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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: please replace the word “facilities” in line 1 of the claim with the word, “facilitates”.
Claim 15-16: please replace all instances of “buttock stern” with “rear stern”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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(s) 1-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 112502117 A).
Examiner’s note: Claims 1 and 5 are written broadly such that the claims would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over at least the following documents:
Villabla Hernandez et al. (US 20230294800 A1)
Hatfield (US Patent No. 5191848)
Liu et al. (CN 115285295 A)
Park (KR 20230047763 A)
Zhu (CN 107128448 A)
Xu (CN 115354637 A)
Miyata (EP 0483949 A1)
Wu (CN 111605672 A)
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a pair of extended arms coupled to a bow section of a vessel (Figures 1-7, elements 11), the pair of extended arms comprising: a port side extended arm operationally coupled to a port side of the bow (Figures 1-7); and a starboard side extended arm operationally coupled to a starboard side of the bow (Figures 1-7), the pair of extended arms configuring a trapezoid pool and bifurcating an incoming wave towards the vessel thereby reducing impact of wave resistance on the vessel (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein each of the pair of extended arm having a proximal end and a distal end (Figures 1-7), the distal end of the port side extended arms is directed towards the distal end of the starboard side extended arm (Figures 1-7), forming the trapezoid pool (Figures 1-7 and ¶ [0055] teach that elements 11 may swing from an open to close position and form “increasing and reducing angles,” thereby satisfying the structural limitation required to form a trapezoid pool).
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the pair of extended arms configured to bifurcate the incoming wave towards the vessel into three portions: a port side wave directed towards the port side of the vessel (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); a starboard side wave directed towards the starboard side of the vessel (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); and a center wave directed into the trapezoid pool through a gap (g) between distal ends of the pair of extended arms (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the pair of extended arms may extend or retract along length of the pair of extended arms (claims 5 and 10 teach that the electric cylinders 14 connected to arms 11 may extend and retract).
Regarding claim 5, Hu teaches a vessel comprising: a bow having a port side and a starboard side (Figures 1-7); a pair of extended arms (Figures 1-7, elements 11) comprising: a port side extended arm operationally coupled to the port side of the bow (Figures 1-7, elements 11), and a starboard side extended arm operationally coupled to the starboard side of the bow (Figures 1-7, elements 11), the pair of extended arms configuring a trapezoid pool and bifurcating an incoming wave towards the vessel thereby reducing impact of wave resistance on the vessel (Figures 1-7, inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein the bow is selected from a single indented bulbous bow or vertical bow having a curved bottom or a slide-shape bow (Figures 1-7 depict a slide-shaped bow).
Regarding claim 7, Hu teaches the invention in claim 6, wherein the bow has an inclination angle (α) at bottom ranging between 30° to 90° (Figures 1-7 depict a bow with an α of approximately 90°).
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein the pair of extended arms may extend or retract along length of the pair of extended arms (claims 5 and 10 teach that the electric cylinders 14 connected to arms 11 may extend and retract) to act as a rudder of the vessel (intended use).
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein each of the pair of extended arms having a proximal end and a distal end (Figures 1-7), the distal end of the port side extended arm is directed towards the distal end of the starboard side extended arm (Figures 1-7), forming the trapezoid pool (Figures 1-7 and ¶ [0055] teach that elements 11 may swing from an open to close position and form “increasing and reducing angles,” thereby satisfying the structural limitation required to form a trapezoid pool).
Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches the invention in claim 9, wherein the pair of extended arms configured to bifurcate the incoming wave towards the vessel into three portions: a port side wave directed towards the port side of the vessel (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); a starboard side wave directed towards the starboard side of the vessel (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); and a center wave directed into the trapezoid pool through a gap (g) between distal ends of the pair of extended arms (Figures 1-7 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the trapezoid pool facilitates the generation of air bubbles by collisions of the center wave with the bow and the pair of extended arms (without any recitation of changes to structural limitations found in claim 10, Figures 1-7 satisfy the claim inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein the bow, the port side extended arm and the starboard side extended arm are supportably connected to each other through one or more supporting members (Figures 1-7).
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(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 112502117 A) in view of Liu (CN 115285295 A).
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches the invention in claim 5, but fails to specifically teach the vessel further comprising a rear stern having a 10°-60° of sliding structure (β). However, use of angled rear sterns and transoms are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-8 of Liu. It would have been obvious to modify Hu’s transom with Liu’s angled transom, in order to facilitate more controlled and distributed buoyancy in heavy seas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644