DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim 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 1, 7 and 17 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 1 line 5 recites “across a width of a hull.” It is unclear if this is the previously recited lower hull, upper hull, or a new component.
Claim 7 recites that “the plurality of interconnected tubular members are...inflated simultaneously.” It is unclear how method steps limit an apparatus claim. This should be rephrased as –configured to be inflated simultaneously—or similar.
Claim 17 recites limitations on a beacon that forms part of a life jacket. It is unclear if the beacon and/or jacket are being positively recited- note that parent claim 16 only recites that the vessel can receive signals from a beacon.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 2 does not recite any limitations that are not captured in parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland US 5,597,335 in view of Wright US 5,056,453.
Regarding claim 1, Woodland teaches a remotely controllable rescue vessel (column 2, lines 58-62) including:
a rigid lower hull portion 3A;
an inflatable upper hull portion 3B coupled to the rigid lower hull portion including an inflatable tubular collar extending around at least part of a periphery of the rigid lower hull portion, the vessel configured to roll back to an upright position (column 14, lines 49-55); and
a remotely controllable motor 3E, configurable to drive the remotely controllable rescue vessel according to remote instructions.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Woodland Figure 2
Woodland does not teach an inflatable tube member extending upwardly and across a width of a hull, the inflatable tube member configured to cause the vessel to roll back to an upright position. Wright teaches a vessel including:
a rigid lower hull portion 12;
an inflatable upper hull portion coupled to the rigid lower hull portion including an inflatable tubular collar 16, 18 extending around at least part of a periphery of the rigid lower hull portion and an inflatable tube member 26 extending upwardly and across a width of a hull, the inflatable tube member configured to cause the vessel to roll back to an upright position.
PNG
media_image2.png
318
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Wright Figure 1
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 Woodland with the upper inflatable tube member as taught by Wright in order to ensure that the boat can self-right without the need for automatic inflation.
Regarding claim 2, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland and Wright also teach that the remotely controllable rescue vessel is self-righting in water.
Regarding claim 3, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches a further tube member 73 (column 11, lines 62-67), which as modified support the inflatable tube member.
Regarding claim 4, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Woodland also teaches that the further tube member 73 is coupled to the inflatable tube member at a right angle.
Regarding claim 5, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the rigid lower hull portion 3A extends continuously from a bow to a stern of the remotely controllable vessel.
Regarding claim 6, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the inflatable upper hull portion 3B is defined by a plurality of interconnected tubular members 60, 61. Note that the different portions of any tube can be considered interconnected members.
Regarding claim 7, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Woodland also teaches that the plurality of interconnected tubular members 60, 61 are fluidly connected and (configured to be) inflated simultaneously. Note that as pump 138 inflates the hull members, they can be said to be fluidly connected.
Regarding claim 8, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wright also teaches that the vessel further includes a compressed gas cylinder 54 configured to fill the inflatable tube member 26. 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 Woodland with compressed gas cylinder as taught by Wright in order to inflate the hull quickly or in the event of pump failure.
Regarding claim 9, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the remotely controllable rescue vessel further includes a propeller 137, coupled to the remotely controllable motor, and a shroud, for shrouding the propeller (see figure 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
226
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Woodland Figure 18
Regarding claim 11, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the rigid lower hull portion 34 comprises a planing hull in the form of a V-shaped or modified V-shaped hull (see figures 17 & 18).
Regarding claim 12, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the remotely controllable motor is powered by a battery (column 6, lines 52-54), but does not explicitly teach that the battery is housed in the rigid lower hull portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to house the battery in the lower portion in order to protect it while the upper portion is deflated, 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 13, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the lower rigid hull portion 3A defines an enclosed space, wherein the enclosed space is watertight and includes a removable watertight hatch 42, 43 (column 9, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 15, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches attachment members 86 on the inflatable upper hull portion 3B, the attachment members configured to releasably receive accessories or attachments of the vessel.
Regarding claim 18, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches sensors to capture data (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Woodland and Wright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the vessel is configured to stream image and/or video data to a remote operator (abstract).
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland US 5,597,335 in view of Manhart US 3,092,854.
Regarding claim 1, Woodland teaches a remotely controllable rescue vessel (column 2, lines 58-62) including:
a rigid lower hull portion 3A;
an inflatable upper hull portion 3B coupled to the rigid lower hull portion including an inflatable tubular collar extending around at least part of a periphery of the rigid lower hull portion, the vessel configured to roll back to an upright position (column 14, lines 49-55); and
a remotely controllable motor 3E, configurable to drive the remotely controllable rescue vessel according to remote instructions.
Woodland does not teach an inflatable tube member extending upwardly and across a width of a hull, the inflatable tube member configured to cause the vessel to roll back to an upright position. Manhart teaches a vessel including:
an inflatable hull portion an inflatable tubular collar 16 extending around at least part of a periphery of the hull portion and an inflatable tube member 58, 59 extending upwardly and across a width of a hull, the inflatable tube member configured to cause the vessel to roll back to an upright position (column 7, lines 58-64).
PNG
media_image4.png
342
367
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Manhart Figure 2
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 Woodland with the upper inflatable tube member as taught by Manhart in order to ensure that the boat can self-right without the need for automatic inflation.
Regarding claim 2, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland and Manhart also teach that the remotely controllable rescue vessel is self-righting in water.
Regarding claim 3, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Manhart also teaches a further tube member (another 58) to support the inflatable tube member. 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 Woodland with the multiple upper inflatable tube members as taught by Manhart in order to maintain rigidity of the upper hull.
Regarding claim 4, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Manhart also teaches that the further tube member 58 is coupled to the inflatable tube member 58 at a right angle.
Regarding claim 5, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the rigid lower hull portion 3A extends continuously from a bow to a stern of the remotely controllable vessel.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5- Manhart Figure 8)]
PNG
media_image5.png
322
181
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the inflatable upper hull portion 3B is defined by a plurality of interconnected tubular members 60, 61. Note that the different portions of any tube can be considered interconnected members.
In an alternate interpretation, Manhart also teaches that the inflatable hull portion is defined by a plurality of interconnected tubular members 16, 58, 59. 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 Woodland with interconnected tube members as taught by Manhart in order to simplify inflation.
Regarding claim 7, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Woodland also teaches that the plurality of interconnected tubular members 60, 61 are fluidly connected and (configured to be) inflated simultaneously. Note that as pump 138 inflates the hull members, they can be said to be fluidly connected.
In an alternate interpretation, Manhart also teaches that the plurality of interconnected tubular members 16, 58, 59 are fluidly connected and (configured to be) inflated simultaneously. 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 Woodland with interconnected tube members as taught by Manhart in order to simplify inflation.
Regarding claim 8, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Manhart also teaches that the vessel further includes a compressed gas cylinder 38 configured to fill the inflatable tube member 16, 58, 59. 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 Woodland with compressed gas cylinder as taught by Manhart in order to inflate the hull quickly or in the event of pump failure.
Regarding claim 9, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the remotely controllable rescue vessel further includes a propeller 137, coupled to the remotely controllable motor, and a shroud, for shrouding the propeller (see figure 18).
Regarding claim 11, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the rigid lower hull portion 34 comprises a planing hull in the form of a V-shaped or modified V-shaped hull (see figures 17 & 18).
Regarding claim 12, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the remotely controllable motor is powered by a battery (column 6, lines 52-54), but does not explicitly teach that the battery is housed in the rigid lower hull portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to house the battery in the lower portion in order to protect it while the upper portion is deflated, 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 13, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the lower rigid hull portion 3A defines an enclosed space, wherein the enclosed space is watertight and includes a removable watertight hatch 42, 43 (column 9, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 15, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches attachment members 86 on the inflatable upper hull portion 3B, the attachment members configured to releasably receive accessories or attachments of the vessel.
Regarding claim 18, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches sensors to capture data (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Woodland and Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland also teaches that the vessel is configured to stream image and/or video data to a remote operator (abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland US 5,597,335 in view of Wright US 5,056,453 or Manhart US 3,092,854 and Keown US 10,549,825.
Regarding claim 10 Woodland and Wright or Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Woodland also teaches that the steering of the vessel is remotely controllable, but does not teach a rudder. Keown teaches a vessel including:
a rigid lower hull portion 50;
an inflatable upper hull portion 10 coupled to the rigid lower hull portion including an inflatable tubular collar 12, 13 extending around at least part of a periphery of the rigid lower hull portion; and
a rudder 56, provided in association with a propeller 55, for guiding the rescue vessel (column 3, lines 55-57).
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 Woodland with a rudder to steer the vessel as taught by Keown in order to reduce complexity of the propulsion system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland US 5,597,335 in view of Wright US 5,056,453 or Manhart US 3,092,854 and Wiggins US 8,443,750.
Regarding claim 14 Woodland and Wright or Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Woodland does not teach an intake, for receiving water, for cooling components in the enclosed space in use. Wiggins teaches a marine vessel comprising an intake 260, for receiving water, for cooling components 320 in an enclosed space in use. 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 Woodland with a cooling water intake as taught by Wiggins in order to maintain the temperature of electronic components.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland US 5,597,335 in view of Wright US 5,056,453 or Manhart US 3,092,854 and Kiel US 10,259,547.
Regarding claim 16 Woodland and Wright or Manhart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Woodland teaches that the vessel can navigate autonomously to persons in distress (abstract), but does not explicitly teach that the vessel is configured to receive signals from a beacon, and navigate autonomously to the beacon according to the beacon signals. Kiel teaches that a beacon can send out location data to rescue vehicles (column 5, lines 24-33). 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 Woodland with the ability to follow a beacon as taught by Kiel in order to increase accuracy in locating people in distress.
Regarding claim 17 Woodland, Wright or Manhart and Kiel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Kiel also teaches that the beacon comprises an AIS beacon that forms part of a life jacket 14 (column 5, lines 24-33). 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 Woodland with a beacon integrated into a life vest as taught by Kiel in order to ensure the beacon remains with the person in distress.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brooks US 3,037,218, Harris US 6,074,260, and Richard US 5,927,228 teach life rafts with inflatable upper structures.
Noras US 2023/0074511, Albright US 8,998,666 and Hansen US 6,558,218 teach remotely controllable life rafts that follow a beacon to a person in distress.
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