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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “the actuator assembly is operable to deploy move the thruster.” Either “deploy” or “move” is redundant, and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korganoff US 3,302,602.
Regarding claim 1, Korganoff discloses an underwater vessel comprising:
a body 1;
a thruster 26 operable to produce thrust, wherein the thruster is deployable from the body; and
an actuator assembly comprising an arm 25 connected to the thruster and operable to deploy the thruster between a stowed configuration where the thruster is stowed completely within the body and a first configuration or a second configuration,
wherein the actuator assembly is operable to move the thruster from the stowed configuration to the first configuration and from the first configuration to the stowed configuration by rotating the arm about a first axis, the first axis being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the arm, the first configuration of the thruster being in which a plane of the thruster is parallel to a width of the body such that the thruster is oriented to produce a thrust having a vertical component when the thruster is operated, and
wherein the actuator assembly is further operable to move the thruster from the first configuration to the second configuration and from the second configuration to the first configuration by rotating the arm about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the arm, the second configuration of the thruster being in which the plane of the thruster is perpendicular to a length of the body such that the thruster is oriented to produce a thrust having horizontal component when the thruster is operated (column 6, line 59-column 7, line 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Korganoff Figure 11
Regarding claim 5, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Korganoff also discloses that in a second configuration, the thruster is oriented to produce a thrust having a horizontal component when the thruster is operated (column 6, line 59-column 7, line 8).
Regarding claim 8, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Korganoff also discloses that the actuator assembly is operable to deploy the thruster 26 in the second configuration in the event of failure of a primary propulsion system of the submarine, thereby to provide a secondary propulsion system (primary propulsion being propellers 38 and 39). Note that the actuation system can deploy the thrusters whenever it is desired.
Regarding claim 9, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Korganoff also discloses a control system arranged to control operation of the thruster 26 based on an operating condition of the vessel. Note that whatever commands operation of the thruster is considered a control system, and the operating condition can be anything from powered on, stationary, to moving in any direction.
Regarding claim 10, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Korganoff also discloses that the control system is arranged to control operation of the thruster 26 to maintain a substantially constant operating condition (such as “on,” “enabled” or “powered”).
Regarding claim 11, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Korganoff also discloses that the control system is arranged to:
control the actuator assembly to deploy the thruster in the first configuration and the second configuration; and
control operation of the thruster based on the operating condition of the vessel, to maintain a substantially constant operating condition (such as “on,” “enabled” or “powered”).
Regarding claim 13, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Korganoff also discloses that the thruster 26 is one of a plurality of thrusters.
Regarding claim 14, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Korganoff also discloses that the thrusters 26 are independently operable. Note that this is true regardless of the control system.
Regarding claim 16, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Korganoff also discloses that the thruster 26 is stowable completely within the body 1.
Regarding claim 21, Korganoff discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Korganoff also discloses that the actuator assembly comprises a first rotary actuator operable to rotate the arm by 90° about the first axis and a second rotary actuator operable to rotate the arm by 90° about the second axis (note that whatever mechanism rotates the thruster is interpreted as the rotary actuators).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8-13, 14, 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veronesi US 5,257,952 in view of Taylor US 4,831,297.
Regarding claim 1, Korganoff discloses an underwater vessel comprising:
a body 3;
a thruster 26 operable to produce thrust, wherein the thruster is deployable from the body; and
an actuator assembly 60, 80 comprising an arm (the “base” of the thruster) connected to the thruster and operable to deploy the thruster between a stowed configuration where the thruster is stowed completely within the body and a first configuration or a second configuration,
wherein the actuator assembly is operable to move the thruster from the stowed configuration to the first configuration and from the first configuration to the stowed configuration by rotating the arm about a first axis 43, 45, the first axis being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the arm, the first configuration of the thruster being in which a plane of the thruster is parallel to a width of the body, and
wherein the actuator assembly is further operable to move the thruster from the first configuration to the second configuration and from the second configuration to the first configuration by rotating the arm about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the arm, the second configuration of the thruster being in which the plane of the thruster is perpendicular to a length of the body such that the thruster is oriented to produce a thrust having horizontal component when the thruster is operated.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arm)]
PNG
media_image2.png
362
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Veronesi Figures 5A and 5B
Veronesi does not teach that the thrust has a vertical component when the thruster is operated. Taylor teaches an underwater vessel comprising:
a body M;
a thruster 10 operable to produce thrust; and
an actuator assembly connected to the thruster and operable to deploy the thruster, wherein the actuator assembly is operable to deploy the thruster in a configuration in which the thruster is oriented to produce a thrust having a horizontal or vertical component when the thruster is operated (column 5, lines 37-41).
PNG
media_image3.png
151
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Taylor Figures 10 and 12
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 Veronesi with multiple thrusters, including some mounted on the side that are oriented to produce a thrust having a vertical component (in addition to the horizontal component) as taught by Taylor in order to increase the maneuverability and precision of the vessel.
If the applicant disagrees about the orientation of the arm and/or axes in any of the positions, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the thruster in order to align the various axes with desired thrust paths, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Taylor also teaches that in a second configuration, the thruster 10 is oriented to produce a thrust having a horizontal component when the thruster is operated (column 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 8, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Veronesi also teaches that the actuator assembly is operable to deploy the thruster 26 in the second configuration in the event of failure of a primary propulsion 9 system of the submarine, thereby to provide a secondary propulsion system (column 1, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 9, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Veronesi also teaches a control system arranged to control operation of the thruster 26 based on an operating condition of the vessel. Note that whatever commands operation of the thruster is considered a control system, and the operating condition can be anything from powered on, stationary, to moving in any direction.
Regarding claim 10, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Veronesi also teaches that the control system is arranged to control operation of the thruster 26 to maintain a substantially constant operating condition (such as “on,” “enabled” or “powered”).
Regarding claim 11, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Veronesi also teaches that the control system is arranged to:
control the actuator assembly 60 to deploy the thruster 26 in the first configuration and the second configuration; and
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Taylor Figure 3)]
PNG
media_image4.png
261
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
control operation of the thruster based on the operating condition of the vessel, to maintain a substantially constant operating condition (such as “on,” “enabled” or “powered”).
Regarding claim 12, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Veronesi also teaches that the thruster 26 comprises a rim driven thruster (column 5, lines 10-17).
Alternatively, Taylor also teaches that the thruster 10 comprises a rim driven thruster (column 3, lines 44-57). 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 Veronesi with rim-driven thrusters as taught by Taylor in order to reduce mechanical complexity and simplify maintenance.
Regarding claim 13, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Veronesi also teaches that the thruster 26 is one of a plurality of thrusters (see Veronesi figure 8).
Alternatively, Taylor also teaches that the thruster 10 is one of a plurality of thrusters (see Veronesi figure 8). As stated above, 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 Veronesi with multiple thrusters, including some mounted on the side that are oriented to produce a thrust having a vertical component as taught by Taylor in order to increase the maneuverability and precision of the vessel.
Regarding claim 14, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Veronesi and Taylor also teach that the thrusters 26 are independently operable. Note that this is true regardless of the control system.
Regarding claim 16, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Veronesi also teaches that the thruster 26 is stowable completely within the body 3.
Regarding claim 17, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Veronesi nor Taylor explicitly teach that the thruster is one of four thrusters, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add 4 (or more) thrusters in order to increase redundancy, power and/or maneuverability of the vessel, 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 21, Veronesi and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Veronesi also teaches that the actuator assembly comprises a first rotary actuator 60 operable to rotate the arm by 90° about the first axis and a second rotary actuator 80 operable to rotate the arm by 90° about the second axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Korganoff does not disclose an arm that rotates about two axes (page 8), please see above. Korganoff’s axle 25 meets the limitations of the claim as written, and rotates about one axis to deploy the thruster and another to alter thrust direction.
In response to applicant’s argument that Veronesi “fails to disclose rotating an arm about two different axes” (page 9), please see above. The portion of the thruster that attaches to the actuation assembly can be interpreted as the arm, and this arm rotates about a first axis to deploy and a second axis to steer. As modified by Taylor, these axes are vertical and horizontal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights