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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 14 line 10 recites “at least one means for injecting air into the at least one closed cavity.” In this case,
The claim limitation uses the term “means” as a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (injecting air).
The term “means” is modified by functional language (for injecting air).
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (nothing is recited).
The specification does not further explain the “means,” other than to state “The sail cavity is inflated to the nominal pressure (which is dependent on the strength of the wind, on the sea state, on the desired speed of travel)” [0067] which, while inconclusive, suggests a passive aperture system.
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.
Claims 14-18, 20 , 25 and 26 (and all claims that depend therefrom) are 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 1, line 8 recites “at least one air conduit positioned between an inside and an outside of the at least one closed cavity,” while line 10 recites “at least one means for injecting air into the at least one closed cavity.” It is unclear if these are the same or different components, or if one comprises the other.
Regarding claim 15, line 3 recites “able to be moved by a roller on the leading edge (8) or is able to be moved by a roller in the sail receptacle (11) on the trailing edge (9).” It is unclear if both of these rollers are being positively recited.
Claim 16 recites “able to be moved by a roller in the receptacle” twice. It is unclear if these are the same roller.
Claim 17 recites “a pulley limits friction by comparison with a grommet.” It is unclear if either the pulley or the grommet is being positively recited, or what the intended meaning of “limits friction by comparison” is. As such, claim 17 can not be treated on its merits.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the guidance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear if the “at least two guide lines” are being positively recited, or if they include the guide line recited in parent claim 14.
Claim 20 recites that the “guide line has a tension,” which is not a physical property of the guide line, and is instead the result of a usage scenario. It is unclear how a possible usage scenario limits the claimed apparatus.
Claim 25 recites “a mast” in line 2. It is unclear if this is different that the mast recited in parent claim 14 line 2.
Claim 26 recites method steps and/or intended use. It is unclear how these further limit the claimed apparatus.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 recites that the sail could comprise 0 reefing panels, which does not further limit the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 14-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferronniere GB 2,151,199 in view of Abshier US 6,431,100, and alternatively also in view of Somers US 5,119,750.
Regarding claim 1, Ferronniere teaches a sail propulsion element comprising:
a mast 2;
PNG
media_image1.png
500
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an inflatable sail 3 consisting essentially of two substantially fluid-tight adjacent surfaces 4 joined together along a periphery of the surfaces, forming at least one closed cavity 5 between the surfaces, the inflatable sail comprising an upper part, a lower part, a leading edge and a trailing edge, the inflatable sail comprising cambers forming bulges along an entire length of the inflatable sail;
at least one air conduit 15 positioned between an inside and an outside of the at least one closed cavity of the inflatable sail;
at least one means for injecting air 14 into the at least one closed cavity, the inflatable sail once inflated having a profile that remains permanently symmetrical, irrespective of movement of the sail propulsion element, or of a direction or strength of wind;
a headboard (the top of the sail) positioned on the upper part of the inflatable sail; and
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Ferronniere Figures 1 and 2)]at least one guide line 17 positioned in the at least one closed cavity of the inflatable sail, for the maneuvers of hoisting and dropping the inflatable sail (intended use), the at least one guide line extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the inflatable sail, passing through the headboard and the boom.
If applicant does not agree that the guide line extends from the leading edge of the sail, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the line closer to the front in order to free up deck space and/or obtain the desired handling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Ferronniere does not teach a sail receptacle positioned between the leading edge and the trailing edge on the lower part of the inflatable sail. Abshier teaches a sail 10 with a sail receptacle 62 positioned between the leading edge and the trailing edge on the lower part of the sail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion element of Ferronniere with a sail receptacle as taught by Abshier in order to protect and cover the sail when retracted.
In an alternate interpretation, Ferronniere does not teach guide lines. Somers teaches a sail propulsion element comprising:
a mast 220;
a sail 224;
a headboard 226 positioned on the upper part of the sail; and
at least one guide line 244 positioned on the sail, for the maneuvers of hoisting and dropping the inflatable sail, the at least one guide line extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the sail, passing through the headboard and the base of the sail.
PNG
media_image2.png
387
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Somers Figure 32
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion element of Ferronniere with the dousing guide line as taught by Somers in order to allow orderly dousing and flaking of the sail. As modified, the guide lines would be inside the cavity of the inflatable sail.
Regarding claim 15, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere also teaches that
the guide line 17 is made in one part and is able to be moved by a roller in the sail receptacle 20 on the trailing edge and fixedly attached to the leading edge, and
wherein the at least one guide line is positioned along the headboard such as to be able to move over at least one pulley 19 between the trailing edge and the leading edge.
Alternatively, Somers also teaches that
the guide line 244 is made in one part and is attached fixedly to the sail receptacle/boom 222 on the trailing edge and able to be moved by a roller 248 on the leading edge, and
wherein the at least one guide line is positioned along the headboard 226 such as to be able to move over at least one pulley between the trailing edge and the leading edge.
Regarding claim 16, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere does not teach that the at least one guide line is made in two parts, a first part on a side of the trailing edge being fixed or able to be moved with a pulley on the headboard and able to be moved by a roller in the receptacle, and a second part on a side of the leading edge being fixed or able to be moved with a pulley on the headboard and able to be moved by a roller in the receptacle. The examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known that a pulley system can use a line running from the bottom up to a pulley at the top and back down to a pulley, or a line running from a pulley at the bottom up to a fixed point at the top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed guide line of Ferronniere with a single line fixed to the head board in order to reduce rigging complexity, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add such a line at each end of the sail in order to ensure that movement is controlled over the entire length and/or provide redundancy, 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.
Alternatively, Somers also teaches that the at least one guide line 244 can be fixed to headboard 226 and able to be moved by a block on the boom 230. Somers does not specifically teach a pulley at the boom, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pulley at the boom passthrough point as taught for other locations of Somers in order to ensure smooth motion of the guidelines. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add such a line at each end of the sail in order to ensure that movement is controlled over the entire length and/or provide redundancy, 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.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere and Somers also teach that at least two guide lines make it possible to improve the precision of the guidance. In this case, any guide line could be considered two guide lines (each end considered separately) and simply by nature of attachment they provide for easier guidance.
Regarding claim 19, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Neither Ferronniere nor Somers teach specific sail or guide line sizes, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the sail and lines whatever size was desired in order to optimize performance for the desired vessel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20 as best understood, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Neither Ferronniere nor Somers teach a tension range for the guide line, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a tension in the lines in order to provide the desired sail performance, 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 claim 22, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere also teaches that the inflatable sail 3 comprises from 0 to 10 reefing panels.
Regarding claim 24, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere also teaches that the mast 2 is fixed or telescopic.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferronniere GB 2,151,199 in view of Abshier US 6,431,100 and Aguilera US 5,279,241, and alternatively also in view of Somers US 5,119,750.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere does not teach reefing panels. Aguilera teaches an inflatable sail 11 which comprises at least one reefing panel 96. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion element of Ferronniere with the reefing panel as taught by Aguilera in order to enable the sail to be secured in a partially deployed configuration.
Regarding claim 23, Ferronniere, Abshier and Aguilera, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Aguilera also teaches that each reefing panel 96 comprises a reinforced rib. In this case, the strip of material is considered the reinforced rib, as it adds rigidity to the section of the sail.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferronniere GB 2,151,199 in view of Abshier US 6,431,100 and Aguilera US 5,279,241, and alternatively also in view of Gonen US 2004/0069197 .
Regarding claim 25, Ferronniere and Abshier, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Ferronniere also teaches a vehicle 1 with sail propulsion or hybrid propulsion comprising at least one sail propulsion element according to claim 14, a hull and a mast 2 secured to the hull and free to rotate, but does not teach that the mast is positioned inside the at least one closed cavity of the inflatable sail. Gonen teaches a vehicle 2 with sail propulsion or hybrid propulsion comprising at least one sail propulsion element 4, a hull and a mast 3 secured to the hull and free to rotate, wherein the mast is positioned inside at least one closed cavity of the sail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Ferronniere with the mast inside the sail as taught by Gonen in order to provide a more aerodynamic exterior to the vessel.
Regarding claim 26 as best understood, Ferronniere, Abshier and Gonen, together or also in view of Somers, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 25. As taught, the inflatable sail 3 can be oriented according to a wind direction and according to a direction of running of the vehicle either manually or automatically.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown US 5,048,443 and Ma 2006/0174810 teach a sail with a guide line and pulley reefing system.
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