DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1 and 3 are not proper black and white line drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (see 37 CFR 1.75(i)). As currently presented, it is difficult to discern where the preamble ends and which components are considered separate. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 (and all claims that depend therefrom) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 recites that “the front flap is devoid of an orientation control device,” however the disclosure shows that the front flap can only rotate about shaft 310, which is a position control device.
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- 4, 9 and 10 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “A dual wingsail propulsion unit comprising a dual wingsail mounted on a structure that is angularly controlled about a generally vertical axis depending on the conditions.” It is unclear what “depends on the conditions” (that it is a dual wingsail, how it is controlled, that the axis is vertical, etc.) and what these conditions are.
Claim 2 line 1 recites that “the front flap is devoid of an orientation control device and, in use, is free to move within a certain angular range.” It is unclear how a component can be both “devoid of an orientation control device” and only “free to move within a certain angular range,” as any limitation on its angular range would inherently be provided by some form of “orientation control device.”
Claim 3 line 2 recites “a device for controlling the orientation of the rear flap.” It is unclear if this is the same “device for controlling the orientation of the rear flap” recited in line 4 of parent claim 1. For the purposes of this action, this will be treated as the same device.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “their cross-sectional profiles,” with no indication of what “their” refers to. For the purposes of this action, it will be assumed that this refers to the profiles of the front and rear flaps.
Claim 10 recites “a mechanism for bringing the or each wind propulsion unit from an active position to an inactive position.” It is unclear if this mechanism is the same as or part of the device for controlling the orientation of the rear flap, and if this is the same active and/or inactive positions recited in parent claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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. In this case, claim 3 does not recite any limitations that are not present in parent claim 1. 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 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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Peteghem US 2019/0256182 in view of McClure US 10,399,651.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Van Peteghem Figure 5)]
PNG
media_image1.png
451
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Van Peteghem teaches An at least partially wind-propelled vessel, comprising a dual wingsail propulsion unit comprising a dual wingsail mounted on a structure that is angularly controlled about a generally vertical axis depending on the conditions, the dual wingsail comprising:
a front flap 100, a rear flap 200 and a supporting structure 300 that allows the front flap and the rear flap to pivot about two axes 310, 320 that are generally parallel and spaced apart from one another;
the unit also comprising a device 510, 520 for controlling the orientation of the rear flap according to the direction of incidence of the wind during propulsion (intended use).
Van Peteghem does not teach that the device for controlling the orientation of the rear flap also being configured to bring the rear flap, when the wingsail propulsion unit is in an inactive position, into a folded orientation wherein a substantial portion of its cross-sectional extent is positioned along a substantial portion of the cross-sectional extent of the front flap. McClure teaches a dual wingsail propulsion unit comprising a dual wingsail mounted on a structure that is angularly controlled about a generally vertical axis, the dual wingsail comprising:
a front flap 20, a rear flap 22 and a supporting structure 300 that allows the front flap and the rear flap to pivot about two axes that are generally parallel and spaced apart from one another;
the unit also comprising a device 306 for controlling the orientation of the rear flap according to the direction of incidence of the wind during propulsion (intended use);
the device for controlling the orientation of the rear flap also being configured to bring the rear flap, when the wingsail propulsion unit is in an inactive position, into a folded orientation wherein a substantial portion of its cross-sectional extent is positioned along a substantial portion of the cross-sectional extent of the front flap (“the flap actuation system not only controls the angle of the flap to the main wing, but it also functions to fold the flap against the side of the main wing for stowage,” column 15, lines 30-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with an orientation control device that allows the rear flap to lie flat against the front flap as taught by McClure in order to make the wingsail smaller when not in use.
Regarding claim 2 as best understood, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Peteghem also teaches that the front flap 100 is devoid of an orientation control device and, in use, is free to move within a certain angular range ([0012], claim 3), and in that (as modified) as it approaches its folded position, the rear flap is capable of urging and angularly shifting the front flap 100 so as to minimize the flaps footprint in the direction of their thickness.
Regarding claim 3 as best understood, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As detailed above, McClure teaches a device 306 for controlling the orientation of the rear flap 22, capable of angularly shifting the front flap 20 in the folded position of the rear flap, so as to minimize the flaps footprint in the direction of their thickness. (“the flap actuation system not only controls the angle of the flap to the main wing, but it also functions to fold the flap against the side of the main wing for stowage,” column 15, lines 30-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with an orientation control device that allows the rear flap to lie flat against the front flap as taught by McClure in order to make the wingsail smaller when not in use.
Regarding claim 4 as best understood, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. McClure also teaches that the angular offset of the front flap 20 is such that the axes of their cross-sectional profiles are generally parallel in the folded position (“the two axes allow the flap to fold compactly against the wing, with the chords of the two airfoils lying parallel to one another,” column 15, lines 30-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with an orientation control device that allows the rear flap to lie flat against the front flap as taught by McClure in order to make the wingsail smaller when not in use.
Regarding claim 5, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. McClure does not explicitly teach that the axes of the profiles of the flaps 20, 22 in cross-section, in the folded position, are angularly offset by approximately 2 to 20° from a plane containing the axes of both masts. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the flaps such that they lie at the desired angle when folded or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired motion or form factor. 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. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the angle of the flaps to lie at the desired angle when folded, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. McClure also teaches that in the folded position, a trailing edge of the rear flap 22 is located in close proximity to a leading edge of the front flap 20 (see figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with an orientation control device that allows the rear flap to lie flat against the front flap as taught by McClure in order to make the wingsail smaller when not in use.
Regarding claim 7, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Peteghem also teaches that the supporting structure 300 comprises at least one boom element and/or gaff element 344, but does not teach that in the folded position and in cross-section, the front and rear flaps are entirely inscribed in the contour of the boom element and/or gaff element. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the gaff large enough to completely surround the flaps or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide protection for the flaps in the folded position. 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 10, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. McClure also teaches a mechanism 460 for bringing the or each wind propulsion unit from an active position (deployed) to an inactive position (folded), the folding control device 306 being controlled in relation to the control of said mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with an orientation control device/mechanism that allows the rear flap to lie flat against the front flap as taught by McClure in order to make the wingsail smaller when not in use.
Regarding claim 11, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. McClure also teaches that the inactive position is a stowed or retracted (folded) position.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Peteghem US 2019/0256182 in view of McClure US 10,399,651 and Walker US 4,770,113.
Regarding claim 8, Van Peteghem and McClure teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Peteghem does not teach a lock for locking the rear flap in its folded position. Walker teaches a wingsail in which the movable flaps can be locked in position (column 4, lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wingsail of Van Peteghem with a position lock as taught by Walker in order to relieve the moving mechanism of stress (column 4, lines 11-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson US 12,654,828 teaches a wingsail that can fold the rear flap against the main flap.
Wainwright US 4,537,146 teaches a wingsail with dual flaps that can stowed flat against the main airfoil.
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