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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Roman (US 2011/0003521, cited in IDS).
For claim 1, Roman discloses a jet system body for a board (abstract and figs.), the jet system body (Fig. 6a-6b, 314, 406, 112) comprising:
a first inlet conduit (Fig. 6a, 106a) comprising:
a first inlet end defining a first inlet opening (110a);
a first outlet end defining a first outlet opening (connection of 106a to 106);
a first lumen extending from the first inlet opening to the first outlet opening (length of pipe 106a between 110a and 106);
a second inlet conduit (Fig. 6a, 106d) comprising:
a second inlet end defining a second inlet opening (110d);
a second outlet end defining a second outlet opening (connection of 106 to 106d);
a second lumen extending from the second inlet opening to the second outlet opening (length of pipe 106d between 110d and 106);
a manifold in fluid communication with the first outlet opening and the second outlet opening (106); and
an outlet (102) in fluid communication with the manifold (Fig. 6a) and configured to receive an impeller (406) for drawing fluid through the first and second inlet conduits, through the manifold and into the outlet; wherein the first inlet conduit and the second inlet conduit extend from the manifold such that the first inlet end and the second inlet end are spaced apart (see Fig. 6a).
For claim 2, Roman discloses wherein the first inlet conduit is spaced apart from the second inlet conduit along a first length of the first inlet conduit, the first length extending from the first outlet end to the first inlet end; and a second length extending from the second outlet end to the second inlet end (Fig. 6a, shape of 106, positioning of 106a, 106d).
For claim 3, Roman discloses wherein the first inlet conduit comprises a first arcuate portion defining an arcuate portion of the first lumen; and/or the second inlet conduit comprises a second arcuate portion defining an arcuate portion of the second lumen (see shape of 106a, 106d).
For claim 16, Roman further discloses wherein the manifold comprises a drive conduit (end of 106, see annotated fig. below) comprising:
a drive conduit inlet end defining a drive conduit inlet opening (see annotated fig. below where it connects to the other portion of 106);
a drive conduit outlet end defining a drive conduit outlet opening (connecting to 314); and
a drive conduit lumen (length of conduit annotated below) extending from the drive conduit inlet opening to the drive conduit outlet opening,
the drive conduit lumen being configured to receive a part of a drive shaft (the conduit is an opening, an opening can receive a drive shaft, the shaft is not positively recited by the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 17, Roman discloses a jet system (abstract and figs) comprising:
the jet system body of
a propulsion system (314 with impeller 406), the propulsion system comprising
an impeller (406) and a drive system (314) to drive the impeller; wherein the drive system is configured to drive the impeller to move fluid from at least one of the first inlet end and the second inlet end through the outlet of the jet system body (para 0107-0109).
For claim 21, Roman further discloses wherein the drive system is configured to connect to a drive conduit and the impeller is disposed adjacent to a manifold outlet (see fig. 6a annotated above).
For claim 22, Roman further discloses wherein the drive system comprises a motor (314), the motor being disposed outside of the manifold and between the first and second inlet conduits (see fig. 6a).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman in view of Furst et al. (US 3805731, cited in IDS, hereafter referred to as Furst).
For claim 4, Roman is silent about wherein the first inlet conduit and/or the second inlet conduit comprises a respective first and/or second flow guidance structure.
Furst teaches a water pump jet propulsion system (abstract and figs) including a conduit having a flow guidance structure (41, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the conduits of Roman include a flow guidance structure as taught by Furst, in order to maintain the desired flow direction (Col. 3, lines 58-60 of Furst).
For claim 10, Roman is silent about wherein the first inlet opening and/or the second inlet opening has a cross sectional area that is larger than a cross sectional area of the respective first and/or second outlet opening.
Furst teaches a water pump jet propulsion system (abstract and figs) including a conduit having an inlet opening with a cross sectional area that is larger than a cross sectional area of the outlet opening (16, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the conduits of Roman increase in cross sectional area in this manner, as taught by Furst, in order to further accelerate the flow.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman in view of Burg (US 7017505).
For claim 7, Roman is silent about wherein the jet system body comprises a first grille disposed at the first inlet end; and/or a second grille disposed at the second inlet end.
Burg teaches a propulsion system having a grille at the inlet (Fig. 65, grille bars 65, Col. 8, lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the inlets of Roman include grilles, as taught by Burg, in order to protect the intakes from debris (see Col. 8, lines 23-25 of Burg).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman in view of Davies (US 5634831).
For claim 24, Roman is silent about wherein the outlet of the jet system body comprises a nozzle connected to a flange, the flange configured to enable the outlet of the jet system body to be connected to a manifold outlet.
Davies teaches a propulsion system for a watercraft (abstract and figs.) including a nozzle having a flange, the flange configured to enable connection (flange 135 of nozzle 124, Col. 5, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Roman include a nozzle with a flange, as taught by Davies, in order to secure the elements together (Col. 5, lines 45-48 of Davies).
Claim(s) 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman in view of Hoogen (DE 3824443, provided herein, see English translation provided herein).
For claim 32-33, Roman is silent about wherein the manifold is contained within a cartridge.
wherein the drive system is contained within the cartridge.
Hoogen teaches a propulsion system for watercraft (abstract and figs.) including a manifold (18) contained within a cartridge (14), and a drive system (17) contained within a cartridge (14, “f the drive is the impeller 17, which is arranged in the jet manifold 18 arranged in the housing”, further see claims 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Roman include a cartridge for the drive and manifold has taught by the system of Hoogen in order to house and protect the components of the system from the elements.
For claim 34, modified Roman further teaches wherein the cartridge comprises a cartridge body that defines first and second cartridge conduit apertures in opposed side walls of the cartridge body (14a, 14b, see claim 10, fig. 1 of Hoogen).
For claim 35, modified Roman further teaches wherein the first outlet end of the first inlet conduit is configured to fluidly connect to a first manifold inlet through the first cartridge conduit aperture; and the second outlet end of the second inlet conduit is configured to fluidly connect to a second manifold inlet through the second cartridge conduit aperture (see Roman as modified by Hoogen, all elements will be fluidically connected, fluid flow therethrough).
For claim 36, modified Roman is silent about wherein the manifold is integrally formed with the cartridge body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the pieces of modified Roman integral, for ease of manufacture and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman.
For claim 37, Roman teaches a jet powered board including
a board defining a cavity (Fig. 6a, board 100), a first inlet aperture, and a second inlet aperture (apertures that house 106a, 106d at least); and the jet system body of claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
wherein the cavity is configured to at least partially receive the jet system body (see Fig. 6a);
and the first and second inlet openings of the jet system body are configured to be in fluid communication with the first and second inlet apertures respectively, when the jet system body is received by the cavity (see Fig. 6a).
Roman is silent about a kit for a jet powered board (i.e. separate pieces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the distinct pieces of Roman into a kit of parts, in order to allow for easy replacement of parts and 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.
For claim 38, modified Roman further teaches a propulsion system (314, 406), the propulsion system comprising an impeller (406) and a drive system (314) to drive the impeller;
wherein the drive system is configured to drive the impeller to move fluid from at least one of the first inlet end and the second inlet end through the outlet of the jet system body (para 0107-0109).
Claim(s) 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman, as applied to claim 37 above, in further view of Geislinger (AU 2018203516, provided herein).
For claims 40-41, Roman is silent about wherein the board further comprises:
a mast mount;
a mast configured to be connected to the mast mount; and
a hydrofoil configured to be connected to the mast.
wherein the first inlet end and the second inlet end of the jet system body are configured to be disposed on opposite sides of the mast mount.
Geislinger teaches a jet powered surf board (abstract and figs.) including a mast mount; a mast configured to be connected to the mast mount; and a hydrofoil configured to be connected to the mast (see figs. 1-6) and wherein a jet system is disposed on opposite sides of the mast mount (see fig. 6, jets 10 on opposite sides of mast mount).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Roman include a mast mount hydrofoil system with the jets on opposite sides of the mast, as taught by Geislinger, in order to reduce drag on the board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Romans fails to teach the outlet configured to receive an impeller.
This is not found persuasive because the outlet of Roman is configured to receive the impeller 406 as seen in fig. 6A. For clarification the whole region 314, 102 which receives the impeller 406, may be considered the outlet of Roman.
PNG
media_image2.png
258
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the office notes that functional limitations only require the ability to perform. The claim does not positively recite an impeller only that an impeller can fit in the outlet. Even if only 102 were considered the “outlet” it is still configured to receive an impeller, that impeller does not have to be 406, it could be any impeller made that would fit inside that tube. The structure of the tube clearly allows for an impeller to be placed therein. The impeller itself is not structurally required by the claim.
See MPEP § 2114 which states: A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531. Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
Furthermore the office again notes that Furst (US 3805731) and RU 184366 (cited by applicant) also anticipate claim 1. Claim 1 is not allowable in view of prior art.
In response to applicant’s remark that, “If the Examiner is able to provide an alternate interpretation with new mappings of Roman, and/or rejections in view of the other prior art reference, the applicant respectfully asserts that such rejections would constitute a new ground of rejection and thus require a new non-final Office Action to afford the applicant the opportunity to review these rejections on the merits.”
The office notes that (in reference to Roman) this is incorrect. The claims are rejected in view of the document as a whole. The office notes MPEP 1207.03 (a), section II Situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection for applicant’s review. Specifically, “1. Citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights