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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of typographical errors and implied phrasing. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP §608.01(m). See the claim rejections for an example of indentations.
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Improper grammar in claim 1, line 6: i.e., “suctions fans”
Improper grammar in claim 2, line 2: i.e., “of four wheel cylinders”
Correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites in line 5 “the small gear has a hydraulic pump that has a mechanism that connects to a jet pump that is configured to propel the vehicle and to steer the vehicle.”
This is indefinite because it is unclear if this “jet pump” is the same “jet pump” in claim 1 (reproduced) or if Applicant is requiring a separate “jet pump” – that is in addition to the jet pump in line 4 of claim 1, i.e., “a jet pump that connects to the power transfer device; line 3: a power transfer device that captures the wheels of a vehicle; line 8: the vehicle is configured to power and steer the water vessel”. Each recitation of jet pump (i.e., claim 1 and claim 2) appears to be referring to the same jet pump. Claims 3-4 fail to cure the deficiency. Correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanz (US 5,607,330); Messano (US 6,840,825 B1); and Lloyd (US 684,700).
Regarding claim 1, Hanz discloses a kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel (Fig. 1) comprising:
a water vessel (pontoon boat 10) that has
a central support body (central deck 14),
a left and a right hull (pair of pontoons 12),
a housing that has a rear opening (Examiner notes the housing depicted in Fig. 1 has a rear opening as is evidenced by the disclosure of driving a land vehicle backwards onto the boat, pg. 17, col. 8, ln. 41),
the water vessel has a power transfer device that captures the wheels of a vehicle (pg. 14, col. 2, ln. 43; Fig. 14: a diagrammatic view of the boat mechanism for transmitting power from the vehicle wheels to the boat propellers);
a hydraulic system that connects to a power steering system of the vessel (pg. 14, col. 2, ln. 41; Fig. 13: a diagrammatic view of the boat steering mechanism),
a jet pump that connects to the power transfer device (hydraulic gear pumps 210, Fig. 14; one pump for each propellor/jet to move fluid in response in response to a rotating shaft for fluid power), and
the vehicle, the vehicle is configured to power and steer the water vessel (the road vehicle; pg. 14, col. 1, lines 39-56: road vehicle… the boat is powered primarily by the vehicle… steering of the boat is accomplished by means of the existing steerage of the road vehicle… with the steerable wheels of the vehicle… this can be accomplished with essentially no modifications of the road vehicle).
Hanz does not appear to disclose an electric generator that is connected to solar panels. However, in the same filed of endeavor, Messano teaches a water vessel that is configured to function both in the water as a watercraft resembling the attributes of conventional yachts, and on land as a fully functioning traditional recreational vehicle suited for fast highway travel, etc. The water vessel comprises an electric generator that is connected to solar panels (genset 63 with solar cells atop the vessel; see pg. 18-19, last line of page 18; and col. 19, lines 1-14, on page 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel disclosed by Hanz with the electric generator that is connected to solar panels, as taught by Messano, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel comprises the electric generator that is connected to solar panels. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a redundant, flexible and resilient power supply for the kit, i.e., the ability to develop electric power via solar energy (Messano; pg. 18, col. 18, ln. 66).
Hanz modified by Messano does not appear to specifically disclose a pair of suction fans that are configured to remove exhaust fumes, heat and water from the housing. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Llyod teaches a method for ventilating a boat including a suction fan that is configured to remove exhaust fumes, heat and water from a housing (Fig. 3, power driven exhaust fan or suction blower for exhausting gases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel disclosed by Hanz modified by Messano with the suction fan that is configured to remove exhaust fumes, heat and water from the housing as taught by Llyod, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel comprises a suction fan configured to remove exhaust fumes, heat and water from the housing. The benefit being the predictable outcome of at least protecting crew members from dangerous fumes and helping to prevent corrosion to the catamaran style water vessel housing and components (Llyod; col. 1, ln. 35).
While a pair of suction fans do not appear to be disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a pair of the suction fans that are configured to remove exhaust fumes, heat and water from the housing, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The benefit being providing the capability for more removal power than that of a kit having just one of the fans. This gives the predictable outcome of a more versatile kit capable of a range of configurations.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hanz, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Ross (US 7,815,476 B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hanz discloses the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel of claim 1, wherein the power transfer device comprises:
four wheel stabilizations devices that run perpendicular to the four wheel cylinders (best seen in Fig. 2),
rollers that are mounted on the four wheel cylinders (power take-off rollers 110, best seen in Fig. 15),
a large gear that is connected to a small gear (116 connected to 223; Fig. 13),
the small gear has a hydraulic pump that has a mechanism that connects to a jet pump (210; Examiner notes 112b rejection associated with the limitation) that is configured to propel the vehicle and to steer the vehicle (gear pumps of hydraulic motor 211, 211a).
Modified Hanz does not specifically disclose that there are four of the rollers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided however many rollers that is found to be optimal for the kit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The benefit being effectively engaging with the vehicle wheels via rollers.
For example, Ross teaches an amphibious utility trailer that receives marine propulsive power and/or steering control from a ferried vehicle that includes four rollers (two sets of drive rollers 40 and 41 to removably engage a tire; Ross, DESCRIPTION, para (12)).
In addition to the above modification or in the alternative to the above modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit for powering a catamaran disclosed by modified Hanz with the four drive rollers as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel comprises FOUR of the rollers that are mounted on the four wheel cylinders. The benefit being the ability to effectively engage a tire.
The four rollers do not appear to be specifically rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used rubber for the rollers, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use so that the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel comprises four rubber rollers that are mounted on the four wheel cylinders. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Rubber is widely used for rollers and the benefits are predictable, well known and highly customizable, e.g., including but not limited to ideal gripping characteristics, shock absorption, vibration damping, etc.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hanz, as applied to claim 2, and further, in view of Kim (US 5,660,134).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hanz discloses the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel of claim 2, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the water vessel has a plurality of airbags.
However, Kim teaches an amphibious vehicle in the same field of endeavor including a plurality of airbags (flotation pods 156 and bladders filled with gas; col. 5 ln. 44-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel disclosed by modified Hanz with the plurality of airbags as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the kit contains the plurality of air bags. The benefit being the predictable outcome of additional buoyancy (Kim, col. 5, ln. 44-50).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hanz, as applied to claim 3, and further, in view of Mori (WO 2019/181301 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hanz discloses the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel of claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle is an electric powered vehicle.
However, Mori teaches applying propulsive force to a ship using an automobile that is specifically an electric powered vehicle (pg. 3 attached, USE - such as a fuel cell vehicle, natural gas vehicle, liquefied petroleum gas vehicle or electric vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel disclosed by modified Hanz with the electric vehicle as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the kit for powering a catamaran style water vessel comprises the electric powered vehicle. The benefit being eliminating the need for installing tanks filled with gases (Mori, pg. 3, ADVANTAGES).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carroll (US 3,987,748) teaches a marine vessel adapted to be powered and steered by a transported land vehicle; Neprud (US 8,986,056 B2) teaches an amphibious yacht; and Tice (US 12,097,733 B2) teaches an amphibious vehicle powered by any means, electric, internal combustion engine, jet, etc. For example, the amphibious vehicle may be embodied as a commercial transport amphibious vehicle (e.g., having a driver and compartment a cargo, passenger, etc.), having 4 or more wheels, tracks, and the like, or any combination thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642