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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species II in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (KR 102542738).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. (Original) A watercraft comprising: a hull (10); an electric drive (71); a battery (31) electrically coupled (via 73) to the electric drive (71); an intake aperture (111) formed in (e.g., fig. 2) the hull (10); a pump (190) fluidly coupled to the intake aperture (111) by an intake channel (110) positioned between the intake aperture (111) and the pump (190); an outlet channel (131) fluidly coupled to the pump (190) and the battery (31); and a discharge aperture (133) formed in the hull (10) and fluidly coupled to the battery (31) by a discharge channel (i.e., portion of 131 shown in fig. 2 between 133 and 31) positioned between the discharge aperture (133) and the battery (31).
2. (Original) The watercraft of claim 1, further comprising a controller (either of battery management system 35 or control unit 155) and a sensor (i.e., sensor disclosed as part of control unit 155) coupled to the battery (31).
4. (Original) The watercraft of claim 2, wherein the pump (190) is electrically coupled to the controller (e.g., 155) and the pump (190) is energized in response to the sensor detecting a failure condition (i.e., 155 is disclosed as controlling flow rate of water based on sensed temperature of battery).
5. (Original) The watercraft of claim 4, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor (i.e., disclosed as temperature sensor), a voltage sensor, or a current sensor.
6. (Currently Amended) The watercraft of claim 2, wherein the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors (i.e., plurality of sensors are disclosed, including battery sensor and a sensor for other electric equipment such as motor 71) coupled to (i.e., directly or indirectly) the battery (31).
31. (New) The watercraft of claim 1, wherein the electric drive includes an electric motor (71) and a power converter (73).
32. (New) The watercraft of claim 4, wherein the failure condition includes at least one of a temperature in the battery exceeding a threshold temperature (i.e., flow rate is controlled based on temperature of the battery) or a voltage of the battery being outside of a threshold range.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 102542738), in view of Riegger et al. (US 2014/0102731).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the physical location of the sensor, so cannot be said to read on the limitations of claim 3.
Riegger teaches a temperature sensor (5) located within a battery (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the sensor location as taught by Riegger in combination with the general structure of KR, for the expected benefit of a compact and/or accurate arrangement.
Claims 7 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 102542738).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the power rating of the battery or the flow rate of the pump. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that batteries with power ratings of at least 110 kWh and pumps with flow rate of fluids of at least 100 LPM were routine, well-known, and common in the watercraft arts, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to incorporate components having such characteristics to meet desired design and/or engineering constraints for an intended use.
Regarding claim 30, the embodiment of figure 2 does not show the intake aperture positioned forward of the discharge aperture along a bow-to-stern direction of the hull. However, the embodiment of figure 3 shows the intake aperture (111) positioned forward of the discharge aperture (133) along a bow-to-stern direction of the hull (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to combine the flow path of figure 3 with the component design of figure 2, for the expected advantage of allowing a passive cooling failsafe in case of pump failure.
Claims 8-12 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 102542738), in view of Thompson et al. (US 2020/0377186).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 26-29, KR discloses an electrically (via 155) actuated valve (151) and a single battery but does not explicitly disclose the structure of the battery, and does not disclose a second battery.
Thompson teaches the use of a plurality of battery packs, wherein each battery pack of the plurality comprises one or more battery cells and a sealed housing enclosing the one or more battery cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the batteries as taught by Thompson in combination with the cooling structure as disclosed by KR, for the expected benefit of allowing a desired weight-distribution for the components; and/or to allow a desired electrical functionality to the system.
Thereafter, the combination suggests the claimed limitations insomuch as the fluid flow, valve, and control structure of KR is duplicated to accommodate the integration of multiple batteries as taught by Thompson, since it has been held that the mere duplication of known parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.1 In the instant case, the claimed multiplicity of similar parts do not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and the device of the prior art having the number of similar parts, as claimed, would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of duplicate parts, and since the claimed device having the number of parts would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Prosecution Insights