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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 28 November 2023. Claim 10-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-9 are cancelled. Claims 10-18 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/FR2022/051019, filed on 30 May 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 November 2023, 27 January 2025, 29 January 2026 and 25 February 2026 were considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because headboard (10) has an arrow that points to what appears to be the “at least two pulleys or other possible turning-block systems” (See at least: spec. para [0037] which recites “which have not been depicted” in lines13-14). Therefore, it is not clear what is “10” and “the at least two pulleys…” should have a reference number and arrow. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Spec. para. [0036] line 28 recite “air inlets 30” and are not found in at least fig. 2. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figs. 3B-3C “26”, “27” and “28” {Examiner notes: these appear to be aerodynamic forces and torque as recited in spec. para. [0054] and are associated with fig. 1, however fig. 1 used letters and not numbers.}. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0033] line 25 recites “between wing and boat axis” and is unclear as wing is not been identified. Examiner notes line 26 recites “between relative wind and boat axis” and is clearly stated therefore, line 25 should be updated to match that of line 26.
Para. [0036] line 28, recites air inlets 30 which are not found in the drawings (See at least: fig. 2).
Para. [0027] line 13-14 recite “…at least two pulleys or other possible turning-block systems (which have not been depicted)…” however, fig. 2 “10” arrow points to one of two “pulley”. Therefore, the spec. is not clear in view of fig. 2.
Para. [0054] lines 11-12 recite “…the aerodynamic forces… the torque…” and is not clear in view of at least figs. 3B-3C.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, page 1, line3 recites “…fluidtight…” and should be either of “…fluid-tight…” or “…fluid tight…”.
Claim 10, page 2, line 4 recite “…at least one means maintaining a slight pressure…” and should be “…at least one means for maintaining a slight pressure…”.
Claim 11 recites “…ranging from 0 to 10 m…” and should be ranging from “…0 to 10 meters…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…at least one means for injecting air…” in claim 10, line 10. Where no corresponding structure is found in the spec. (See at least: para. [0036] “…At least one active means 7a for injecting air into the cavity of the sail is positioned in the continuation of the air conduit so that air can be injected into the cavity of the sail…”).
“…at least one means maintaining a slight pressure…” in claim 10, page 2, line 4. Where no corresponding structure is found in the spec. (See at least: para [0009] “the sail comprises at least one means maintaining a slight pressure in the sail.”).
“…at least one means for maintaining pressure…” in claim 12, line 2. Where the structure is found in para. [0013] which recites “As a preference, the means for maintaining pressure is an air intake opening positioned facing into the relative wind.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-18 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.
Claim 10 line 3 recites “…an inflatable sail (1) consisting essentially of two substantially fluidtight adjacent surfaces (5)…” is unclear as to the limiting effect of “…consisting essential of…”. MPEP § 2111.03.III recites “…The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention…”. However, the structure recited in the claim “…fluidtight adjacent surfaces (5)…” is neither a material or step. Therefore, it is not clear to the Examiner how the claim is being limited as it is being used in a manner outside its normal understanding. Examiner Warning: if the Applicant amends to the closed statement of “consisting of” additional rejections to 35 U.S.C. 112 would be provided as the “inflatable sail” is further modified by the open statement “comprising” in at least claims 10 and 16.
Claim 10, page 1 lines 5 and 6 both recite “…the inflatable sail comprising…”. Additionally, claim 10, page 2 line 4 recite “…the inflatable sail comprises…”. Where the claim language is not clear that “…the inflatable sail…” further comprises or comprising.
Claim limitation “…at least one means for injecting air…” in claim 10, line 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Where no corresponding structure is found in the spec. (See at least: para. [0036] “…At least one active means 7a for injecting air into the cavity of the sail is positioned in the continuation of the air conduit so that air can be injected into the cavity of the sail…”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “…at least one means maintaining a slight pressure…” in claim 10, page 2, line 4, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. {Examiner note: interpreted as missing the word “for” is in error see claim objections above.}. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Where no corresponding structure is found in the spec. (See at least: para [0009] “the sail comprises at least one means maintaining a slight pressure in the sail.”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11-18 are rejected based on the independent claim 10 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “…wherein the center of aerodynamic thrust of the inflatable sail (1) is distant from the mast (3) by a length ranging from 0 to 10 m…”, and claim 10 recites “…wherein the mast is located forward of the center of aerodynamic thrust of the inflatable sail…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 11 conflicts with that of claim 10 as the range of zero meters would not be such that the mast is located forward of the center of aerodynamic thrust. Therefore, it is unclear the position of the mast relative to the center of aerodynamic thrust.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…the at least one means for maintaining pressure…” in line 2. Claim 10 recites “…at least one means maintaining a slight pressure…” in page 2, line 4. It is not clear if the claim 12 “…the at least one means for maintaining pressure…” is the same or different as the claim 10“…at least one means maintaining a slight pressure…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “energy and commands” in line 2. The use of “energy and commands” is not clear as it is commonly associated with electrical power and control signals, when read in combination with the generic “a device”. Claim 14 recites “the device… is… a rotary joint or a cable bearing chain” which adds to the confusion as the “energy and commands” can be interpreted as the sail commands and the mast’s rotational energy. (See at least: Spec. para. [0044] recite “…make it possible to command the sail 1 to rotate by turning the mast 3 and all the manoeuvring components fixed to said mast 3.” and spec. para [0047] recites “joint 17 allows electrical power and electrical commands to be transmitted between the hull 2 and the lower part 7 of the sail 1 without limiting the number of rotations about the mast 3 that can be carried out with the sail.”).
Claim 16 recites “…at least one guide line consisting of one or more parts…” and is not clear of what is being limited as the guide line may have infinite parts. MPEP § 2111.03.II recites “…The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim…”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "…sail or hybrid propulsion…" in line 1. Claim 10 line 1 recites “…a sail propulsion element…” and line 3 recites “…an inflatable sail…”. It is not clear if the claim 17 "…sail or hybrid propulsion…" is new structure or if it is related to the claim 10 structure of either “…a sail propulsion element…” and line 3 recites “…an inflatable sail…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "…a mast (3)…" in line 2. Claim 10 line 2 recites “…a mast (3)…”. Therefore, it is not clear if the claim 17 "…a mast (3)…" is the same or different than the claim 10 "…a mast (3)…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 10-11, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Kalbermatten et al. (WO 2017221117 A1) {Applicant own prior art cited in the spec. and IDS of 27 January 2025} in view of in view of Gonen (US 20040069197 A1) {Cited in the IDS of 28 November 2023}.
Regarding claim 10, De Kalbermatten et al. discloses a sail propulsion element (sail propulsion element; See at least: Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising:
a mast (3) (mast (4); See at least: fig. 1);
an inflatable sail (1) (sail (2); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract “…the sail (2), once inflated…”) consisting essentially of two substantially fluidtight adjacent surfaces (5) (surfaces (9, 10); See at least: figs. 3-6 and abstract “…two substantially sealed adjacent surfaces (9, 10)…”.) joined together along a periphery of the surfaces (See at least: figs. 3-6 and abstract “…linked to each other on the perimeter of same…”), forming at least one closed cavity (recess (8), See at least: figs. 5-6 and abstract “…together forming a recess (8)…”) between the surfaces,
the inflatable sail comprising
an upper part (6) (See at least: fig. 1 showing sail (2) having an upper part or top),
a lower part (7) (See at least: fig. 1 showing sail (2) having a lower part, a bottom or a base),
a leading edge (8) (See at least: fig. 1 showing sail (2) having a leading edge that is on the side of the sail (2) positioned closest to the bow or forward part of hull (3).) and
a trailing edge (9) (See at least: fig. 1 showing sail (2) having a trailing edge that is on the side of the sail (2) positioned closest to the aft part of hull (3).), and
the inflatable sail comprising cambers (a plurality of cells (5); See at least: figs. 1 and 3) forming bulges along an entire length of the inflatable sail (See at least: fig. 3 showing the bulges formed when inflated), the inflatable sail having a center of aerodynamic thrust (See at least: fig. 5; and text copy page 2 of 5, fifth para. from the bottom of the page “In this configuration the aerodynamic forces produced by the flow of air around the profile are resumed along the rigging, at a location at the level of the transverse elements, not on the front of the profile, but substantially in the center of thrust aerodynamic which is located on the axis of symmetry of the profile, substantially to 25% of its front end, thus giving the wing a substantially neutral behavior at all operating speeds.”);
an air conduit (conduit (11) or pipe (11); See at least: figs. 1 and 7) positioned between an inside and an outside of the at least one closed cavity of the inflatable sail (See at least: figs. 1 and 7 and abstract “…further comprising a conduit (11) disposed between the inside and the outside of the recess (8)…”);
at least one means for injecting air into the at least one closed cavity(means for injecting air or turbine (6); See at least: figs. 1 and 7 and abstract, text copy page 2 of 5, fourth para. from the bottom, “Any air injection system suitable for the intended purpose can be used.”), 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 (See at least: abstract “…the sail (2), once inflated, has a profile that remains permanently symmetric, regardless of the movement of the element, or the direction or strength of the wind…”);
a headboard (10) positioned on the upper part (6) of the inflatable sail (1); and
a sail receptacle (11) (boom (12); See at least: fig. 1) positioned between the leading edge (8) and the trailing edge (9) on the lower part (7) of the inflatable sail (See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 3 of 5, third para. from the bottom, “A partial boom 12 connects the mast 4 to the sail 2”),
wherein the mast is located forward of the center of aerodynamic thrust of the inflatable sail (See at least: fig. 6 in combination with text copy page 2 of 5, fifth para. from the bottom of the page “In this configuration the aerodynamic forces produced by the flow of air around the profile are resumed along the rigging, at a location at the level of the transverse elements, not on the front of the profile, but substantially in the center of thrust aerodynamic which is located on the axis of symmetry of the profile, substantially to 25% of its front end, thus giving the wing a substantially neutral behavior at all operating speeds.” Where the mast (4) appears less than 25% of the front end of sail (2).),
wherein the mast is or is not (See at least: text copy page 3 of 5 “boom 12 connects the mast 4 to the sail 2. Its dimensions are small and it is not necessary that it is rigid because unlike the terminals of the state of the art which are also used to put the sail in tension, its only function is to make easier the rotation of the sail 2 around the mast 4.” Therefore, the mast is interpreted as not free to rotate, as the boom rotates around the mast.) free to rotate by 360˚, and
wherein the inflatable sail comprises at least one means maintaining a slight pressure in the inflatable sail (means for withdrawing air from the cavity or air injection means can be regulated; See at least: text copy page 2 of 5, third para. from the top “According to a variant of the invention, the element also comprises means for withdrawing air from the cavity, thus making it possible to regulate the pressure inside the cavity…” fifth para. from the top “the pressure managed by the air injection means can be very low, typically of a few 100 Pa.” and seventh para. from the top “The pressure generated by the air injection means can be regulated…”.).
However, De Kalbermatten et al. does not disclose …a headboard (10) positioned on the upper part (6) of the inflatable sail (1); and… wherein the mast is… free to rotate by 360˚…
Gonen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches…a headboard (10) (top spreader unit; See at least: figs. 5-6 and abstract “The spreader assembly includes a fixed spreader unit secured to the sail panels at the bottom of the wing-sail and fixing it to the bottom of the mast, and a plurality of slidable spreader units secured to the sail panels at longitudinally spaced locations and slidable along the mast to permit hoisting and reefing the wing-sail.”) and positioned on the upper part (6) (upper end; See at least: para. [0020]-[0021] “[0020] FIG. 5 is a top view illustrating the top spreader unit in the flexible wing-sail of FIG. 1; [0021] FIG. 6 is a fragmentary view of the upper end of the flexible wing-sail in FIG. 1…”) of the inflatable sail (1) (flexible wing-sail 4; See at least: figs. 1); and… wherein the mast (mast 3; See at least: figs. 1-2, 6 and 8) is… free to rotate by 360˚ (See at least: para. [0049] “…the mast 3 would freely rotate to enable the flexible wing-sail to assume the direction of the wind…”)…
However, Gonen does not teach …the inflatable sail (1); and… by 360˚…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sail propulsion element of De Kalbermatten et al. with spreader assembly of Gonen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of hoisting and reefing the sail (See at least: Gonen para [0009] “…According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a flexible wing-sail for wind-propelled vehicle, comprising: a mast to be rotatably mounted in a vertical position on the vehicle; a plurality of flexible sail panels carried by the mast; and a spreader assembly securing the flexible sail panels to the mast and imparting to the flexible sail panels an airfoil shape having a leading edge fore of the mast, and a trailing edge aft of the mast; the spreader assembly including a fixed spreader unit secured to the flexible sail panels defining the bottom of the flexible wing-sail and fixing it to the bottom of the mast, and a plurality of slidable spreader units secured to the flexible sail panels at longitudinally spaced locations thereof and slidable along the mast to permit hoisting and reefing the flexible wing-sail…”).
Regarding claim 11, Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Kalbermatten et al. discloses wherein the center of aerodynamic thrust of the inflatable sail (1) is distant from the mast (3) by a length ranging from 0 to 10 m (See at least: fig. 6).
However, Kalbermatten et al. does not explicitly disclose a length ranging from 0 to 10 m.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have varied the length between the mast and center of aerodynamic thrust. Applicant has not disclosed that a length ranging from 0 to 10 m provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem (See at least: para [0012] “…As a preference, the centre of aerodynamic thrust of the sail is distant from the mast by a length ranging from 0 to 10 m…”). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with sail (2) because operation situations and distribution of resulting forces would be similar as disclosed in figs 5-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify length between the mast and center of aerodynamic thrust to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 13, Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. However, Kalbermatten et al. does not disclose wherein, during rotation of the mast, energy and commands are transmitted using a device that does not impede the rotation.
Gonen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during rotation of the mast, energy and commands ({Examiner note: this is being interpreted as the mast’s rotational energy and the sail’s commands causing the mast to rotate}) are transmitted using a device (rotary bearing 10 or second rotary bearing 12; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0033]) that does not impede the rotation (See at least: para. [0034] “...permit the mast to freely rotate…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sail propulsion element of De Kalbermatten et al. with the rotary bearing 10 or second rotary bearing 12 of Gonen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling the sail to freely rotate and assume parallel direction to the apparent wind (See at least: Gonen para. [0007] “…a mast to be rotatably mounted in a vertical position on the vehicle enabling the flexible wing-sail to freely rotate and assume parallel direction to the apparent wind…”).
Regarding claim 14, Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen discloses all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. However, Kalbermatten et al. does not disclose wherein the device that does not impede the rotation is selected from a rotary joint or a cable bearing chain.
Gonen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the device that does not impede the rotation is selected from a rotary joint (rotary bearing 10 or second rotary bearing 12; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0033]) or a cable bearing chain.
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 17, Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Kalbermatten et al. discloses a vehicle with sail or hybrid propulsion (sailboat (1); See at least: fig. 1) comprising at least one sail propulsion element according to claim 10 (See at least: Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen rejection above) a hull (hull (3); See at least: fig. 1) and a mast (3) secured to the hull (See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 4 of 5 claims “Vessel powered vehicle (1) comprising an element according to any one of the preceding claims, a base (3) and a mast (4) secured to said base (3), characterized in that the mast (4) is disposed within the cavity (4).” {Examiner note: cavity (4) should be cavity (8)}) and free to rotate, wherein the mast (3) is positioned inside the at least one closed cavity of the inflatable sail (See at least: figs. 5-6 showing mast (4) inside cavity (8)).
However, Kalbermatten et al. does not disclose … comprising at least one sail propulsion element according to claim 10 (See at least: Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen rejection above)… and a mast (3)… free to rotate…
Gonen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches… comprising at least one sail propulsion element according to claim 10 (See at least: Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen rejection above)… and a mast (3) (mast 3; See at least: figs. 1-2, 6 and 8)… free to rotate (See at least: para. [0049] “…the mast 3 would freely rotate to enable the flexible wing-sail to assume the direction of the wind…”)…
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kalbermatten et al. in view of Gonen discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Kalbermatten et al. discloses wherein the inflatable sail is oriented according to a wind direction (wind (arrow) See at least: fig. 5) and according to a direction of running of the vehicle (See at least: fig. 5 bow of hull (3)) either manually or automatically (See at least: figs. 5-6 and text page 4 of 5, sixth para. from the top “The sail 2 is oriented so as to benefit from a thrust force…” and is interpreted as an automatic movement as the sail 2 moves by the thrust force.) .
However, Kalbermatten et al. does not disclose …manually…
Gonen in a similar field of endeavor, teaches…manually (See at least: figs. 13-14, para [0029] “…motor drives for manually or automatically controlling the orientation and/or curvature of the airfoil according to apparent wind conditions…” and para [0033] “FIG. 14 is a block diagram illustrating a control system which may be used for controlling the flexible wing-sail of FIG. 13 according to the apparent wind conditions”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sail propulsion element of De Kalbermatten et al. with the manual and/or automatic controls of Gonen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making a more convenient operation of a vehicle driven by wind (See at least: Gonen para [0012] “It enables more convenient operation of a vehicle driven by wind, and also enables sailing the vehicle more closely against the wind.”).
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
(DE 202013010255 U1) teaches air inlet openings (4 or 5) (See at least: fig. X). This prior art is applicable to at least claim 10, 12 and 15 “means”.
Cardoni (WO 2012020441 A2) teaches an airfoil sail structure (1) or "wingsail" mounted on a mast (7) where the mast (7) rotates freely about a 360˚ angle (See at least page 11 first para.). This prior art is applicable to at least claims 10 and 17-18.
Sohy (US 20060118020 A1) {Cited in the IDS of 28 November 2023} teaches trim line 22 to raise and lower the wing sail 1 (See at least: figs. 6-8). This prior art is applicable to at least claim 16.
Aguilera (US 5279241 A) {Cited in the IDS of 28 November 2023} teaches an inflatable sail that with conduit 71 that has an inflation-deflation valve 73 (FIG. 4). This prior art is applicable to at least claims 10 and 12 “means”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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 (571) 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615