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
Claims 16, 17 and 32-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “wherein support structure and the port support structure.” This should be rephrased as -- wherein the starboard support structure and the port support structure—or similar.
Appropriate 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.
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 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each control flap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this action claim 10 will be treated as though it depends from claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-8, 9-15, 18-29, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 3,623,444 (hereafter Lang 444) in view of Lang US 6,901,873 (hereafter Lang 873) and Magazzu' US 4,955,312.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Lang 444 teaches a hydrofoil comprising:
a starboard support structure 50 and a port support structure 40, each support structure being hollow and extending longitudinally in a fore-aft direction and being parallel to one another;
a front wing (not labeled, see Lang 444 figure 6) having ends connected to the starboard support structure and the port support structure;
a rear wing 60 having ends connected to the starboard support structure and the port support structure; and
a starboard propulsor 51 mounted to the starboard support structure and a port propulsor 41 mounted to the port support structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
207
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Lang 444 Figures 1 and 6
Lang 444 does not teach that the rear wing is anhedral. Magazzu' teaches a hydrofoil 11 comprising:
a starboard support structure and a port support structure, each support structure extending longitudinally in a fore-aft direction and being parallel to one another;
a rear anhedral wing 30 having ends connected to the starboard support structure and the port support structure; and
a starboard propulsor mounted to the starboard support structure and a port propulsor mounted to the port support structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rear wing of Lang 444 to be anhedral as taught by Magazzu’ in order to obtain the desired lift and/or enable the wing to control yaw as well as pitch.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Magazzu' Figure 2
Lang 444 does not teach that the propulsors are electric. Lang 873 teaches a hydrofoil 1 with a starboard electric propulsor 13 mounted to a starboard support structure 12 and a port electric propulsor mounted to a port support structure (column 9, lines 56-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsors of Lang 444 to be electric as taught by Lang 873 in order to utilize a cleaner, more efficient power source.
Please note that just as with the current application, the support structures can be considered at least partially hollow due to the fact that they contain other components. If the applicant intended to imply a specific shape for the support structures, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the support structures hollow or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to make the structures light yet strong. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Lang 444 also teaches that the rear wing has at a trailing edge a starboard control flap 63 and a port control flap 64, each control flap being rotatable about a rotation axis. Lang 444 also teaches that the front wing has a single leading edge control flap 68. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the front wing of Lang 444 dual trailing edge flaps as taught by the rear wing of Lang 444 in order to utilize flaps that require less mechanical energy and similar components to simplify manufacturing and/or maintenance.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Lang 444 Figure 5a)]
PNG
media_image4.png
139
287
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 9. Lang 444 also teaches an electronically controlled actuator 62, 68b connected to each control flap 63, 64, 68, each of the electronically controlled actuators being located in the starboard support structure 40 or the port support structure 50.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 3 and 10. Lang 444 also teaches that each electronically controlled actuator 62, 68b has a shaft that is rotatable about an actuator rotation axis, and wherein each electronically controlled actuator is directly connected to a respective control flap 63, 64, 68, such that the rotation axis of the control flap and the rotation axis of the shaft is aligned.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 14 and 15, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Magazzu’ does not teach specific anhedral wing angles, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the wing as desired in order to produce the desired hydrodynamic effect, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Lang 444 also teaches that the starboard support structure 50 and the port support structure 40 are each dimensioned relative the front wing and rear wing 60 to act as wing caps.
Regarding claim 12, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 and Magazzu’ also teach that the rear anhedral wing 60 has a starboard portion and a port portion.
Regarding claim 13, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 and Magazzu’ also teach that an apex of the rear anhedral wing is located on a plane that is above a plane of the front wing, as this depends on orientation. That is, if the vessel were to be oriented nose-down, the rear wing would be located on a plane that is above a plane of the front wing.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to raise the apex of the rear wing above the front with in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 also teaches that in use, the front wing 68 provides greater lift than the rear anhedral wing 60. In this case the flaps can be directed in different directions, including to pitch the vessel up (column 11, lines 69-73).
Regarding claims 20 and 42, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Lang 444 does not explicitly teach the location of propulsor speed controllers, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize separate speed controllers in order to increase redundancy or decrease system load, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the speed controllers in their respective support structures in order to lessen wiring runs or simplify maintenance/construction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 21 and 43, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Lang 444 also teaches a mounting structure for mounting the hydrofoil to a watercraft 20.
Regarding claim 22, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 also teaches a mounting structure for mounting the hydrofoil to a watercraft and wherein the mounting structure includes a starboard mast 30 extending transversely from the starboard support structure 50 and a port mast 31 extending transversely from the port support structure 40.
Regarding claim 23, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 22. Lang 444 also teaches that the starboard mast 30 and the port mast 31 each extend transversely in a direction towards an aft of the starboard support structure and the port support structure (see Lang 444 figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 24, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 also teaches that the starboard propulsor is mounted at a rear of the starboard support structure 50 and the port propulsor is mounted at a rear of the port support structure 40. As modified by Lang 873, the propulsors are electric.
Regarding claim 25, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 also teaches that at least a portion of the starboard propulsor is mounted within the starboard support structure 50 and at least a portion of the port propulsor is mounted within the port support structure 40 (as only the propeller is external). 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 mount at least a portion of the propulsors inside the respective support structure in order to protect them from damage or achieve the desired hydrodynamic flow, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Lang 873 Figure 34)]
PNG
media_image5.png
94
210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 does not explicitly teach that each propulsor is provided with a duct that surrounds a propeller. Lang 873 teaches that each propulsor 154 is provided with a duct 157 that surrounds a propeller 156. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsors of Lang 444 with ducted propellers as taught by Lang 873 in order to protect the propeller and reduce cavitation (column 9, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 27, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 26. Lang 444 does not teach a fin on a bottom side of the duct that extends from the duct in a fore direction. Lang 873 teaches that each propulsor 154 is provided with a fin 158 on a bottom side of the duct 157 that extends from the duct in a fore direction.
Regarding claim 28, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lang 444 also teaches that each of the starboard support structure 50 and the port support structure 40 is provided with a nose cone 40c.
Regarding claim 29, Lang 444, Lang 873 and Magazzu’ teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Lang 444 also teaches that the nose cone 40c is fitted with one or more sensors 70. If applicant does not agree that the sensors are on the nose cones, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the sensors on the nose cone in order to remove flow effects from the support structures or obtain the desired field of view, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
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