DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment was filed by applicant on 11/22/2023.
Claims 1-11 are amended.
Claims 12-20 are new.
Claims 1-20 are remaining in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature: “plurality of skid beams” as recited in claims 13 and 19 must be shown (it suggested that such be shown with an appropriate reference character corresponding to this feature in the specification) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similarly, the locking structure responsible for the claimed “plurality of rollers are able to be locked to prevent rolling” in claims 7 and 18 should be shown in the drawing figures. In addition, the claimed features coupling point(s) (claims 4, 5, 11 and16), anchor points (claim 11) and winching (structure) of the claimed winching (claims 9 and 10) must be shown or canceled from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above features consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification does not refer to the drawings regarding the feature indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Office Action.
“its floor” in claims 6, 13 and 17 should be replaced with -a floor of the well deck-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D2: WO 2021/049949 A1 (Sjoblom et al.), cited by applicant. Regarding claims 1, D2 discloses a system comprising: an underwater vessel [2] provided with a substantially flat lower surface; and a surface vessel [1] comprising a floodable well deck arranged to receive and accommodate the underwater vessel [2]. Regarding claim 4, a tether [5] couples to a front of the underwater vessel [2]. Regarding claim 8, docking station [3] provides a buffer region when on the well deck. Regarding claim 9, See Figs. 3 and 4 and corresponding written description.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D3: WO 2016/149772 A1 (Dowling), cited by applicant. Regarding claims 1, D2 discloses a system comprising: an underwater vessel [2] provided with a substantially flat lower surface; and a surface vessel [3, 23] comprising a well deck [21] (capable of being flooded if the deck edge becomes submerged below the waterline; therefore, it is considered floodable) arranged to receive and accommodate the underwater vessel. Regarding claim 2, the flat lower surface appears in the range 80-90% of overall length of the underwater vessel [2]. Regarding claims 4 and 5, a tether [10] couples to a front of the underwater vessel [2] and is connected via two coupling points (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 8, buffer region is considered forwardmost area of well deck [21] in Fig. 7. Regarding claims 6, 9, 10 and 13, a winch [126], wheels and skid pads are provided to haul the underwater vehicle into the surface vessel); see also Figs. 2-11 and corresponding written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-5, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: SZONDY (The Neyk submarine: Does this subaquatic luxury jet hold water?), cited by applicant. Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses (page 3, image of yacht with submarine): A system comprising: an underwater vessel (the Neyk submarine); and a surface vessel (yacht in the image on page 3), comprising a floodable well deck (yacht side has a hatch opened at water level from which the Neyk submarine exits for which a floodable well deck is implied) arranged to receive and accommodate the underwater vessel (the Neyk submarine in the picture of page 3). D1 does not explicitly disclose that the underwater vessel has a substantially flat lower surface (claim 1; although a portion is shown/disclosed which may be flat, the extent of the flat lower surface is not explicitly disclosed), a flat lower surface has a length in the range 80%-90% of the overall length of the underwater vessel (claim 2), flat lower surface has a width in the range of 20%-30% of the widest part of the body of the underwater vessel width (claim 3), tether (claim 15), coupling point located towards a front of the underwater vessel to facilitate docking in the surface vessel (claim 4 and 16), further coupling points to tether the underwater vessel in place within the surface vessel (claim 5), and an innermost surface provided with a buffer region in the well deck to protect both the underwater vessel and surface vessel during a docking operation (claim 8). However, D1 discloses that the submarine has a boxy shape which implicitly discloses a certain portion of the bottom surface being flat; in addition, making a substantial portion or percent range (as suited for the underwater vessel depending on specific design and function) of the bottom surface flat would facilitate stable docking and storage on the well deck as well as operational hydrodynamics as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. D1 refers to the Neyk website (which is https://www.neyksubmarine.eu/index.html), where a military version of the submarine is disclosed and shown suspended from a crane using tethers attached to multiple coupling points on the submarine; therefore, having coupling points in suitable locations on the submarine would facilitate hauling, lifting, positioning and storage of the underwater vessel, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. D1 implicitly discloses an innermost surface provided with a buffer region in the well deck; such feature is interpreted as merely a separation portion of the well deck as so broadly claimed that would separate the underwater vessel from enclosure structure or provide open space around the well deck between the underwater vessel and the enclosure structure of the well deck, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art; in addition, providing such a separation area would provide suitable space to maneuver the underwater vessel on the well deck, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate use of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 6, 7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: SZONDY (The Neyk submarine: Does this subaquatic luxury jet hold water?), cited by applicant, in view of D4: US 6779475 B1 (Crane et al.). D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the claimed rollers and skid beams. However, D4 discloses skids [16] and rollers (shown in Figs. 6 and 7) to facilitate launch and recovery of an underwater vehicle. The rollers are controllable motorized rollers; as such, it would have been obvious to make such rollers capable of being controlled to a stop such as to lock or prevent rolling as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the underwater vessel has a nose mounted hook to facilitate capture and hauling on to the surface vessel. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate hauling, deployment and storage of the device with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the examiner, claim 20 is 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
18. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited disclose underwater vessels stored on decks of surface vessels.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
20. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
02/04/2026