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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air distribution ducts (claim 1), freeboard deck (claims 4, 5, 11 and 12), and connection ducts side-by-side in the transverse direction (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 all recite a “freeboard deck,” however no “freeboard deck” is shown in the figures, and the only description is on page 7 of the specification and claims 5 and 12 which recite that “the freeboard deck (usually) coincides with the main deck.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand if the “freeboard deck” differs from the “main deck,” or if they are just different names for the same component. If they “coincide,” why are they recited as separate components? For the purposes of this action, they will be interpreted as the same deck, or different portions of the same deck.
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 1, 5 7, 12, 14, 17 and 20 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, lines 5 and 19 both recite “a space sandwiched between the outer wall and the inner wall.” It is unclear if this is the same space.
Claims 5 and 12 recite that “the freeboard deck coincides with the main deck.” It is unclear how the “freeboard deck” differs from the “main deck,” or even if they are separate components. For the purposes of this action, they will be interpreted as the same deck, or different portions of the same deck.
Claims 7 and 14 recites the limitation "the connecting ducts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites that the ducts “develop” entirely inside the hull. As “develop” is a verb, it is unclear if this is a method limitation, which does not properly limit an apparatus claim. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the ducts are contained inside the hull.
Claim 20 recites “several decks arranged inside the hull and stacked on one another.” It is unclear if these are the same “one or more decks arranged below the main deck and inside the hull” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 4-7, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rohden US 9,016,223.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Rohden Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Rohden teaches a vessel 1 comprising:
a main deck 31, 50, and
a hull, and
further comprising one or more decks 60, 70 arranged below the main deck and inside the hull;
wherein said hull comprises:
a bow,
a stern, and
a pair of flanks extending from the bow to the stern on opposite sides of the vessel, each of said the flanks comprising an outer wall 2, an inner wall 3 and a space 4 sandwiched between the outer wall and the inner wall,
wherein the vessel comprises rooms 5-8 to be ventilated,
wherein the vessel has an air circulation system, wherein the air circulation system comprises:
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Rohden Figure 4)]
PNG
media_image2.png
400
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
one or more blowers 35, 37, 39, 41, 42 intended to promote forced air circulation;
for each blower of said the one or more blowers, one or more air ports 21;
air passage ducts 13 connecting each of the one or more air ports to a respective one of the one or more blowers; and
air distribution ducts 23, 25, 27 conveying air from the one or more blowers to the rooms to be ventilated or vice versa,
wherein, for each blower of the one or more blowers, the one or more air ports are arranged on the outer wall of one of the pair of flanks of the hull and the air passage ducts extend inside the space sandwiched between the outer wall and the inner wall of the flank between each air port of the one or more air ports and the respective one of the one or more blowers.
Note that as recited, a system with one blower, duct and port meets the claim as written. Alternatively, if the applicant intended to have multiples of each component, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add as many ports, blowers and ducts as needed in order to achieve the desired level of ventilation, 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 4, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden also teaches that a freeboard deck 50 is defined in the hull of the vessel and the one or more air ports 21 are arranged on said the outer wall 2 of said the respective flank of said the hull at a position located below the freeboard deck.
Regarding claim 5, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Rohden also teaches that the freeboard deck 50 coincides with the main deck 31 and the one or more air ports 21 are arranged on the outer wall 2 of the respective flank of the hull at a position located below the main deck.
Regarding claim 6, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Rohden also teaches that the air circulation system comprises, for each blower, one of the air ports 21, and wherein the air passage ducts 13 comprise a first, upwardly oriented branch 15, which extends from the air port up to above the main deck 31 and has a top end 17 located above the main deck, and a second, downwardly oriented branch 19, which extends from the top end of said the upwardly oriented branch to the respective blower 35, 37, 39.
Regarding claim 7, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Rohden also teaches that the hull is provided with bulwark 32 upwardly extending above the main deck 31, and the first, upwardly oriented branch 15 of the connecting ducts 13 extends within the bulwark of the hull.
Regarding claim 9, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Rohden also teaches that the hull has a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, and wherein the second, downwardly oriented branch 19 of the connecting ducts is arranged side-by-side and aligned with the first, upwardly oriented branch 15 in the transverse direction of the hull.
Regarding claim 17, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden also teaches that the air passage ducts 13 connecting each air port 21 of the one or more air ports to the respective blower 35, 37, 39 (are contained) entirely inside the space sandwiched between the outer wall 2 and the inner wall 3 of the respective flank of the hull.
Regarding claim 18, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden also teaches that the one or more air ports 21 are made by using a porthole frame (whatever surrounds the port), slits 46 for air inlet being provided at one or more sides of the porthole frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 8, 10-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohden US 9,016,223.
Regarding claim 3, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden does not explicitly teach that the one or more blowers, with the respective air ports and the respective air passage ducts, are provided at each of the flanks of the hull. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add as many ports, blowers and ducts as needed in order to achieve the desired level of ventilation, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate these circulation systems in both flanks in order to further increase ventilation, 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 8, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Rohden also teaches that the hull has a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, but does not teach that the second, downwardly oriented branch 19 of the connecting ducts is arranged side-by-side and aligned with the first, upwardly oriented branch 15 in the longitudinal direction of the hull. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ducts side-by-side in the longitudinal direction of the hull in order to clear space for other components and/or provide the desired form factor, 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 10, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden does not explicitly teach that the air circulation system comprises, for each blower of the one or more blowers, several of the air ports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple ports in order to achieve the desired level of ventilation and/or allow the individual ports to be smaller, 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 claims 11-16, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. As claims 11-16 are identical to claims 4-9, they are rejection under the same rationale given above.
Regarding claim 19, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden also teaches that the vessel comprises an engine room received in one of the decks arranged inside the hull (column 3, lines 63-64), but does not explicitly teach that the one or more blowers are arranged in the engine room. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the blower in the engine room in order to ventilate the engine room and/or collocated the blower with other machinery to simplify maintenance, 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 20, Rohden teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rohden also teaches that the vessel comprises several decks 50, 60, 70 arranged inside the hull and stacked on one another, but does not explicitly teach that the one or more blowers are arranged in a lowermost deck of the several decks arranged inside the hull. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate a blower in the lowermost deck in order to ventilate the lowermost deck and/or keep the loud equipment away from crew spaces, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wemmerus US 3,489,119 teaches an air circulation system that pulls the air up and then down.
Latza US 4,711,193 teaches an air circulation system with air passages running up and down across decks, with air distribution ducts on individual floors.
Hatfield US 5,232,385 teaches a gas turbine engine that pulls air down to the turbine, then pushes the exhaust back up and out of the hull.
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