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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings (they contain improper shading). 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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites “including tabs…for maneuver.” This should be rephrased as –for maneuvering—or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11 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.
Claims 10 and 11 recite additional limitations on “said guidance.” There are two issues.
First, “guidance” is in itself a concept, not a physical item. It is unclear how “guidance” can physically comprise anything. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as “guidance equipment.”
Second, parent claim 1 does not positively recite “guidance” or “guidance equipment,” only a “package for containing guidance and propulsion control equipment.” It is unclear how limitations on an unclaimed item affect the claimed device.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoza US 6,854,406 in view of Biedenweg US 6,302,042.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Cardoza teaches a drone catamaran 100 for carrying a platform 102, said catamaran having both length and beam and comprising:
a hull composed of an open plurality of ribs 301 disposed along the length that extend below and across a hull width within the beam, a separate plurality of slats (connecting platforms between the ribs- see Cardoza figure 3) across said hull width, and a propulsion device 112, 303 that secures to said hull within said plurality of ribs;
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Cardoza Figure 1A)]a bridge for supporting the platform, said bridge comprising a plurality of struts (the lateral bars connected to the pontoons) disposed along the length, each strut extending laterally beyond said hull width and across the beam;
a pair of pontoons 104 for providing buoyancy,
a waterproof package for containing guidance and propulsion control equipment 305; and
a seat (internal crossmembers) disposed on said plurality of slats for supporting said package.
Cardoza is silent as to the general construction, and does not teach a pair of rails for connecting to corresponding port and starboard ends of said struts; each pontoon affixing to a corresponding rail; a first pair of elbow flanges for affixing to said bridge; or a second pair of elbow flanges for supporting said seat. Biedenweg teaches a structure for pontoon vehicles, comprising:
a bridge 24 comprising a plurality of struts 32 disposed along the length, each strut extending laterally across the beam;
a pair of rails 38 for connecting to corresponding port and starboard ends of said struts;
a pair of pontoons 20 for providing buoyancy, each pontoon affixing to a corresponding rail;
elbow flanges 30, 34 for affixing components.
PNG
media_image2.png
231
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Biedenweg 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 structure of Cardoza with rails and struts with elbow flanges as taught by Biedenweg in order to have a modular construction, making production and maintenance easier. As taught, the entire structure of Cardoza would be formed from ribs, struts and elbow flanges (with elbow flanges connecting the ribs to the struts and slats).
In an alternative interpretation, if the applicant intended to convey a specific shape to the ribs (such as arched) or any other component, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the ribs, struts, rails or any component of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired form factor, manufacturability or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
If the applicant does not agree that the seat comprises a plurality of slats, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the seat/platform from a plurality of independent slat sections in order to simplify assembly and/or maintenance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the plurality of slats are distributed along the length.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Biedenweg also teaches that the components are made out of aluminum alloy (column 1, lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the struts, ribs, rails, flanges and slats of Cardoza with aluminum as taught by Biedenweg in order to provide an optimal strength to weight ratio and corrosion resistance. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the struts, ribs, rails, flanges and slats of Cardoza with aluminum in order to provide an optimal strength to weight ratio and corrosion resistance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 5-8, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Biedenweg also teaches that the struts 32 and/or flanges 30, 34 connect to the bridge 24 and rails 38 by nuts 28, 52 and bolts 26, 36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Cardoza by connecting all components with nuts and bolts as taught by Biedenweg in order to have a modular construction, making production and maintenance easier.
Regarding claim 9, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that said propulsion device 112 includes a motor that powers an impeller (column 6, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 10, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that the guidance includes receiver communication 307 within said package.
Regarding claim 11, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that the guidance within said package is autonomous (column 3, lines 35-46).
Regarding claim 12, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches a ballast cannister (508, 303 or any weighted component) below said seat, but does not specifically teach a center elbow or flange. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the supports an elbow flange, or the ballast a cannister or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired equipment spacing or form factor. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoza US 6,854,406 in view of Biedenweg US 6,302,042 and Rose US 11,091,234.
Regarding claim 13, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza does not teach tabs disposed along select ribs of said plurality of ribs. Rose teaches a pontoon vessel which comprises tabs 21, 40, 60 disposed along the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with tabs as taught by Rose in order to increase stability in water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the tabs on the ribs or wherever they were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics, 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 16, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that said propulsion device 112 includes a motor that powers an impeller (column 6, lines 45-48), but does not teach tabs disposed along select ribs of said plurality of ribs. Rose teaches a pontoon vessel which comprises tabs 21, 40, 60 disposed along the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with tabs as taught by Rose in order to increase stability in water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the tabs on the ribs or wherever they were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoza US 6,854,406 in view of Biedenweg US 6,302,042 and Westrick US 2023/0356811.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Cardoza nor Biedenweg teach cross-rods between the struts and/or ribs. Westrick teaches a marine vessel bridge structure comprising cross-rods 532 between longitudinal 324 and transverse 320 members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with cross-rods as taught by Rose on the struts and ribs in order to increase stability and reduce distortion of the structure [0032].
Regarding claims 17-19, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that said propulsion device 112 includes a motor that powers an impeller (column 6, lines 45-48), but does not teach cross-rods between the struts and/or ribs. Westrick teaches a marine vessel bridge structure comprising cross-rods 532 between longitudinal 324 and transverse 320 members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with cross-rods as taught by Rose on the struts and ribs in order to increase stability and reduce distortion of the structure [0032].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoza US 6,854,406 in view of Biedenweg US 6,302,042, Rose US 11,091,234 and Westrick US 2023/0356811.
Regarding claim 20, Cardoza and Biedenweg teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cardoza also teaches that said propulsion device 112 includes a motor that powers an impeller (column 6, lines 45-48), but does not teach cross-rods between the struts and/or ribs. Westrick teaches a marine vessel bridge structure comprising cross-rods 532 between longitudinal 324 and transverse 320 members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with cross-rods as taught by Rose on the struts and ribs in order to increase stability and reduce distortion of the structure [0032].
Cardoza does not teach tabs disposed along select ribs of said plurality of ribs. Rose teaches a pontoon vessel which comprises tabs 21, 40, 60 disposed along the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hull of Cardoza with tabs as taught by Rose in order to increase stability in water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the tabs on the ribs or wherever they were desired in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant details particulars of the current invention, then discussions the prior art references, then concludes that the 103 rejection does not demonstrate that all recited claim limitations are taught. However, as no further detail is given, there are no specific arguments to which the examiner can respond. Please see the action above, in which all recited limitations are addressed.
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