NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 23, 26-29, 31, 38, 39, 41-44, and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker et al. (US 2002/0088387 A1, cited by the applicants, “Motsenbocker”) in view of Hu et al. (CN 209280091 U, cited by the applicants, “Hu”).
Regarding Claim 23, Motsenbocker discloses a watercraft ([0002]; Fig.1) comprising: a hull feature (fig.1; element 310, a cruise boat implicitly has a hull) at least partially submersible in a body of water [0129]; at least one source electrode disposed on the hull feature; at least one receiver electrode disposed on the hull feature and spaced apart from the at least one source electrode ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes, in watercraft depth) can be detected ... by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts. When the water level rises, either by immersion ... be electronically detected by changes in conductivity between the electrodes. A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal”); the sensing circuit (a computer connected to four sensors [0076]) configured to output a depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based on the return signal ([0075]-[0077]).
Motsenbocker does not explicitly teach a sensing circuit configured to output a repeating pulse signal to the at least one source electrode and to receive a return signal from the at least one receiver electrode when the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are at least partially submersed in the body of water.
However, Hu teaches a water level detection circuit based on AC pulse signals [0002] wherein a sensing circuit (Fig.1) configured to output a repeating pulse signal to the at least one source electrode (9) and to receive a return signal from the at least one receiver electrode (8) when the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are at least partially submersed in the body of water (shown in fig.1 and discussed in [0021]-[0023]; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Hu regarding sending/receiving signals to/from the electrodes since such arrangement and technique is known for measuring liquid level which would more accurately measure liquid level. Utilizing the teaching of Hu, one of ordinary skill in the art may employ Motsenbocker’s sensing circuit to output a depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based on the return signal from one the electrode.
Regarding Claim 26, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Hu further teaches that the repeating pulse signal is an alternating current signal ([Abstract]; [0002]).
Regarding Claim 27, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein a change in resistance between the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode, indicated based on the return signal, causes the sensing circuit to change the depth signal ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes in watercraft depth) can be detected ... by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts. When the water level rises, either by immersion ... be electronically detected by changes in conductivity between the electrodes. A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal.”).
Regarding Claim 28, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Modified Motsenbocker further teaches wherein the at least one source electrode includes a plurality of source electrodes each mounted along the hull feature at different heights; wherein the at least one receiver electrode includes a plurality of receiver electrodes each mounted along the hull feature at different heights; and
(Motsenbocker: [0079] discloses “A skilled artisan can easily optimize electrode and optic arrangements as well as determine suitable algorithms to decipher patterns of electrical conductivity or light measurements as representing longer-term submersion versus regular wave activity. Conductivity or optic measurements can be conducted at various locations, for example, on the same strut, between electrode(s) on a strut and a submersible member, and between two different struts);
wherein the sensing circuit is configured to output the repeating pulse signal to the source electrode and receive the return signal from receiver electrode that are submersed in the body of water (Hu: Fig.1; [0021-0024] disclose “The utility model is detected by using low-voltage alternating-current pulse signal, low frequency, low duty ratio intermittent series impulse signal; pg.2 bottom- a kind of water level detection circuit based on pulse signal... signal input 1 connects pulse signal transmitter, for emitting detection signal, and signal input 1 and the first electricity One end of resistance 3 is electrically connected by conducting wire, and first resistor 3 is wired at the second detecting electrode 9 ... Signal output 2 connects pulse signal detection device, and for detecting pulse signal ... the second capacitor 6 be electrolytic capacitor, and the second capacitor 6 the other end connect the first detecting electrode 8”).
Regarding Claim 29, the watercraft of claim 28 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein each source electrode of the plurality of source electrodes is exposed through an opening in the hull feature ([0074]: “by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts. When the water level rises, either by immersion, or by high wave activity, such immersion or high wave activity can be electronically detected by changes in conductivity between the electrodes”).
Regarding Claim 31, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein the hull feature includes a first slot and a second slot extending along at least a portion thereof, the at least one source electrode disposed in the first slot and the at least one receiver electrode disposed in the second slot ([0074]: “by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts”).
Regarding Claim 39, Motsenbocker discloses a method of operating a watercraft disposed in a body of water ([0002]; [0129]; Fig.1), the method comprising: outputting a repeating pulse signal (implicit in four sensors connected to a computer [0076]), and outputting a depth signal from a sensing circuit (Fig.1) of the fluid sensing apparatus, the depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based at least in part upon the return signal pulse signal from a fluid sensing apparatus to at least one source electrode extending along a hull feature of the watercraft ([0074]; [0076]); receiving a return signal at the fluid sensing apparatus from at least one receiver electrode extending along the hull feature of the watercraft and spaced apart from the at least one source electrode, the return signal conducted through the body of water from the at least one source electrode to the at least one receiver electrode ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes, in watercraft depth) can be detected ... by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts. When the water level rises, either by immersion ... be electronically detected by changes in conductivity between the electrodes. A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal”); and automatically adjusting operation of the watercraft based upon the depth signal ([0074]: “the computer compares a new signal with either a stored signal or fixed signal value and then outputs a result to control a means for adjusting the watercraft attitude or depth). As to a sensing circuit, “a computer connected to four sensors” is discloses in [0076]).
Motsenbocker does not explicitly teach - outputting a depth signal from a sensing circuit of the fluid sensing apparatus, the depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based at least in part upon the return signal.
However, Hu teaches a water level detection circuit based on AC pulse signals [0002] wherein outputting a depth signal from a sensing circuit (Fig.1) of the fluid sensing apparatus, the depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based at least in part upon the return signal (shown in fig.1 and discussed in [0021]-[0023]; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Hu regarding sending/receiving signals to/from the electrodes since such arrangement and technique is known for measuring liquid level which would more accurately measure liquid level. Utilizing the teaching of Hu, one of ordinary skill in the art may employ Motsenbocker’s sensing circuit to output a depth signal corresponding to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based on the return signal from one the electrode.
Regarding Claim 41, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein adjusting operation of the watercraft includes adjusting a thrust of a propulsion system of the watercraft ([0079): “a computer can determine whether to shift ballast to compensate, adjust motor speed, adjust motor thrust vector”).
Regarding Claim 42, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein adjusting operation of the watercraft includes adjusting a position of a movable control surface of the watercraft ([0079]: “adjust a rudder to control vertical position in the water”).
Regarding Claim 43, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein adjusting operation of the watercraft includes adjusting a trim of a propulsion system of the watercraft ([0078]-[0079]: “adjust boat trim, speed or direction as suited for a particular situation ... determine whether to shift ballast to compensate, adjust motor speed, adjust motor thrust vector (rotate motor to thrust more down or up), adjust a rudder to control vertical position in the water, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 44, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein the at least one receiver electrode includes a plurality of electrodes disposed at varying heights along the hull feature; wherein the at least one source electrode includes a plurality of electrodes disposed at varying heights along the hull feature ([0079]: “A skilled artisan can easily optimize electrode and optic arrangements as well as determine suitable algorithms to decipher patterns of electrical conductivity or light measurements as representing longer-term submersion versus regular wave activity. Conductivity or optic measurements can be conducted at various locations, for example, on the same strut, between electrode(s) on a strut and a submersible member, and between two different struts”).
Regarding Claim 46, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches wherein outputting the depth signal is based at least in part on an amplitude of the return signal ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes in watercraft depth”) can be detected ... by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts. When the water level rises, either by immersion ... be electronically detected by changes in conductivity between the electrodes. A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal).
Regarding Claim 47, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches the method further comprising comparing the depth signal to a data structure correlating the depth signal to an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes in watercraft depth) can be detected ... A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal (typically "on/off' or a more complex digital series of ones and zeros obtained from an analog to digital converter) and then input into a computer ... the computer compares a new signal with either a stored signal or fixed signal value and then outputs a result to control a means for adjusting the watercraft attitude or depth”).
Regarding Claim 48, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further teaches the method further comprising calculating an extent to which the hull feature is submersed in the body of water based on the depth signal ([0074]: “Watercraft depth (or changes in angle of attack, which lead to changes in watercraft depth) can be detected ... A change in conductivity is translated into a voltage and/or current difference and then is converted into a signal (typically "on/off' or a more complex digital series of ones and zeros obtained from an analog to digital converter) and then input into a computer”).
Claims 24 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker in view of Hu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hampton (US 2010/0154534 A1, cited by the applicants).
Regarding Claim 24, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Hu further discloses wherein the sensing circuit further comprises a DC barrier comprising: a receiver capacitor (6) disposed inline between the sensing circuit (2) and the at least one receiver electrode (8) (Fig.1; Claim 1: “Signal output (2) is wired to second resistance (4) other end of one end ... and the second capacitor (6), the other end of the second capacitor (6) connects the first detecting electrode (8).”).
Motsenbocker in view of Hu fail to disclose a source capacitor disposed inline between the sensing circuit and the at least one source electrode.
However, Hampton teaches a level sensor comprising a source capacitor (418) disposed inline between the sensing circuit (414) and the at least one source electrode (410) (Fig.14; [0086]: “Oscillator 414 includes resistor 416 and capacitor 418 ... oscillator 414 when the output of NANO gate 410”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Hampton regarding the source capacitor since combining the capacitor disclosed by Hampton to the first electrode and sensing circuit disclosed by Motsenbocker in view of Hu would facilitate the barring of the circuit (Hampton: [0086]).
Regarding Claim 40, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Hu further discloses wherein receiving the return signal includes receiving the return signal through a receiver capacitor (6) from the at least one receiver electrode (8) (Fig. 1; Claim 1: “Signal output (2) is wired to-second resistance (4) other end of one end ... and the second capacitor (6), the other end of the second capacitor (6) connects the first detecting electrode (8)”).
Motsenbocker in view of Hu fail to disclose wherein outputting the repeating pulse signal includes outputting the repeating pulse signal through a source capacitor to at least one source electrode.
However, Hampton teaches a level sensor comprising a source capacitor (418) disposed inline between the sensing circuit (414) and the at least one source electrode (410) (Fig.14; [0086]: “Oscillator 414 includes resistor 416 and capacitor 418 ... oscillator 414 when the output of NANO gate 410”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Hampton regarding the source capacitor since combining the capacitor disclosed by Hampton to the first electrode and sensing circuit disclosed by Motsenbocker in view of Hu would facilitate the barring of the circuit (Hampton: [0086]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker in view of Hu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Larson (US 4,145,927, cited by the applicants).
Regarding Claim 25, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Modified Motsenbocker does not teach wherein the sensing circuit further comprises: a first isolating transformer disposed inline between the sensing circuit and the at least one source electrode; and a second isolating transformer disposed inline between the sensing circuit and the at least one receiver electrode.
However, Larson teaches a liquid level sensor comprising a first isolating transformer (17) disposed inline between the circuit (14) and the at least one source electrode (12); and a second isolating transformer (23) disposed inline between the circuit (14) and the at least one receiver electrode (13) (Fig.1A; col.3; line 57- col.4, line 10 discloses “the capacitance between plates 12 and 13 will lineraly increase as the liquid level increase ... The output of oscillator 14 is connected to a primary winding 15 of a transformer 16 ... Transformer 16 has a first secondary winding 17, ... Transformer 16 has an additional secondary winding 23, the positive polarity end”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Larsen regarding the liquid level sensor since combining the transformers disclosed by Larson to the electrodes and the sensing circuit disclosed by Motsenbocker in view of Hu would provide the frequency stability (Larson: col.2; lines 1-4).
Claims 30, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker in view of Hu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Thomson (US 2003/0033968 A1, cited by the applicants).
Regarding Claim 30, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Modified Motsenbocker does not teach wherein the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are embedded in the hull feature.
However, Thomson teaches a watercraft comprising an electrode is embedded in the hull feature ([0009]: “the electrode can be embedded in the hull of a marine vessel below the waterline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Thomson regarding embedding electrode since this technique is known to embed which would reduce galvanic and electrolytic corrosion (Thomson: [0009]).
Regarding Claim 32, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Modified Motsenbocker does not teach wherein the hull feature is formed of carbon fiber; wherein the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are inlaid in the carbon fiber hull feature.
However, Thomson teaches a watercraft comprising the hull feature formed of carbon fiber ([0041]: “the hull material 5 when the hull material is carbon fiber composite”); an electrode is inlaid in the carbon fiber hull feature ([0009]: “the electrode can be embedded in the hull of a marine vessel below the waterline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Thomson regarding hull material since this material is known in the art which would reduce galvanic and electrolytic corrosion (Thomson: [0009]).
Regarding Claim 35, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further discloses wherein the at least one source electrode forms a first portion of the hull feature and the at least one receiver electrode forms a second portion of the hull feature ([0074]: “by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts”).
Modified Motsenbocker does not teach disclose the hull feature further including an insulator between the first portion and second portion.
However, Thomson teaches a watercraft comprising the hull feature including an insulator between two conductive portions (Fig.1D; [0040]: “The insulating sleeve 10 can provide an insulating gap between the electrode core and the hull material. Such an insulating gap can be desirable with, for example, a composite hull with carbon fiber content as the carbon fibers are at risk of developing discharges”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Thomson regarding insulation since this would prevent unwanted discharging (Thomson: [0040]).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker in view of Hu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Daniels (5,573,088, cited by the applicants).
Regarding Claim 33, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker does not teach wherein the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are electroplated on the hull feature.
However, Daniels, drawn to watercraft, discloses electrode is electroplated on feature (col.28; lines 29-32 discloses “each opposing electrode member 12 can be mass produced by casting, or by forming an injection molded substrate upon which appropriate electrode surfaces are formed through electroplating or adhesion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Daniels regarding electroplating since this is a known structure which would facilitate securing electrodes on the hull feature (Daniels: col.28; lines 29-32).
Regarding Claim 34, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker does not teach wherein the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are secured to an outer surface of the hull feature by one or more of a fastener and/or an adhesive.
However, Daniels, drawn to watercraft, discloses electrode is secured to an outer surface by adhesion (col.28; lines 29-32: “each opposing electrode member 12 can be mass produced by casting, or by forming an injection molded substrate upon which appropriate electrode surfaces are formed through electroplating or adhesion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Daniels regarding electroplating since this is a known structure which would facilitate securing electrodes on the hull feature (Daniels: col.28; lines 29-32).
Claims 36-38, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motsenbocker in view of Hu as applied to claims 23 and 39 above, and further in view of Kai Concepts, LLC (WO 2022/265968 A1, cited by the applicants, “Kai”).
Regarding Claim 36, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further discloses the at least one source electrode and at least one receiver electrode disposed along the strut ([0074]: “by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts”).
Motsenbocker does not disclose wherein the hull feature includes a strut extending to a hydrofoil wing.
However, Kai, drawn to watercraft, discloses a strut extending to a hydrofoil wing ([0039]: “The hydrofoil 104 includes one or more hydrofoil wings 124 mounted to the strut 122”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Kai regarding hydrofoil wing since this is a known structure in the art.
Regarding Claim 37, the watercraft of claim 23 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker does not teach the watercraft further comprising: a board having an upper surface and a lower surface, the hull feature including a strut extending from the lower surface of the board; and a propulsion system mounted to the strut.
However, Kai, drawn to watercraft, discloses a board (102) having an upper surface and a lower surface, the hull feature including a strut (122) extending from the lower surface of the board; and a propulsion system (106) mounted to the strut (Fig.1 shows 122 extending from the lower surface of 102; [0037]-[0039]- a board 102 ... The propulsion unit 106 may be mounted to the strut 122.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Kai regarding board since this is a known structure in the art [0031].
Regarding Claim 38, the watercraft of claim 37 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu and Kai.
Motsenbocker does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode extend along an upper portion of the strut.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Motsenbocker’s system to have the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode extend along an upper portion of the strut, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation (Motsenbocker: [0079] discloses “A skilled artisan can easily optimize electrode and optic arrangements as well as determine suitable algorithms to decipher patterns of electrical conductivity or light measurements as representing longer-term submersion versus regular wave activity. Conductivity or optic measurements can be conducted at various locations, for example, on the same strut, between electrode(s) on a strut and a submersible member, and between two different struts”).
Regarding Claim 45, the method of claim 39 is taught by Motsenbocker in view of Hu.
Motsenbocker further discloses wherein the hull feature includes a strut, the at least one source electrode and the at least one receiver electrode are disposed along at least a portion of the strut ([0074]: “by measuring conductivity between vertically arranged electrodes on one or more struts”).
Motsenbocker does not explicitly disclose a hydrofoil connected to the strut.
However, Kai, drawn to watercraft, discloses a strut extending to a hydrofoil wing ([0039]: “The hydrofoil 104 includes one or more hydrofoil wings 124 mounted to the strut 122”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motsenbocker’s system with the teaching of Kai regarding hydrofoil wing since this is a known structure in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 49 and Claims 50-52 that are depended on claim 49, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if – rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the claim is the reasons for allowability.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jenks et al. (US 12,330,512 B1) teaches a voltage detection system for a marine vessel is provided. The system includes at least one electrode set configured to detect a voltage gradient measurement at a location in a body of water surrounding the marine vessel, and a control system. The control system is configured to receive the voltage gradient measurement from each electrode set; compare each voltage gradient measurement to at least one threshold to determine a voltage threat level, and generate a threat response based on the voltage threat level [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights