DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 26 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-11 amended 26 May 2026 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rohden (US Pub. 2013/0233223).
As per Claim 4, Rohden discloses a vehicle (1) with total or partial sail propulsion (as per “the ship 1 of the present invention is a sailing ship” in ¶39) comprising:
a hull (as per “The ship 1 in this case has a hull comprising an underwater region 16 and an above-water region 15” in ¶31);
a sail (10) (as per “sailing rotors” in ¶2) (Fig. 10; ¶31-33, 39); and
a self-supporting mast (4, 6, 8) having a vertical axis (as per “rotor 10 rotates in the direction of the arrow 29” in ¶52), the self-supporting mast (4, 6, 8) comprising a fixed part (4) disposed at a hull level (via flange connection 110), and a movable part (8) that can move about the vertical axis (as per “rotor 10 rotates in the direction of the arrow 29” in ¶52) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶45-46, 48, 52),
wherein the self-supporting mast (4, 6, 8) comprises, in the fixed part (4), sensors (5; 9, 11) for measuring physical parameters (as per “adapted to determine a flexural loading on the carrier … as a consequence of a substantially radial force loading on the bearing 6 by the action of the force on the rotor body 8” in ¶46) and supplying digital data (as per “The data signals outputted by the strain gauge sensors are preferably analog or digital” in ¶17) on thrust force (as per “The vector of the overall force FG can consequently be divided into a vector in the direction of the longitudinal axis 3 or the first axis 13 … The proportion in the direction of the first axis 13 or the longitudinal axis 3 is identified hereinafter as FV” in ¶55 and “by means of a first strain gauge sensor of the measuring device, determining the force component corresponding to the flexural loading detected by the first strain gauge sensor, as a thrust force” in ¶23), {drift force}, or {differential pressure of the sail} (Fig. 2, 6; ¶23, 45-46, 54-56).
As per Claim 5, Rohden further discloses a computer (23), equipped with a digital data computation algorithm (as per “The data signals outputted by the strain gauge sensors are preferably analog or digital so that further processing of the signals is possible” in ¶17 and The data processing analysis” in ¶50), wherein the computer (23) calculates, according to a closed-loop control system (as per “central control unit SE” in ¶52 English machine translation of WO 2006/133950, incorporated by reference in Rohden at ¶4, 61), based on the digital data (as per “The data signals outputted by the strain gauge sensors are preferably analog or digital” in ¶17) on the thrust force (as per “The vector of the overall force FG can consequently be divided into a vector in the direction of the longitudinal axis 3 or the first axis 13 … The proportion in the direction of the first axis 13 or the longitudinal axis 3 is identified hereinafter as FV” in ¶55 and “by means of a first strain gauge sensor of the measuring device, determining the force component corresponding to the flexural loading detected by the first strain gauge sensor, as a thrust force” in ¶23), {the drift force}, or {the differential pressure of the sail} forces transmitted (as per “the force component corresponding to the flexural loading” in ¶23) from the sail (10) to the hull (as per “The ship 1 in this case has a hull comprising an underwater region 16 and an above-water region 15” in ¶31), allowing for a modification of an operation of the vehicle (1) in real time for optimizing or regulating the aerodynamic thrust (as per “The control unit SE continuously controls down the main propulsion system as required as a function of the thrust force of the four Magus rotors” in ¶52 English machine translation of WO 2006/133950, incorporated by reference in Rohden at ¶3, 61).
As per Claim 8, Rohden further discloses wherein the sail (10) (as per “sailing rotors” in ¶2) is a non-inflatable sail (as per “rotor 8 is made of aluminum” on page 7, last two lines of English machine translation of WO 2007/137844, incorporated by reference in Rohden at ¶4, 61).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohden (US Pub. No. 2013/0233223) in view of Klees (US Patent No. 3,995,205).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Rohden and Klees teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Rohden further discloses wherein the computer (23) calculates based on the digital data (as per “The data signals outputted by the strain gauge sensors are preferably analog or digital so that further processing of the signals is possible” in ¶17) on the thrust force (as per “The vector of the overall force FG can consequently be divided into a vector in the direction of the longitudinal axis 3 or the first axis 13 … The proportion in the direction of the first axis 13 or the longitudinal axis 3 is identified hereinafter as FV” in ¶55 and “by means of a first strain gauge sensor of the measuring device, determining the force component corresponding to the flexural loading detected by the first strain gauge sensor, as a thrust force” in ¶23), {the drift force}, or {the differential pressure of the sail forces} transmitted (as per “adapted to determine a flexural loading on the carrier … as a consequence of a substantially radial force loading on the bearing 6 by the action of the force on the rotor body 8” in ¶46) from the sail (10) to the hull (as per “The ship 1 in this case has a hull comprising an underwater region 16 and an above-water region 15” in ¶31), allowing for the modification of the operation of the vehicle (1) in real time for optimizing or regulating the aerodynamic thrust (as per “The control unit SE continuously controls down the main propulsion system as required as a function of the thrust force of the four Magus rotors” in ¶52 English machine translation of WO 2006/133950, incorporated by reference in Rohden at ¶3, 61).
Rohden does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer calculates as a complement to the closed-loop control system and according to an open-loop control system; and
the vehicle operating with both the open-loop control system and the closed-loop control system in combination.
Klees discloses a system for maneuvering of a surface vessel (1:5-9) including a manual control device (11) and an automatic control signal generator (18) (Fig. 1; 2:20-45). The manual control device (11) is coupled to a transducer (13), the automatic control signal generator (18) is coupled to a transducer (20), and the transducers (13, 20) each feed an output to a differential signal generator means (15) (Fig. 1; 2:20-45). The output of the differential signal generator means (15) is the algebraic sum between the manual and automatic control signals and the differential signal generator means (15) provides a controls signal (via 27, 28, 30) for the drive maneuvering means (32) (Fig. 1; 2:46-62). In this way, manual control is connected to the system at all times to that it can be used to override automatic control instantaneously (2:63-66). Like Rohden, Klees is concerned with control systems for a boat.
Therefore, from these teachings of Rohden and Klees, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Klees to the system of Rohden since doing so would enhance the system by providing an instantaneous override functionality. Applying the teachings of Klees to the system of Rohden would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the computer calculates as a complement to the closed-loop control system and according to an open-loop control system” in that the control unit (SE) including the data processing installation (23) of Rohden would be adapted for instantaneous manual override of automatic control as per Klees; and
“the vehicle operating with both the open-loop control system and the closed-loop control system in combination” in that the ship (1) including the control unit (SE) of Rohden would be adapted to instantaneous manual override of automatic control as per Klees.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohden (US Pub. No. 2013/0233223) in view of Paras (US Patent No. 4,753,186).
As per Claim 7, Rohden discloses all limitations of Claim 4. Rohden further discloses wherein the sail (10) is made of aluminum (as per page 7, last two lines of English machine translation of WO 2007/137844, incorporated by reference in Rohden at ¶4, 61). Rohden does not expressly disclose wherein the sail is an inflatable sail.
Paras discloses a sail (10) that can be used in any sailing vessel using a sail (Fig. 1; 4:19-23). An inflatable bag (16) within the sail (10) is inflated through an inflation/deflation tube (22) (Fig. 1; 4:41-50). When inflated, the bag (16) provides the sail (10) with specified dimensions (3:40-44). Like Rohden, Paras is concerned with systems for a boat.
Therefore, from these teachings of Rohden and Paras, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Paras to the system of Rohden since doing so would reduce the cost of the system in the event a suitable inflatable sail having specified dimensions as per Paras is less expensive to implement than the aluminum sail as per Rohden.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonen (US Pub. No. 2004/0069197) in view of Pfund (US Patent No. 3,802,372), further in view of Gedeon (US Patent No. 6,308,649).
As per Claim 9, Gonen discloses a vehicle (as per “water vehicle” in ¶31) with total or partial sail propulsion (as per “wind-propelled vehicles in ¶1, claim 1) comprising:
a hull (2) (Fig. 1; ¶31);
a sail (4) (Fig. 1; ¶31); and
a self-supporting mast (3, 10, 22, 14, 15) (Figs. 1-3; ¶31-34) having a vertical axis (as per dashed line in Figs. 2-3), the self-supporting mast (3, 10, 22, 14, 15) comprising a fixed part (10, 12, 15) disposed at a hull level (as per “bearing 10 carried by the bottom 11 of the hull 2” in ¶33; as per “bearing 12 being carried by the deck 13 of the hull” in ¶33; as per “locking device 15 secured to the vehicle deck 13” in ¶34), and a movable part (3, 14) that can move (as per “mast 3 is rotatably mounted to the hull 2” in ¶33; as per “engage the disc 14 in order to lock the mast 13 against rotation, or to disengage the disc in order to permit the mast to move freely” in ¶34) about the vertical axis (as per dashed line in Figs. 2-3).
Gonen further discloses a control system (110) for controlling the vessel that communicates with manual control devices (112, 113, 114), sensors (115, 116), and motors (M1, M2, M3) to provide automatic and manual control in accordance with a mode selector (111) (Fig. 14; ¶57-59). Gonen does not expressly disclose: wherein the self-supporting mast comprises, in the movable part, sensors for measuring physical parameters and supplying digital data on aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or differential pressure of the sail.
Pfund discloses a sailboat having a hull (10), mast (11), boom (12), mainsail (13), and jib (14) (Figs. 1-2; 2:50-3:6). A pair of wind sensors (15) are attached symmetrically on opposite sides of the mast (11) in positions where one of the sensors is subject to the relative wind and the other sensor measures the magnitude of the vector (Vg) of the slot wind velocity (Fig. 2; 3:2-18). The sensors (15; G1, G2) communicate with a meter (35) to indicate the difference in the wind speed signals from the sensors (15; G1, G2) (Figs 2-3, 7; 3:7-42, 4:31-5:2). The meter (35) facilitates adjustments to the sail (13, 14) in order to maximize slot wind speed (4:31-5:2). According to Pfund, slot wind speed is directly proportional to the driving force on the hull (1:58-63). Like Gonen, Pfund is concerned with control systems for a boat.
Gedeon discloses systems for the application of sensors to sailboats (1:13-14). The sensors may include integrated circuits to interpret data and output a digital signal that requires no further conditioning (11:42-47). The sensor may provide an analog signal (11:47-48). As such, Gedeon teaches that sensor location and type of signal output are matters of design choice. In this way, the system provides enhanced sailboat and crew performance (1:13-22). Like Gonen, Gedeon is concerned with control systems for a boat.
Therefore, from these teachings of Gonen, Pfund, and Gedeon, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Pfund and Gedeon to the system of Gonen since doing so would: facilitating appropriate adjustment to the sail; and enhancing sailboat and crew performance. Applying the teachings of Pfund and Gedeon to the system of Gonen would result in a system that operates “wherein the self-supporting mast comprises, in the movable part, sensors for measuring physical parameters and supplying digital data on aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or differential pressure of the sail” in that the system of Gonen would be adapted to include the sensor system attached to the mast as per Pfund, wherein the sensor system of Pfund is adapted to provide digital outputs as per Gedeon in which adapting sensors to output digital or analog signals is a matter of design choice.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Gonen, Pfund and Gedeon teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Gonen further discloses a computer (“Controller” in Fig. 14), equipped with a digital data computation algorithm (as per “automatic control” in ¶58), wherein the computer (“Controller” in Fig. 14) calculates, according to a closed-loop control system (as per “motor M1 which rotates the mast is automatically controlled by a wind direction sensor 115 to maintain the flexible wing-sail direction parallel to the apparent wind; and motor M2 is automatically controlled in response to a wind velocity sensor 116 to change the angle of the boom with respect to the mast, and thereby the asymmetric curvature of the airfoil in order to maintain the optimum airfoil shape in accordance with the apparent wind force” in ¶58) forces (as per “in accordance with apparent wind force” in ¶58) transmitted from the sail (4) to the hull (2), allowing for a modification of an operation of the vehicle (as per “water vehicle” in ¶31) in real time (as per automatic control responsive to data from sensors 115, 116) for optimizing or regulating the aerodynamic thrust (as per “forward propulsion force” in ¶3, as per “optimum aerodynamic efficiency” in ¶59).
Gonen does not expressly disclose wherein the computer calculates based on the digital data on the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or the differential pressure of the sail.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Pfund and Gedeon.
Therefore, from these teachings of Gonen, Pfund, and Gedeon, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Pfund and Gedeon to the system of Gonen since doing so would: facilitating appropriate adjustment to the sail; and enhancing sailboat and crew performance. Applying the teachings of Pfund and Gedeon to the system of Gonen would result in a system that operates: “wherein the computer calculates based on the digital data on the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or the differential pressure of the sail” in that the system of Gonen would be adapted to include the sensor system attached to the mast of Pfund, wherein the sensor system of Pfund is adapted to provide digital outputs in view of teachings of Gedeon in which adapting sensors to output digital or analog signals is a matter of design choice.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonen (US Pub. No. 2004/0069197) in view of Pfund (US Patent No. 3,802,372), further in view of Gedeon (US Patent No. 6,308,649), further in view of Klees (US Patent No. 3,995,205).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Gonen, Pfund and Gedeon teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Gonen further discloses wherein the computer (“Controller” in Fig. 14) calculates based on forces (as per “in accordance with apparent wind force” in ¶58) transmitted from the sail (4) to the hull (2), allowing for the modification of the operation of the vehicle (as per “water vehicle” in ¶31) in real time (as per automatic control responsive to data from sensors 115, 116) for optimizing or regulating the aerodynamic thrust (as per “forward propulsion force” in ¶3, as per “optimum aerodynamic efficiency” in ¶59).
Gonen does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer calculates as a complement to the closed-loop control system, according to an open-loop control system;
wherein the computer operates based on the digital data on the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or the differential pressure of the sail; and
the vehicle operating with both the open-loop control system and the closed-loop control system in combination.
See rejection of Claim 9 for discussion of teachings of Pfund and Gedeon.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Klees.
Therefore, from these teachings of Gonen, Pfund, Gedeon, and Klees, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Pfund, Gedeon, and Klees to the system of Gonen since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating appropriate adjustment to the sail; enhancing sailboat and crew performance; and by providing an instantaneous override functionality. Applying the teachings of Pfund, Gedeon, and Klees:
“wherein the computer calculates as a complement to the closed-loop control system, according to an open-loop control system” in that the control system (Fig. 14) of Gonen would be adapted for instantaneous manual override of automatic control as per Klees;
“wherein the computer operates based on the digital data on the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis of the sail, the aerodynamic thrust force projected in the vertical axis at right angles to the sail, or the differential pressure of the sail” in that the system of Gonen would be adapted to include the sensor system attached to the mast as per Pfund, wherein the sensor system of Pfund is adapted to provide digital outputs as per Gedeon in which adapting sensors to output digital or analog signals is a matter of design choice; and
“the vehicle operating with both the open-loop control system and the closed-loop control system in combination” in that the water vehicle (¶31) including the control system (Fig. 14) of Gonen would be adapted to instantaneous manual override of automatic control as per Klees.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Applicant notes that the positioning of the sensors as described in each of claims 4 and 9 each provide embodiments, for gathering data to control a ship, that are novel and nonobvious with respect to the current art” and “amended independent claim 4 and new independent claim 9 should be deemed allowable over the cited art” (page 8 of Amendment). However, the amendments necessitated further search resulting in the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous ground(s) of rejection are moot.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “The two modes [of Asscher] do not operate simultaneously on the same control variables” and “In contrast, the present application expressly requires that the open-loop control system operates ‘as a complement to the closed loop control system’” (page 9 of Amendment). However, the amendments necessitated further search resulting the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Asscher are moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “independent claim 4 and dependent claim 6 are not obvious over Gonen, Gedeon, Man, Asscher, or Paras, alone or in combination”, and “claims 5-8, 10, and 11 are also not obvious for at least the same reasons” (page 10 of Amendment). However, the amendments necessitated further search resulting in the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous ground(s) of rejection are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights