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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 anti-drift portion being substantially vertical (claim 25), the side chine (claim 27), the movable pivot axis (claim 28) and nitrogen ball (claim 39) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 36 (designated as “bearings” in [0063]). 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. 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 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “fins as claimed in claim 1.” As claim 1 has been cancelled, this should likely be “as claimed in claim 21.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Please note that the most recently submitted claim set (11/07/2024) is actually the original claim set, while the older set (5/21/2024) is the amended claim set. Applicant’s representative Tom Dao confirmed on 5/12/2026 that the claim set dated 5/21/2024 should be examined in this action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 21 recites “operating means configured to move the fin between the folded position and the deployed position.” Specification paragraph [0091] says the operating means “may be manual, or hydraulic, comprising hydraulic cylinders 32 and/or rotary or electrical motors, comprising screw-nut assemblies, which may be coupled to a return spring 320, and/or an endless screw 310 mounted on gear teeth or a rotary motor 31, or pneumatic, for example.” Therefore, almost any method of actuation could be interpreted as the “operating means.”
Claim 21 recites “fastening means.” Specification paragraph [0049] states “a plurality of pins 12 are used to secure the fastening of the working portion 100 of each fin 10 to a web 11.” The fastening means will be interpreted as a plurality of pins.
Claim 34 recites “electrical power generation means.” Specification paragraph [0094] recites the concept of converting mechanical kinetic energy into electrical energy, but no specifics are detailed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 28 recites that “the operating means comprise means for moving the pivot axis (X) of the fin, configured to modify the incidence of the fin,” while claim 35 recites usage scenarios for changing the incidence. However, the disclosure does not explain how this is accomplished, beyond the brief description of a bearing in a slot [0078]. The figures do not depict the axis as adjustable or show the bearing in a slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to replicate the claimed invention based on this disclosure.
Claim 39 recites “at least one nitrogen ball connected to the articulation and pivoting device and configured to dampen the pivoting movements of the fins due to surf.” The disclosure does not depict this ball or explain how it works beyond being “connected to the hydraulic means.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to replicate the claimed invention based on this disclosure.
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 22, 23, 27, 30, 35, 37, and 38-40 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.
Regarding claims 22 and 40, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “fusible” in claims 23 and 30 appears to be used by the claim to mean “frangible,” while the accepted meaning is “able to be fused or melted.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as “frangible.”
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the side chine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 35:
Line 2 recites “a pair of front fins and a pair of rear fins.” It is unclear if all recited fins incorporate the limitations of claim 21.
Claim 35 describes a usage scenario or a method of use. It is unclear what physical limitations are being recited.
Regarding claim 37:
Line 2 recites “a pair of front fins.” It is unclear if these front fins are the articulated fins recited in parent claims 33 and 21.
Line 2 recites “the pivot axis of the front fins is pinched forward.” It is unclear what physical limitation is implied by “pinched forward,” or if this is reciting an intended use or method step. For the purposes of this action, this limitation cannot be addressed.
Regarding claim 38, line 2 recites “configured to rest on the bottom.” It is unclear what component “the bottom” is referring to.
Regarding claim 39, it is unclear what the “nitrogen ball” is or how it is connected to the system. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as a motion damper.
Regarding claim 40, line 2 recites “a pair of front fins.” It is unclear if these front fins are the articulated fins recited in parent claims 33 and 21.
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 21-27, 29-31, 33, 35-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welbourn US 7,644,672 in view of Kloschinski DE 20314325 and Lobe US 5,133,681.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Welbourn Figure 17
Regarding claim 21, Welbourn teaches a system 201 of articulated fins for a boat having a hull,
the system of fins comprising at least two fins 104 having a respective end fastened to an element of the hull of the boat,
the two fins being located one on each side of a longitudinal axis of the boat, each fin being configured to be completely submerged in a deployed position of the fin, each fin also having a folded position in which the fin is configured to bear against the hull of the boat, and
each fin having operating means configured to move the fin between the folded position and the deployed position and vice versa.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Welbourn Figure 18
Welbourn does not teach that each fin comprises a web made of titanium and a working portion fastened to the web by means of fastening means, and the web being fastened securely to the operating means. Kloschinski teaches a marine fin comprising a web 14 and a working portion 4 fastened to the web. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with a working portion fastened to a support web as taught by Kloschinski in order to enable the fins to absorb shock wave while remaining dimensionally stable [0023].
PNG
media_image3.png
301
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Kloschinski Figure 2
Neither Welbourn nor Kloschinski teach that the web is made of titanium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the web from titanium in order to utilize a non-corroding, light and strong material, 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.
Welbourn and Kloschinski both teach that the fins are attached, but neither Welbourn nor Kloschinski teach that the working portion is fastened to the web by means of fastening means (pins). Lobe teaches a marine fin 1 that is attached to its base 3 by fastening means 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with fastening means as taught by Lobe in order to ensure the fins remains in place as desired.
Regarding claim 22 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn does not teach that the fin has a leading edge, i.e. facing the bow of the boat, curved rearwards, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fins curved or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow. 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 23 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn does not teach that the fastening means are frangible. Lobe teaches that the fastening means are frangible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with frangible fastening means as taught by Lobe in order to allow the fins to detach upon impact without damaging other boat structure.
Regarding claim 24, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn also teaches that each fin 104 has a shape adapted to match a predefined shape of the hull of the boat, in the folded position, in which the fin is pivoted to bear against a side flank of the hull of the boat (see figure 18).
Regarding claim 25, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn also teaches that each fin 104 comprises an anti-listing portion (the outer portion) having a lifting surface and an anti-drift portion (the inner portion), the anti-listing portion being substantially horizontal and the anti-drift portion being substantially vertical when the fin is in the deployed position. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fins horizontal, vertical or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow. 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 26, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn also teaches that for each fin 104, the operating means comprise pivoting means comprising at least one pivot, adapted to pivot the fin about a pivot axis 330, between the folded position and the deployed position and vice versa.
Regarding claim 27, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 26. Welbourn also teaches that the pivoting means are configured to be fastened to a lower part of the hull 330, between the keel and the side chine of the boat (see figures 17 and 18). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fasten the pivot means to a lower part of the hull between the keel and the side chine of the boat in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic forces, 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 29, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 25. Welbourn also teaches control means configured to keep the anti-listing portions of the fins 104 horizontal. Please note that any component that moves the fins could be considered the control means.
Regarding claim 30 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn does not teach that the fastening means are frangible and are configured to allow the working portion to be separated from the web, either automatically or in a controlled manner. Lobe teaches that the fastening means are frangible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with frangible fastening means as taught by Lobe in order to allow the fins to detach upon impact without damaging other boat structure.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Lobe Figure 12)]
PNG
media_image4.png
371
350
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn does not teach that each fin comprises a cable connecting the working portion to the web and configured so that, when the working portion is separated from the web, the cable pulls the working portion to the side and/or to the stern of the boat during sailing. Lobe teaches a marine fin 1 that comprises a cable 23 connecting the fin to its base 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with a cable as taught by Lobe in order to ensure the fins are not lost once they are detached. As taught, the cable would pull the working portion to the side and/or to the stern of the boat during sailing.
Regarding claim 33, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Welbourn also teaches a hull having a flat rear portion, the system of fins 104 being fastened to the hull of the boat.
Regarding claim 35, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn does not teach that the system of articulated fins comprises a pair of front fins and a pair of rear fins, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple sets of fins in order to increase stability or performance, 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.
As taught, the front fins have a lifting incidence and the rear fins are configured such that, when the port front fin is in the deployed position and the starboard front fin is in the folded position, with the wind coming from the starboard side, then the starboard rear fin is in the deployed position and its incidence is adjusted so as to be diving, the port rear fin being in the folded position or in the deployed position with a lifting incidence, and, conversely, when the starboard front fin is in the deployed position and the port front fin is in the folded position, the wind is coming from the port side, so the port rear fin is in the deployed position and its incidence is adjusted so as to be diving, the starboard rear fin being in the folded position or in the deployed position with a lifting incidence. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fins upwardly tilted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow. 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 36, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn also teaches a waterline length, wherein the respective incidence of the articulated fins is configured to raise the bow of the boat (as they are hydrofoil fins).
Regarding claim 37 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn also teaches a pair of front fins 104.
Regarding claim 38 as best understood, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn also teaches that the articulated fins 104 are connected to the keel (as every component is connected) and are configured to rest on the bottom when the boat is grounded.
Regarding claim 40, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn also teaches a pair of front fins 104, but does not explicitly teach that the front fins generate a center of pressure participating in a bow lift of the boat located forward of a center of buoyancy of the boat, on either side of the longitudinal axis of the boat. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the fins in whatever position was needed to provide the boat with the desired lifting force in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic lifting effect, 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 25, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welbourn US 7,644,672 in view of Kloschinski DE 20314325, Lobe US 5,133,681 and Chaves US 2018/0354592.
Regarding claim 25, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. In an alternate interpretation, Welbourn does not teach that each fin comprises an anti-listing portion having a lifting surface and an anti-drift portion, the anti-listing portion being substantially horizontal and the anti-drift portion being substantially vertical when the fin is in the deployed position. Chaves teaches a system 100 of articulated fins for a boat having a hull,
the system of fins comprising at least two fins 102 having a respective end fastened to an element of the hull of the boat,
the two fins being located one on each side of a longitudinal axis of the boat, each fin being configured to be completely submerged in a deployed position of the fin, each fin also having a folded position in which the fin is configured to bear against the hull of the boat, and
each fin having operating means 107 configured to move the fin between the folded position and the deployed position and vice versa,
wherein each fin comprises an anti-listing portion having a lifting surface and an anti-drift portion, the anti-listing portion 102 being substantially horizontal and the anti-drift portion 101 being substantially vertical when the fin is in the deployed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with horizontal and vertical portions as taught by Chaves in order to utilize individually controllable/tailorable surfaces for each axis.
Regarding claim 29, Welbourn, Kloschinski, Lobe and Chaves teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 25. In an alternate interpretation, Welbourn does not control means configured to keep the anti-listing portions of the fins horizontal. Chaves teaches control means 108 configured to keep the anti-listing portions of the fins horizontal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with control means as taught by Chaves in order to ensure the fins stay where they are desired.
Regarding claim 32, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. In an alternate interpretation, Welbourn does not teach that each fin comprises locking means for locking an angular position of the fin between a plurality of positions comprising at least the folded position and the deployed position. Chaves teaches a system 100 of articulated fins for a boat having a hull,
the system of fins comprising at least two fins 102 having a respective end fastened to an element of the hull of the boat,
the two fins being located one on each side of a longitudinal axis of the boat, each fin being configured to be completely submerged in a deployed position of the fin, each fin also having a folded position in which the fin is configured to bear against the hull of the boat, and
each fin having operating means 107 configured to move the fin between the folded position and the deployed position and vice versa, and
locking means 108 for locking an angular position of the fin between a plurality of positions comprising at least the folded position and the deployed position [0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Welbourn with a position lock as taught by Chaves in order to ensure the fins stay where they are commanded and relieve forces from being placed on the operating means.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welbourn US 7,644,672 in view of Kloschinski DE 20314325, Lobe US 5,133,681 and Williams US 4,499,843.
Regarding claim 28, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 26. Welbourn does not teach that for each fin, the operating means comprise means for moving the pivot axis of the fin, configured to modify the incidence of the fin. Williams teaches a boat with deployable hydrofoils 195, wherein the operating means comprise means 320 for deploying the hydrofoils about a pivot axis and means 200 for moving the pivot axis R of the fin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the operating means of Welbourn with means to move the pivot axis as taught by Chaves in order to enable greater control over the fins once deployed.
If the applicant does not agree that the perpendicular axis control would result in incidence alteration, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the means for moving the pivot axis above or below the deployment axis in order to enable incidence correction for better lift control, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welbourn US 7,644,672 in view of Kloschinski DE 20314325, Lobe US 5,133,681 and Chen CN 113548165 (for which US 12,037,094 is used as a translation).
Regarding claim 34, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn does not teach electrical power generation means connected to the articulation and pivoting device and configured to generate electrical power when the boat is at anchor. Chen teaches a marine vehicle 1 which comprises articulating hydrofoil wings 3 and power generation means 10-12 connected to the articulation and pivoting device and configured to generate electrical power (column 5, lines 7-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hydrofoil wings of Welbourn with electrical power generation means as taught by Chen in order to increase endurance and decrease energy requirements for the vehicle.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welbourn US 7,644,672 in view of Kloschinski DE 20314325, Lobe US 5,133,681 and Steinberg US 5,474,011.
Regarding claim 39, Welbourn, Kloschinski and Lobe teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Welbourn also teaches that the articulated fins 104 are configured to be deployed at anchor, but does not teach that the system comprises at least one nitrogen ball/damper connected to the articulation and pivoting device and configured to dampen the pivoting movements of the fins due to surf. Steinberg teaches a marine vehicle 10 with an articulated fin 12, wherein at least one damper 36, 50 is connected to the articulation and pivoting device and configured to dampen the pivoting movements of the fins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hydrofoil wings of Welbourn with dampers as taught by Steinberg in order to lessen loads transferred into the hull from the fins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bader US 3,343,513 teaches hydrofoils that swing down and lock to the hull at a location away from the operating means.
Von Schertel US 3,099,239 and Bader US 2,991,747 teach hydrofoils that deploy as a 4-bar linkage.
Steinberg US 5,373,800 and Jones US 4,040,373 teach hydrofoil wings that deploy via rack and pinion actuation systems.
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