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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the hull with “no horizontal bearing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Please note that while the figures are assumed to be to scale, they appear to depict bearing surfaces in the front half of the hull.
The drawings are further objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings, and 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 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.
Claim 1 (and all claims that depend therefrom) is 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, line 2 recites “gradually transformed to a concave bottom profile at a rear half of the hull.” It is unclear if the transformation occurs in the rear half, or if just the concave portion is in the rear half of the hull.
Further regarding claim 1, line 4 recites “there are no horizontal bearing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull.” It is unclear if these “horizontal bearing surfaces” are the same as the “horizontal planing surfaces” previously recited in line 3. It is further unclear if this limitation means that there are no bearing/planing surfaces in the front half at all, or if the bearing/planing surfaces are not in the front half portion that coincides with the deep V-shaped hull portion.
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 as best understood 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 Wilkins GB 1,025,454.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkins discloses a hull for a vessel with a bow and stern 17, comprising a deep V-shaped bow section at the front half of the hull gradually transformed to a concave bottom profile at a rear half of the hull with a lateral horizontal planing surface 13, 14 on each side backward, shaped to work like water skis, and wherein there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull. In this interpretation, the “deep V-shaped front half of the hull” is interpreted as the portion of the hull forward of the planing surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Wilkins Figures 1-4
In an alternative interpretation, Wilkins does not teach that there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half 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 bearing/planing surfaces entirely in the back half in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic balance and/or performance, 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 2, Wilkins discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wilkins also discloses that the planing surfaces 13, 14 have the same width over the entire length thereof or being horizontal and wedge-shaped with a forward pointing tip and gradually expanding in width towards the stern.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the planing surfaces straight, tapered, or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 3, Wilkins discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wilkins also discloses that the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces 13, 14 are parallel to each other.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces 44 are parallel to each other or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Wilkins discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wilkins also discloses that the planing surfaces 13, 14 are separate water ski elements equipped for adjusting of heights and angles when driving. Note that the planing surfaces can change heights and angles as the vessel moves.
Claims 1-4 as best understood 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 Meredith US 5,265,554.
Regarding claim 1, Meredith discloses a hull 12 for a vessel with a bow 14 and stern 16, comprising a deep V-shaped bow section 26 at the front half of the hull gradually transformed to a concave bottom profile at a rear half of the hull (which is overall concave and/or has two concave bottom profiles) with a lateral horizontal planing surface 52, 54 on each side backward, shaped to work like water skis (column 4, lines 26-27), and wherein there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull. In this interpretation, the “deep V-shaped front half of the hull” is interpreted as the portion of the hull forward of the planing surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
329
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Meredith Figure 11
In an alternative interpretation, Meredith does not teach that there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half 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 bearing/planing surfaces entirely in the back half in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic balance and/or performance, 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 2, Meredith discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Meredith also discloses that the planing surfaces 52, 54 have the same width over the entire length thereof or being horizontal and wedge-shaped with a forward pointing tip and gradually expanding in width towards the stern.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the planing surfaces straight, tapered, or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 3, Meredith discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Meredith also discloses that the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces 52, 54 are parallel to each other.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces are parallel to each other or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Meredith discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Meredith also discloses that the planing surfaces 52, 54 are separate water ski elements equipped for adjusting of heights and angles when driving. Note that the planing surfaces can change heights and angles as the vessel moves.
Claims 1-4 as best understood 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 Pipkorn US 4,672,905.
Regarding claim 1, Pipkorn discloses a hull 12 for a vessel with a bow 22 and stern 28, comprising a deep V-shaped bow section 38 at the front half of the hull gradually transformed to a concave bottom profile at a rear half of the hull (which is overall concave and/or has two concave bottom profiles) with a lateral horizontal planing surface 80, 82 on each side backward, shaped to work like water skis (column 4, lines 26-33), and wherein there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull. In this interpretation, the “deep V-shaped front half of the hull” is interpreted as the portion of the hull forward of the planing surfaces.
PNG
media_image3.png
217
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Pipkorn Figures 1 and 3
In an alternative interpretation, Pipkorn does not teach that there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half 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 bearing/planing surfaces entirely in the back half in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic balance and/or performance, 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 2, Pipkorn discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Pipkorn also discloses that the planing surfaces 80, 82 have the same width over the entire length thereof or being horizontal and wedge-shaped with a forward pointing tip and gradually expanding in width towards the stern.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the planing surfaces straight, tapered, or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 3, Pipkorn discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Pipkorn also discloses that the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces 80, 82 are parallel to each other.
In an alternative interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inner facing edges of the planing surfaces are parallel to each other or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired hydrodynamic effects. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Pipkorn discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Pipkorn also discloses that the planing surfaces 80, 82 are separate water ski elements equipped for adjusting of heights and angles when driving. Note that the planing surfaces can change heights and angles as the vessel moves.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins GB 1,025,454, Meredith US 5,265,554 or Pipkorn US 4,672,905 in view of Bazaine US 1,265,035.
Regarding claim 4, Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn (individually) disclose/teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn also teach that the planing surfaces are separate water ski elements. In an alternate interpretation, Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn do not teach that the planing surfaces are equipped for adjusting of heights and angles when driving. Bazaine teaches a hull a for a vessel comprising planing surfaces b that are equipped for adjusting of heights and angles (by pivoting around hinge d) when driving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the planing surfaces of Wilkins, Meredith or Pipkorn with pivoting elements as taught by Bazaine in order to absorb shocks to the hull, and provide a smoother ride.
PNG
media_image4.png
66
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Bazaine Figure 1
Regarding claim 5, Simpson and Wilkins (individually) and Bazaine teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Bazaine also teaches that the water ski elements b are mounted with fixed or springy suspensions c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the planing surfaces of Simpson or Wilkins with pivoting elements and suspensions as taught by Bazaine in order to absorb shocks to the hull, and provide a smoother ride.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins GB 1,025,454, Meredith US 5,265,554 or Pipkorn US 4,672,905 in view of Stark US 3,800,727.
Regarding claim 6, Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn (individually) disclose the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Wilkins, Meredith nor Pipkorn teach hydrofoil units that may be fully retracted into the hull. Stark teaches a vessel comprising hydrofoil units 16, 26 that may be fully subtracted into the hull. 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 Wilkins, Meredith or Pipkorn with hydrofoil units that may be fully retracted into the hull as taught by Stark in order to enable more efficient high-speed travel when desired.
If applicant does not agree that the hydrofoil units of Stark can be completely pivoted into the hull, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the pivot angle until the foils were completely retracted in order to ensure there is no unnecessary drag and/or improve the external appearance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image5.png
234
379
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5- Stark Figure 1
Regarding claim 7, Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn (individually) and Stark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Stark also teaches that the hydrofoil units 16, 26 have individually adjustable heights and angles for trimming the vessel's transverse and longitudinal angles when driving (abstract). 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 Wilkins, Meredith or Pipkorn with controllable hydrofoil units as taught by Stark in order to improve vessel handing and safety.
Regarding claim 8, Wilkins, Meredith and Pipkorn (individually) and Stark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Stark also teaches that a propulsion unit 33 is installed in or at the hydrofoil units 24. 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 Wilkins, Meredith or Pipkorn with propulsion at the hydrofoil units as taught by Stark in order to provide efficient propulsion that can be retracted when desired.
Stark does not teach multiple propulsion units, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional propulsion units in order to increase power or provide redundancy, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Wilkins does not teach a concave bottom profile, the examiner disagrees. “Concave” is defined as “hollow,” “empty,” or “curved like the inner surface of a bowl.” This does not require that the surface be completely smooth. As such, Wilkins teaches a concave bottom profile.
In response to the newly added limitation of “wherein there are no horizontal bearing/planing surfaces in the deep V-shaped front half of the hull,” please see the detailed action above.
In response to applicant’s argument that “To apply Bazaine's pivoting shock absorbers to the rigid, wave-capturing step-strips of Wilkins or the fixed runners of Simpson would structurally disrupt their respective hydrodynamic profiles” (page 12), the examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the tradeoffs and how the hull would function with or without pivoting shock absorbers- that is, some operational phases would function the same, while some others would be slightly modified for the benefit of shock absorption. The applicant has recognized this as well, as the current invention teaches the same hull with (figure 3) and without (figures 1 and 4) shock absorbers.
The applicant continues that “In Wilkins, introducing pivoting, hinged planes along the step-strips would destroy the rigid, wave-capturing central channel 18 required to compress the bow wave” (page 12). The examiner responds that:
First, Wilkins does not state that the wave capturing channel required- it only recognizes that it could function as such.
Second, a simple addition of hinged planes would not completely eliminate the ability of the central channel to capture a wave. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the tradeoffs.
Furthermore, please note that claim 4 is met by the prior art of record without any structural modification, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mascellaro US 7,165,503 teaches a boat hull with a deep V-shaped front end that transitions to a concave-bottom stern end.
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