flexible flap,” but not “flexible shutter.” For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the shutter member.
Claim 15 recites “the one hand” in line 2, and “the other hand” in line 3. It is unclear if/what components are being referred to and their structural relationship to other claimed components. For the purposes of this action, these limitations will not be addressed, and should be removed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cousteau US 4,630,997.
Regarding claim 1, Cousteau teaches a propulsion device for a vessel, comprising at least one hollow wing 10 having a longitudinal axis O intended to extend vertically, which hollow wing comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
315
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Cousteau Figure 15
an envelope 110 which delimits an internal volume and which comprises a rear part 110b comprising two perforated zones 54,
which two perforated zones are in fluid communication with said internal volume and are arranged symmetrically on either side of a longitudinal plane of symmetry X,
suction means 58 (column 7, lines 3-21), for generating a flow of sucked air which is intended to pass through said perforated zones and which is directed towards said internal volume, and
shutter means (shutter and whatever mechanism moves it), adapted to alternately close one of said two perforated zones, which shutter means comprise:
at least one shutter member 106, adapted to close at least one of said two perforated zones,
operating means (whatever moves the shutter member), adapted to operate said at least one shutter member relative to at least one of said two perforated zones,
which operating means are structured to operate said at least one shutter member between two positions:
an open position, in which said at least one shutter member is retracted relative to at least one of said two perforated zones, and
a closed position, in which said at least one shutter member is deployed facing said perforated zone (see Cousteau figures 6 & 7),
wherein said at least one shutter member consists of a flexible flap (the faces of the shutter are flexible to some degree),
wherein said operating means comprise a frame (the outer edges of the shutter) equipped with support means (whatever mechanism holds the shutter) which cooperate with said at least one flexible flap, and
wherein said support means are structured to maneuver said flexible flap within said frame between said two positions, namely:
said open position, in which said flexible flap is spaced from said envelope and retracted relative to at least one of said two perforated zones, and
said closed position, in which said flexible flap is deployed facing said envelope and conforms to said perforated zone.
PNG
media_image2.png
193
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Cousteau Figure 6
If applicant does not agree that Cousteau teaches operating means, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a mechanized means to move the shutter in order to simplify use and/or reduce manual labor requirements, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. As such, whatever automatic means that is provided can be interpreted as the operating means.
Regarding claim 3, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the at least one flexible flap 106 has two side edges, namely:
a fixed first side edge secured to said envelope, between said two perforated zones 54, and
a movable second side edge secured to said support means.
In this case, all edges are both fixed to the envelope (as the entire device is connected) and moveable to some degree.
Regarding claim 7, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the frame (the outer edges of the shutter) cooperates with motor means (whatever component powers the movement), for the translational maneuvering of said frame on the circumference of said envelope, and which operating means (the outer edges of the shutter) are structured to coordinate, on the one hand, said translational movement of said frame and, on the other hand, said movement of said flexible shutter between said open position and said closed position.
As above, if applicant does not agree that Cousteau teaches motor means, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a mechanized means to move the shutter in order to simplify use and/or reduce manual labor requirements, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. As such, whatever automatic means that is provided can be interpreted as the operating/motor means.
Regarding claim 8, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the shutting means comprise at least two flexible flaps which are each intended to respectively close one of said two perforated zones. In this case, each side of the shutter 106 is interpreted as a flap. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the shutter in two pieces in order to simplify assembly or maintenance, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 9, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the frame carries an aerodynamic flap 14 forming the trailing edge of said hollow wing 10.
Regarding claim 10, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the envelope 110 comprises:
a front part forming the leading edge of the wing, and
a rear part provided with perforated zones 54 (see Cousteau figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the at least one flexible shutter 106 is chosen from flexible membranes and rolling shutters. In this interpretation, shutter 106 rolls into place, meeting the definition of a rolling shutter.
Regarding claim 12, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches a vessel equipped with a propulsion device according to claim 1 (see Cousteau figure 15).
Regarding claim 13, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cousteau also teaches that the support means (whatever mechanism holds the shutter) are structured to maneuver said flexible flap (the faces of the shutter) within said frame (the outer edges of the shutter) between said two positions, overcoming friction phenomena between said flexible flap and said envelope 110.
Regarding claim 15, Cousteau teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Cousteau also teaches that operating means (whatever mechanism holds the shutter) are structured to coordinate said translational movement of said frame (the outer edges of the shutter) and said movement of said shutter 106 between said open position and said closed position, overcoming friction phenomena between said flexible flap and said envelope 110.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bermudez Miquel US 12,134,455 teaches a marine vessel with a vertical suction wing propulsion system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights