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 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 5 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson (US 20180148131 A1) and further in view of Tang (CN 105857511 A).
Regarding Claim 1, McPhearson discloses a system for reducing drag on a marine vessel comprising: a plurality of outlets (34, Fig. 3. Shown but not discussed.) provided in a normally submerged region of the hull of the vessel for delivering a layer of air bubbles between at least a portion of the hull and the water; at least one venturi tube (32) having a converging inlet region, a diverging outlet region and a throat between said converging inlet region and diverging outlet region, at least one air inlet being provided in (venturi at 66, See Fig. 4.) or downstream of said throat, the outlet region communicating with one or more of said plurality of air outlets (See Fig. 2.); at least one water inlet (30) located in the bow region of the vessel adapted to supply water into the inlet region of the at least one venturi tube as the vessel moves through the water; at least one water pump (22) adapted to supply water to the inlet region of the at least one venturi tube; at least one ambient air inlet port (66) adapted to supply ambient air to one or more of said at least one air inlets of the at least one venturi tube such that air from said at least one ambient air inlet port is entrained into water flowing through the at least one venturi tube to deliver air bubbles to one or more of said plurality of outlets. McPhearson does not explicitly disclose a controller adapted to regulate the flow rate of water supplied from the at least one water pump to the at least one venturi tube to optimise the delivery of air bubbles through the plurality of outlets in the hull and thereby optimise drag reduction of the vessel.
Tang discloses a controller (flowmeter has the controlling function, 4) adapted to regulate the flow rate of water supplied from the at least one water pump to the at least one venturi tube to optimise the delivery of air bubbles through the plurality of outlets in the hull and thereby optimise drag reduction of the vessel. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the controller of Tang to the system of McPhearson which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify McPhearson as disclosed by Tang is “for measuring gas flow speed and the water flow speed, so as to control the flow rate to achieve the best drag reduction effect.”
Regarding Claim 3, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses a system as claimed in claim 1, comprising a venturi tubes tube supplying a respective one of or a respective group of said outlets (32, Fig 4) but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of said venturi tubes. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a plurality of said venturi tubes, each venturi tube supplying a respective one of or a respective group of said outlets which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify McPhearson is a multiplicity of parts in order to feed the outlets shown in Fig. 3 of McPhearson.
Regarding Claim 5, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses system as claimed in claim 2, wherein said at least one water pump comprises an existing pump (Examiner note all pumps that exist are existing) provided in the vessel, such as a ballast pump, cooling pump, fire pump or jockey pump. (McPhearson 22 is a ballast pump)
Regarding Claim 6, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one ambient air inlet port is located above the water level and/or above the deck. (McPhearson, shown above deck in Fig. 4.)
Regarding Claim 9, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is programmed to regulate the flow rate of water supplied from the at least one water pump to the at least one venturi tube and/or to regulate the supply of compressed air to the at least one venturi tube from the air compressing arrangement (“for measuring gas flow speed and the water flow speed, so as to control the flow rate to achieve the best drag reduction effect”), but does not explicitly disclose the regulation as a function of the speed of the vessel through the water. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to regulate the supply of water and compressed air as a function of ship speed which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify McPhearson is that viscous resistance is proportional to ship speed.
Regarding Claim 10, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one or more sensors (4) are provided for determining the flow rate of one or more of: the flow rate of water supplied to the at least one venturi tube from the at least one water inlet (See Fig. 5.); the flow rate of water supplied to the at least one venturi tube from the at least one water pump and/or the speed of the pump; the flow rate of air supplied to the at least one venturi tube from the at least one ambient air inlet port; the flow rate of air supplied to the at least one venturi tube (12) from the air compressing arrangement; the flow rate of air and water supplied from the at least one venturi tube to the plurality of outlets in the hull of the vessel; the hydrostatic back pressure on the at least one water pump, said one or more sensors providing input to the controller (implied by the function “for adjusting the drag effect reach the best.”).
Claim 11 is a method of use suggested by the rejection of Claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 13 is a method of use suggested by the rejection of Claim 9 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 15 is a method of use suggested by the rejection of Claims 9 and 10 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson (US 20180148131 A1) and further in view of Tang (CN 105857511 A) and futher in view of Choudry (US 20190071156 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, McPhearson in view of Tang discloses a system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said at least one water pump is is a ballast pump, but does not explicitly disclose said at least one water pump is associated with a respective sea chest within the hull communicating with an inlet receiving water from outside of the hull.
Choudhury discloses wherein ballast pumps draw water through a sea chest. (paragraph 26) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a sea chest to the ballast pump of McPhearson which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify McPheaseon is to provide the known means of providing an inlet. (It’s typically where the filter can be accessed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_chest_(nautical))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 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
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 10 Jan 2026