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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 20 June 2024. Claims 1-19 and 21 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-3 and 10 are as originally presented. Claims 4-9, 11-19 and 21 are currently amended. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2114000, filed on 20 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 12 does not read as “Figure 12” due to the bottom part of “g” is cut out in the image. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 of 12 line 19 recites “(such as the Moth with Hydrofoil)” and is unclear due to the term “Moth” is not previously introduced or defined. It is not clear what term is to replace it or what the Applicant is attempting to describe.
Page 5 line 18 recites “figure 18... in a front view” however fig. 18 appears as a bottom view.
Page 6 lines27-28 introduce structure not shown in figs. 1-4, therefore a statement such as “(see figures 5 to 6)” would further clarify where to look in the figs.
Page 7 line 24 recites “surfaces 27 and 27” should be “surfaces 27 and 28”.
Page 9 lines 14, 26 and 30, page 10 lines 12, 17 recites “the body of the hydrofoil 51” and should be “the body 51of the hydrofoil 50”.
Page 12 lines 4-22 discuss fig. 14 where the discussion is confusing due to the term “flight” and especially lines 7-8 “flight conditions (speed, wind, payload, remaining autonomy, etc.)”, where it is not clear to the Examiner if all the listed conditions apply to the invention disclosed. Examiner notes the Applicant may define the invention in the manner they choose to therefore no change is required, however recommends deleting any feature that would not apply to the invention disclosed in this application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s claim language uses a mix of cited reference characters from the drawings and for the same structure not citing the reference character. This inconsistency in the claim language is causing confusion as to if the Applicant has insufficient antecedent basis due to inconstant use of citing reference characters.
Additionally, citations are not found after the structure it is citing (Example: claim 1 line 3 recites “rear wings closer to the craft (25, 26, 55, 56)” should be “rear wings (25, 26, 55, 56) closer to the craft (40)”).
For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets structure with properly cited reference characters to have sufficient antecedent basis.
Applicant’s claim language uses “this” in lieu of “the” and causing confusion as to if the Applicant has insufficient antecedent basis due to it is unclear as which structure/embodiment is “this”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for morphing” “adjustment means (51)” and “morphing means” in claim 21.
Where “means for morphing” is interpreted to be at least one of the following: junction 59 and 60, rod 79, baseplate 80, motor 69 and 71, right wing junction 60, worm screw 70 and 72, front wing-root support 57, rear wing-root support 58 -or- rail 67 and 68 (See at least: figs. 7-13 and page 9 lines 32-35).
Where “adjustment means (51)” is interpreted to be at least cited structure “(51)”. However, the structure cited is contrary to the disclosure (See at least: spec bottom of page 9 to top of page 10 “the electronic control unit 77 forms a means for adjusting the position of each wing root”) and is rejected below.
Where “morphing means” is interpreted to be at least the structure found for “means for morphing” cited above.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "craft (40)" in line 1. It is not clear that structure of “craft” includes the embodiment of (100) shown in figs. 15-18. Claim 1 line 1 recites “Rhombohedral hydrofoil (20, 50)” where “hydrofoil” (50) is applicable to “craft” (100). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite "craft (40, 100)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an axis (46)" in line 2. It is not clear that “an axis” includes the other embodiments shown in figs. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite "an axis (46, 84)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in line 5. Claim 1 does not previously recite “an end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite "a first end".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 5. Claim 1 does not previously recite “a junction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 5 to recite "a first junction"; where every other instance of “the junction...” in the claim language referring to where two “front wings” meet is “the first junction”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in line 6. Claim 1 recites “the end” in line5 and “one end” in line 6. It is not clear if “the end” of line 6 is the same or different than “the end” of line 5 or “one end” of line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite "a second end".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 6. Claim 1 line 5 recite “a junction” however “the junctions” are interpreted to be different as one applies to “front wings” and the other applies to “rear wings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 6 to recite "a second junction"; where every other instance of “the junction...” in the claim language referring to where two “rear wings” meet is “the second junction”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "this assembly (52)" in line 8. Claim 1 does not previous recite “an assembly (52)” therefore it is not clear as to what "this assembly (52)" is defined as or comprises. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 recite " an assembly (52)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wings" in line 8. Claim 1 recites “front wings” in line 3, “rear wings” in line 4, “each front wing” in line 5 and “a rear wing” in line 6. Therefore, it is not clear as to what "wings" are applicable as many are previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 8 to recite "the front wings and the rear wings".
Regarding claim 1, the use of quotation marks (example: [“”]) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by quotation marks), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 line 8 recites “...a plane referred to as “vertical”...” and line 13 “...a plane referred to as “horizontal”...”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 8 recites “...a vertical plane...” and line 13 “...a horizontal plane...”. .
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis of travel” in line 9. Claim 1 line 2 recite “an axis (46)”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the axis of travel” is the same or different than “an axis (46)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 9 to recite “an axis of travel (47)”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "this projection” in line 9. Claim 1 line 8 recite “a first orthogonal projection”. Therefore, it is not clear if “this projection” is the same or different than “a fist orthogonal projection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 9 to recite “the first orthogonal projection”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shape” in line 9. Claim 1 does not previously recite “a shape”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 9 to recite “a shape”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an obtuse angle” twice in lines 9-10 . Therefore, it is not clear that “an obtuse angle” is different than “an obtuse angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 lines 9-10 to recite “a first obtuse angle” and “a second obtuse angle”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 11. Where “the junction” is interpreted to be different then the previously recited “the junction”(s). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 11 to recite "a third junction"; where every other instance of “the junction...” in the claim language referring to where a “front wing” meet a “rear wing” is “the third junction”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rear wing” in line 11 . Claim 1 line 6 recites "a rear wing”. Therefore, it is not clear that “a rear wing” of line 11 is the same or different than that of line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 11 to recite “the rear wing”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "this assembly" in line 12. Claim 1 line 8 recite “this assembly (52)”. therefore, it is not clear that “this assembly” of line 12 is the same or different than the one of line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 12 to recite "the assembly (52)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation “this assembly (52) of wings has a first orthogonal projection onto a plane referred to as "vertical" perpendicular to the axis of travel, this projection having the shape of a quadrilateral having an obtuse angle at the junction of the front wings with one another, an obtuse angle at the junction of the rear wings with one another, and two acute angles at the junction of a front wing with a rear wing;- this assembly of wings has a second orthogonal projection onto a plane referred to as "horizontal" orthogonal to the plane of symmetry and having an axis parallel to the axis of travel, this projection having the shape of a quadrilateral having only angles with magnitudes smaller than 180 degrees;” in lines 8-14. Where the Applicant is using different views to describe a shape or arrangement of the invention. However, the views are not clear as “orthogonal projection” onto a “vertical” or “horizontal” “plane” does not clearly align with one view for the Examiner to look for the specific angle or feature. Examiner interprets “orthogonal projection” onto a “vertical” “plane” to provide a view of the invention in one of a front view, a right side view, a left side view or a rear view. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “orthogonal projection” onto a “vertical” “plane” to be plainly “a front view”. Examiner interprets “orthogonal projection” onto a “horizontal” “plane” to provide a view of the invention in one of a top view, or a bottom view. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “orthogonal projection” onto “horizontal” “plane” to be plainly “a top view”. Examiner notes the Applicant’s figs. do not provide a clear font or top view showing these angles.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “this assembly (52) of wings has a first orthogonal projection onto a plane referred to as "vertical" perpendicular to the axis of travel, this projection having the shape of a quadrilateral” where it is not clear that a shape of “a quadrilateral” is shown in a front or rear view of the invention. This is adding to the confusion as to if a front or rear view is correct interpretation. Examiner notes that a top view as shown in at least fig. 5 appears to have a general shape of “a quadrilateral”, however a front view would not due to vertical surfaces 27 and 28. Therefore, it is not clear if the Applicant has assigned the proper shape to the correct view.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis of travel” in line 13. Claim 1 line 2 recite “an axis (46)” and line 9 recite “the axis of travel”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the axis of travel” is the same or different than “an axis (46)” or “the axis of travel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 13 to recite “the axis of travel (47)”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "this projection” in lines 13-14. Claim 1 line 8 recite “a first orthogonal projection” and line 12 recite “a second orthogonal projection”. Therefore, it is not clear if “this projection” is the same or different than “a fist orthogonal projection” or “a second orthogonal projection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 lines 13-14 to recite “the second orthogonal projection”.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “Hydrofoil (50)” in line 1. It is not clear if the Applicant is citing the correct reference character of for the embodiment claimed (See at least: spec. page 12 “The rear wings of the hydrofoil 20 configured for a surfboard or sailboard have a spoiler profile.”). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 7 to recite "Hydrofoil (20)”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "one end of a rear wing (55, 56)” in line 3. Claims 1 line 6 recite “one end of a rear wing”. It is not clear that "one end of a rear wing (55, 56)” is the same or different that "one end of a rear wing” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 to recite "the one end of the rear wing (55, 56)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the length” twice in lines 1-2. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 does not previously recite “a length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 to recite “a first length (81)” and “a second length (88)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the angle” twice in lines 2-3. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 does not previously recite “an angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 to recite “a first angle (82)” and “a second angle (86)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the main longitudinal axis” in lines 2 and 4. Claim 1 line 2 recite “an axis (46)” and line 9 recite “the axis of travel”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the main longitudinal axis” is the same or different than “an axis (46)” or “the axis of travel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 line 2 and 4 to recite “the axis (46, 84)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the main axis” in lines 2 and 4. Claim 1 line 2 recite “an axis (46)” and line 9 recite “the axis of travel”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the main axis” is the same or different than “an axis (46)” or “the axis of travel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 line 2 and 4 to recite “a first main axis (83)” and “a second main axis (85)”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "at least one of the wing-root supports” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 line 4 recite “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. Therefore, it is not clear if "at least one of the wing-root supports” is the same or different than “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 to recite “the at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the other wing-root support” in line 2. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 do not previously recite “another wing-root support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 to recite “an opposite the at least one of the wing-root supports (58, 57)”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "at least one of the wing-root supports” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 line 4 recite “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. Therefore, it is not clear if "at least one of the wing-root supports” is the same or different than “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 to recite “the at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other wing-root support” in line 2. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 12 do not previously recite “another wing-root support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 12 to recite “an opposite the at least one of the wing-root supports (58, 57)”.
Regarding claim 12, the sentence "Thanks to these provisions, the sweep of the front wings can be increased and the span reduced, in particular for flight configurations at the highest speed." renders the claim indefinite because the claim must be in the form of a single complete sentence. Therefore, all claim language after the end of the first sentence is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 12 to end at the first period.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "at least one of the wing-root supports” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 line 4 recite “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. Therefore, it is not clear if "at least one of the wing-root supports” is the same or different than “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to recite “the at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other wing-root support” in line 2. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 do not previously recite “another wing-root support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to recite “an opposite the at least one of the wing-root supports (58, 57)”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hydrofoil’s span” in lines 2-3. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 do not previously recite “a hydrofoil’s span”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to recite “a hydrofoil’s span (89)”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the maximum width” in line 3. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 do not previously recite “a maximum width”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to recite “a maximum width”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the width” in line 4. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 do not previously recite “a width”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to recite “a width”.
Claim 13 is unclear as to the equation of at least the second embodiment of the claim in regards to line 4’s “the width of the body of the hydrofoil”. The Examiner interprets the first equation to be (1) “hydrofoil’s span” (less than) 4 x (maximum width of front wings) + 4 x (maximum width of rear wings). However, it is not clear if the second equation is only (2) “hydrofoil’s span” (less than) “width of the body of the hydrofoil”.
Regarding claim 14, the sentence "Thanks to these provisions, the geometric configuration of the wing structure can be adjusted for any distribution of mass or thrust." renders the claim indefinite because the claim must be in the form of a single complete sentence. Therefore, all claim language after the end of the first sentence is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 14 to end at the first period.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "at least one of the wing-root supports” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 line 4 recite “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. Therefore, it is not clear if "at least one of the wing-root supports” is the same or different than “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 15 to recite “the at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”.
Regarding claim 15, the sentence "Thanks to these provisions, the centre of thrust of the wing structure can be moved from front to back on the body of the hydrofoil, independently of the geometry of the wing structure dictated by the distance between the wing-root supports." renders the claim indefinite because the claim must be in the form of a single complete sentence. Therefore, all claim language after the end of the first sentence is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 14 to end at the first period.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one of the wing-root supports” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 line 4 recite “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. Therefore, it is not clear if "at least one of the wing-root supports” is the same or different than “at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 to recite “the at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58)”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the main plane” in line 2. Claim 1 line 8 recites “...a plane referred to as “vertical”...” and line 13 “...a plane referred to as “horizontal”...”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the main plane” is the same or different than “a plane...” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 17 to recite “a main plane”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vertical surfaces” in line 2. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 17 do not recites “...a plurality of vertical surfaces...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 17 to recite “a plurality of vertical surfaces”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "wing ends" in line 2. Claim 1 recites “the end” in lines 5 and 6 and “one end” in line 6 all associated with “wing”. It is not clear if “wing ends” of claim 17 is the same or different than “the end” or “one end” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the main axis” in lines 2-3. Claim 1 line 2 recite “an axis (46)” and line 9 recite “the axis of travel”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the main axis” is the same or different than “an axis (46)” or “the axis of travel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 17 to recite "the axis (46, 84)".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the junctions" in line 1. Where it is not clear which of the three previously cited claim 1 “the junction” is to be included with “a plurality of junctions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 18 to recite "wherein the third junction comprise pivots.”
Claim 21 recites the limitations "the wing structure... the inclination... the wing’ axes of rotation...” in line 2. Claims 1, 19 and 21 do not recite "a wing structure... an inclination... a wings’ axes of rotation...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “adjustment means (51)” in line 3. However, is not clear as the cited structure is different than listed in the specification (See at least: pages 5-6 “the electronic control unit 77 forms a means for adjusting the position of each wing root to suit the speeds of movement, for example to the payload, speed, altitude, target autonomy, target manoeuvrability. The adjustment means 77 alters the geometric configuration of the wing structure by moving at least one wing root.”). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 21 to recite " adjustment means (77)".
Examiner notes: Due to the above rejections the Applicant must thoroughly review all claim language to ensure proper antecedent basis is maintained in the claim language. Examiner interpretations above may not be as intended by the Applicant, therefore requests the Applicant to clarify the record. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 recites the structure of “craft” and “hydrofoil”. Claim 1 already positively recites “craft” in lines 1 and 3-4 and “hydrofoil” in lines 1-2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 21 is rejected based on the claim 19 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Barrows (US 5211594 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
617
1197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Barrows discloses Rhombohedral hydrofoil (20, 50) (hydrofoil or wing 12 or core element 112; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 14) for mounting on a lower mast (45, 105) (a pair of struts 14,15; See at least: fig. 1) of a craft (40) (a pair of conventional water skis 20,23 and ski support platform 17; See at least: fig. 1) travelling in a direction parallel (See at least: fig. 1 horizontal axis of a pair of conventional water skis 20,23 and ski support platform 17 ) to an axis (46) (See at least: fig. 1 horizontal axis of spar or boom 34), this hydrofoil having a plane of symmetry (See at least: fig. 1 and fig. 14) and comprising, in this direction, front wings (wings 26, 27; See at least: fig. 1 where the ski support platform 17 allows the direction of skis 20 to be positioned such that wings 26, 27 can be viewed as front or rear and col. 3 lines 43-56 for discussion on wings) farther from the craft (21, 22, 53, 54) that are connected to one another (apex 24; See at least: fig. 1 where the apex 24 shows wings 26, 27 connected to each other), and rear wings (wings 28, 29; See at least: fig. 1 where the ski support platform 17 allows the direction of skis 20 to be positioned such that wings 28, 29 can be viewed as rear or front and col. 3 lines 43-56) closer to the craft (25, 26, 55, 56) that are connected to one another (apex 25; See at least: fig. 1 where the apex 25 shows wings 28, 29 connected to each other), characterised in that:- the end of each front wing that is farthest from the junction of the front wings with one another is connected to one end of a rear wing which is the end farthest from the junction of the rear wings with one another (winglets 31,32 or winglet sections 131,132; See at least: fig. 2 or 14 where fig. 2 best show the winglets 31, 32 are connecting wing pair 26, 27 to the opposite wing pair 28, 29);- this assembly (52) (hydrofoil or wing 12 or core element 112; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 14) of wings has a first orthogonal projection onto a plane referred to as "vertical" perpendicular to the axis of travel, this projection having the shape of a quadrilateral (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the Examiner interprets a front view would have a general quadrilateral shape; Examiner notes: the shape is consistent with at least the Applicants figs. 5-13 when interpreted with a front view (not shown by applicant) due to a distance caused by verticals 26, 27 is similar to that of the prior arts’ winglets 31, 32) having an obtuse angle at the junction of the front wings with one another (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the Examiner interprets a front view would show wings 26, 27 to have a general obtuse angle), an obtuse angle at the junction of the rear wings with one another (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the Examiner interprets a front view would show wings 28, 29 to have a general obtuse angle), and two acute angles at the junction of a front wing with a rear wing (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the Examiner interprets a front view would show wings 28, 29 if a line was projected out would meet with wings 26, 27 if a line was projected out at a general acute angle; Examiner notes that winglets 31,32 are the reason in which a line needs to be projected out to connect and find the angle);- this assembly of wings has a second orthogonal projection onto a plane referred to as "horizontal" orthogonal to the plane of symmetry and having an axis parallel to the axis of travel, this projection having the shape of a quadrilateral having only angles with magnitudes smaller than 180 degrees (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the Examiner interprets a top view would show a general diamond shape with the four connecting wings showing angles less than 180 degrees); and- the front wings have a lift profile (“aerodynamic, exterior surfaces”; See at least: fig. 8 and col. 7 lines 39-42 where aerodynamic is interpreted to include lift or spoiler profile).
Regarding claim 2, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses which also comprises a body (32, 51) (spar or boom 34; See at least: fig. 1-2 and col. 3 lines 64-66 “An elongated, essentially rectangular, spar or boom 34 extends between, and is integrally molded to, the respective apexes 24,25 of hydrofoil sections 21,22.”) that comprises:- a fastening (bores 37,38 with spring pins or bolts 39,40; See at least: figs. 1-2 and col. 4 lines 2-4 “A pair of transverse countersunk bores 37,38 extend through spar 34 and serve to receive a pair of spring pins or bolts 39,40 (FIG. 1)”) for the lower mast (45, 105) of the craft;- a wing-root and junction support (23, 24, 57) (apex 24; See at least: figs. 1-2) for the front wings (21, 22, 53, 54); and- a wing-root and junction support (31, 58) (apex 25; See at least: figs. 1-2)for the rear wings (25, 26, 55, 56), the front and rear wing-root supports being respectively positioned either side of this body in the plane of symmetry of the hydrofoil (See at least: figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein, at each junction of the front and rear wing ends, a vertical surface (27, 28, 78) (winglets 31,32; See at least: figs. 1-2) for closing these wing ends is positioned (See at least: figs. 1-2 where “closing” is interpreted only as connecting and not as a closing motion; Examiner notes: if the motion was intended it would be rejected in combination with the prior art of Varigas (WO 2018158549 A1) below).
Regarding claim 7, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein the rear wings have a spoiler profile (“aerodynamic, exterior surfaces”; See at least: fig. 8 and col. 7 lines 39-42 where aerodynamic is interpreted to include lift or spoiler profile).
Regarding claim 8, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein the rear wings have a lift profile (“aerodynamic, exterior surfaces”; See at least: fig. 8 and col. 7 lines 39-42 where aerodynamic is interpreted to include lift or spoiler profile).
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 Barrows (US 5211594 A) in view of McGinnis (US 20150048215 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
381
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein the body (32, 51) of the hydrofoil comprises a ballast.
However, Barrows does not disclose a ballast.
McGinnis in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the body (32, 51) (fuselage (1); See at least: fig. 14 for a boxwing shape that is interpreted as matching that of claims 1-2; and para. [0019] “The invention disclosed is a fundamental enabling technology for minimum entropy fluid-borne flight, whether for aircraft, hydrofoils...” Examiner emphasis added, where the teachings of fig. 14 apply to a hydrofoil) of the hydrofoil comprises a ballast (ballast; See at least: para. [0079] “Some aircraft may require additional forward ballast or other measures to ensure that the center of lift remains appropriately behind the center of mass at all times”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified spar or boom 34 of Barrows with ballast of McGinnis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of adding forward ballast to ensure that the center of lift remains appropriately behind the center of mass at all times (See at least: McGinnis para. [0079]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrows (US 5211594 A) in view of Varigas (WO 2018158549 A1) {Examiner note: prior art of Varigas is the Applicant’s own art and is cited on the IDS of 29 September 2025} and further in view of NPL (Electro-hydraulic actuator. wiki [online]. wikipedia.org, 28 November 2023 [retrieved on 2026-06-11]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20231128093550/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-hydraulic_actuator>). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
679
1518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses which comprises, at least on each wing (25, 26, 53, 54, 55, 56) of a pair of wings, at least one sidewall (29, 30, 63 to 66, 73 to 76) actuated by an actuator.
However, Barrows does not disclose at least one sidewall (29, 30, 63 to 66, 73 to 76) actuated by an actuator.
Varigas, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein which comprises, at least on each wing (25, 26, 53, 54, 55, 56) of a pair of wings (front wings (13, 14), rear wings (15, 16); See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 1), at least one sidewall (29, 30, 63 to 66, 73 to 76) (control surfaces 23 to 26, control surfaces 33 to 36; See at least: fig. 1) actuated by an actuator.
However, Varigas does not explicitly disclose actuated by an actuator (electronic control unit 37; see at least fig. 3; Examiner will show in NPL that it is well known to use actuators on control surfaces such as ailerons below).
NPL (Electro-hydraulic actuator) teaches electro-hydraulic actuators are well known to be used for moving ailerons as early as the late 1940s.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified hydrofoil or wing 12 of Barrows with control surfaces 23 to 26, 33 to 36 and electronic control unit 37 of Varigas with electro-hydraulic actuators of NPL with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a central control unit electronically positioning moveable features of the hydrofoil’s wings adding in overall performance of the craft (See at least: Varigas text copy page 6 of 9 “An electronic control unit 37 (see FIG. 3) comprises a central unit that drives the motors 29 and 31 in a coordinated manner. The electronic control unit 37 also performs control functions of the control surfaces 23 to 26 and 33 to 36, in a manner known per se. In addition, the electronic control unit is a means of adapting the position of each wing root to the flight conditions, for example the onboard load, the speed, the altitude, the target range, to the intended maneuverability. The adaptation means modifies the geometric configuration of the wing by displacing at least one wing root. In variants, the aircraft 10 comprises means of morphism of the wing, to modify the inclination of the axes of rotation of the wings and cause a variation of incidence, the means of adaptation controlling the means of morphism. Preferably, in these variants, the electronic unit modifies the incidence of the wing during the flight, according to the load on board, the speed, the altitude, the target range, the target maneuverability.”).
Claims 9-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrows (US 5211594 A) in view of Varigas (WO 2018158549 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein: - one end of each front wing (53, 54) is articulated to one end of a rear wing (55, 56; and - at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58) can move along the body of the hydrofoil.
However, Barrows does not disclose the claim language in italics.
Varigas in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein wherein: - one end of each front wing (53, 54) (front wings (13, 14); See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 1) is articulated (junction 19 and 20; See at least: text copy page 6 of 9 “the junctions 19 and 20 of the ends of the front and rear wings comprise pivots. To give a third degree of freedom, over a few degrees of angle, this pivot connection has flexibility or a ball joint.”) to one end of a rear wing (55, 56) (rear wings (15, 16); See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 1); and - at least one of the wing-root supports (57, 58) (wing root support 17 and 18; See at least: figs. 1-3, 5-6 and text copy page 6 of 9 “wing root support 17 and 18 comprises pivots and a base 40 moved along the fuselage 11 by the motor, respectively 29 and 31.”) can move along the body of the hydrofoil (fuselage 11; See at least: figs. 1-3).
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified hydrofoil or wing 12 of Barrows with moveable features (pivots, base 40, motor 29, 31, control surfaces 23 to 26, 33 to 36 and electronic control unit 37) of Varigas with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a central control unit electronically positioning moveable features of the hydrofoil’s wings adding in overall performance of the craft (See at least: Varigas text copy page 6 of 9 “An electronic control unit 37 (see FIG. 3) comprises a central unit that drives the motors 29 and 31 in a coordinated manner. The electronic control unit 37 also performs control functions of the control surfaces 23 to 26 and 33 to 36, in a manner known per se. In addition, the electronic control unit is a means of adapting the position of each wing root to the flight conditions, for example the onboard load, the speed, the altitude, the target range, to the intended maneuverability. The adaptation means modifies the geometric configuration of the wing by displacing at least one wing root. In variants, the aircraft 10 comprises means of morphism of the wing, to modify the inclination of the axes of rotation of the wings and cause a variation of incidence, the means of adaptation controlling the means of morphism. Preferably, in these variants, the electronic unit modifies the incidence of the wing during the flight, according to the load on board, the speed, the altitude, the target range, the target maneuverability.”).
Regarding claim 10, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein the length of the rear wings (length (41); See at least: claim 2) is strictly shorter than the length of the front wings (length (48); See at least: claim 2), the angle (angle (42); See at least: claim 2) formed between the main longitudinal axis (main longitudinal axis (44); See at least: claim 2) of the body of the hydrofoil (fuselage (11); See at least: claim 2) and the main axis (main axis (43); See at least: claim 2) of the rear wings therefore being more obtuse than the angle (angle (46); See at least: claim 2) formed between the main longitudinal axis of the body of the hydrofoil and the main axis (main axis (45); See at least: claim 2) of the front wings.
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein at least one of the wing-root supports (17, 18; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3), is configured to come closer to the other wing-root support so that the front wings (13, 14; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3) form the hypotenuses of right-angle triangles formed by the front wings, the rear wings (15, 16; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3)and the body of the hydrofoil (11; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3), the main axis (43; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3) of each of the rear wings being, in these right-angle triangles, perpendicular to the main longitudinal axis of the body of the hydrofoil (See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy page 5 of 9 and claim 3).
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 12, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein at least one of the wing-root supports (17, 18; See at least: fig. 3 and claim 4) is configured to come closer to the other wing-root support so that the front wings (13, 14; See at least: fig. 3 and claim 4) and the rear wings are in swept-back configurations (arrows; See at least: fig. 3 and claim 4).
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein at least one of the wing-root supports (17, 18; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy bottom of page 5 to page 6 starting with “...Thus, the deflection of the front wings...” and claim 5) is configured to move away from the other wing-root support so that the hydrofoil's span (49; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy bottom of page 5 to page 6 starting with “...Thus, the deflection of the front wings...” and claim 5) is less than the sum of four times the maximum width (47; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy bottom of page 5 to page 6 starting with “...Thus, the deflection of the front wings...” and claim 5) of the front wings (13, 14; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy bottom of page 5 to page 6 starting with “...Thus, the deflection of the front wings...” and claim 5) and the rear wings (15, 16; See at least: figs. 1-3, text copy bottom of page 5 to page 6 starting with “...Thus, the deflection of the front wings...” and claim 5), firstly, and the width of the body of the hydrofoil, secondly (50; See at least: fig. 3).
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 14, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein each of the wing-root supports can move along the body of the hydrofoil (See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 8).
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein at least one wing-root support is put into motion by a motor (motor 29, 31; See at least: fig. 4), a control unit (electronic control unit 37; See at least: fig. 3) actuating this motor.
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein at least one front wing-root support comprises at least one pivot (17, pivot; See at least: figs. 1-5 and claim 12).
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 17, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Varigas teaches wherein a rod (39; See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 10) inside one of the wings keeps the main plane of the vertical surfaces (38; See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 10) for closing wing ends parallel to the main axis of the body of the hydrofoil (11; See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 10).
However, Varigas does not teach the claim language in italics.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 18, Barrows in view of Varigas teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Barrows discloses wherein the junctions (19, 20; See at least: figs. 1-7 and claim 11)of the front and rear wing ends comprise pivots (See at least: figs. 1-7 and claim 11).
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 21, Barrows discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, claim 21 is rejected being dependent on claim 19, Examiner provides even if it was rewritten change dependency it would be rejected as follows. Additionally, Varigas teaches which comprises means (See at least: figs. 1-7 and claim 7 where any of structure as shown in the figures can be interpreted as “means” for “morphing”) for morphing the wing structure (12; See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 7), to alter the inclination of the wings' (13, 14, 15, 16; See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 7) axes of rotation (See at least: figs. 1-7 and claim 7) and cause a variation of incidence (See at least: claim 7 and text copy page 7 “In embodiments, the aircraft 10 comprises means of morphism of the wing, to modify the inclination of the axes of rotation of the wings and cause a variation of incidence”), the adjustment means (51) (37; See at least: fig. 3 and claim 7) controlling the morphing means.
Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein the body (32, 51) of the hydrofoil comprises a ballast tank…”. The closest prior art is Barrows (US 5211594 A) in view of Johannes (US 3279407 A). Barrows discloses a hydrofoil wing 12. Johannes teaches a hydrofoil body which comprises a ballast tank (See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 6). Johannes teaches the ballast tank is for stabilization to counteract rolling and pitching of the vessel (See at least: col. 3 line 38-51). However, the Examiner considered the combination of the two prior arts to be in hindsight, as when viewed from the selected figures below the combination would be improper due to the sheer size and functional differences of the hydrofoils. Examiner notes: Applicant does not provide a fig. with the embodiment showing “a ballast tank” therefore the Examiner interprets this tank to be a closed tank with at least one inlet and one outlet passage to allow flow of water in or out. Examiner does not interpret “a ballast tank” to be a channel, passage, scoop or funnel which can be shown in prior art.
PNG
media_image4.png
805
1036
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
William (US 2603179 A) teaches a hydrofoil craft with predictor hydrofoil 13 that has an inverted V-shaped member 14 of aerofoil section and a positive angle of attack (See at least: figs. 1-2). This is applicable to at least claim 1.
Drtina (US 3241511 A) teaches different hydrofoil combination where figs. 16-19 are viewed as applicable to claim 1.
Johannes (US 3279407 A) teaches a surface vessel where the hydrofoil has tubular buoyant bodies with ballast tanks internal the tubular buoyant bodies (See at least: figs. 1-3 and claim 6). This is applicable to at least claims 3-4.
Houck (US 20050173592 A1) teaches a lifting foil for an aircraft, a hydrofoil or the like which has a shape that is applicable to at least claim 1 (See at least: fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image5.png
529
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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 (571) 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights