Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Atkinson Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
289
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atkinson (US20140144362).
In regard to claim 1, Atkinson discloses a ship 10 comprising;
at least one wind propulsion unit 18 extending in a generally vertical direction in position of use and comprising one or more propulsion elements;
PNG
media_image2.png
461
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Atkinson Figure 6)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]a mast 20, and a base carrying said mast, the hull structure of the ship intrinsically comprising transverse structural elements defining at least in part at least one respective cavity 16 in that it comprises at least one wind propulsion unit 18 situated generally above a cavity 16, and further comprising
a support 36 for said base of the wind propulsion unit 18, said support 36 being movable in a generally vertical direction in a guided manner within the cavity 16, and a drive arrangement 40 for selectively moving said support between a raised position of use of the wind propulsion unit and a retracted position of stowage of the wind propulsion unit.
PNG
media_image4.png
452
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Atkinson Figure 1)]In regard to claim 2, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 1, comprising in each cavity 16 intended to receive a wind propulsion unit 18, a guide hoistway 14 closely receiving said support 36 and oriented generally vertically.
In regard to claim 5, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 1, wherein each wind propulsion unit has, in cross-section, a large dimension and a small dimension, [as specified in Atkinson [0071]) and further comprising a device for controlling the orientation 52 of the wind propulsion unit to bring it into an orientation allowing it to be retracted.
In regard to claim 6, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 5, wherein said retraction orientation is an orientation wherein the large dimension of the cross-section of the wind propulsion unit is oriented transversely to a main axis of the ship (as seen in Atkinson’s Figure 1).
[AltContent: oval]In regard to claim 7, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 1, wherein said structural elements comprise pairs of structural panels 17 “...which define a space formed in the vessel below the deck 12 into a plurality of holds (or cargo compartments)” [0068].
In regard to claim 8, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 1, wherein said structural elements comprise individual structural panels (as shown by the arrows in Atkinson’s Figure 4), and comprising at least one added panel (the wall at the left in Atkinson’s Figure 4) assembled to the ship structure to form with said individual structural panel a cavity 16 for a wind propulsion unit.
In regard to claim 9, Atkinson discloses a ship according to claim 1, wherein the drive arrangement 40 means comprises one or more cylinders 32 for each support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US20140144362).
In regard to claim 3, Atkinson teaches a ship in regard to claim 1. Atkinson does not teach wherein the or each hoistway 14 has a generally U-shaped cross-section with an opening of a width greater than a width of the wind propulsion unit in an orientation of the wind propulsion unit adopted for its retraction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the or each hoistway of Atkinson to a generally U-shaped cross-section or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to better support a wind propulsion unit and/or satisfy an aesthetic design. 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.
[AltContent: oval]Claim(s) 4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US20140144362) in view of McClure et al. (US20180162502).
In regard to claim 4, Atkinson teaches a ship in regard to claim 1. Atkinson does not teach wherein a limited-friction guide provided between each support and the associated hoistway.
McClure teaches a ship 200 comprising:
at least one sail propulsion unit 240 extending in a generally vertical direction in position of use and comprising one or more propulsion elements; and
a mast 282 the ship structure intrinsically comprising transverse structural elements defining at least in part at least one respective cavity 232 in that it comprises at least one sail propulsion unit 240 situated generally above a cavity 232, and further comprising
a support for said sail propulsion unit 240, said support being movable in a generally vertical direction within the cavity 232, and a drive (located below the sail) for selectively moving said support between a raised position of use and a retracted position of stowage and
a limited-friction guide (roller pin 290 and guide plate 288) provided between each support and the associated hoistway.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Atkinson’s wind propulsion unit to include a low-friction guide as taught by McClure in order to reduce the effects of friction on the sails.
In regard to claim 10, Atkinson teaches a ship in regard to claim 1. Atkinson does not teach wherein the drive arrangement comprises one or more rack-and-pinion assemblies for each support.
PNG
media_image10.png
325
458
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 6- McClure Figure 10)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]McClure teaches a ship in regard to claim 1, wherein the drive arrangement comprises one or more “...other forms of linear actuation devices may be used in place of or in conjunction with the hydraulic cylinder... such as… rack-and-pinion gear mechanisms…” [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a drive arrangement of McClure for a wind propulsion unit of Atkinson in order to operate via a rack-and-pinion system to make necessary adjustments for a wind propulsion unit.
In regard to claim 11, Atkinson teaches a ship in regard to claim 1. Atkinson does not teach wherein the drive arrangement means comprises, for each support, one or more suspension cables which can be wound onto a drum.
McClure teaches a ship in regard to claim 1, wherein the drive arrangement means comprises, for each support, one or more suspension cables (suspension cables 442, 434, and 426) which can be wound onto a drum (pulleys 440, 432, 428, 418, and 424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a drive arrangement of McClure for a wind propulsion unit of Atkinson in order to include a pulley system to make further adjustments to the wind propulsion unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the
“First, Atkinson fails to disclose a hull structure intrinsically comprising pairs of transverse structural elements defining one or several cavities.”
“Second, Atkinson additionally fails to disclose a support carrying a base of the sail propulsion unit and that is capable of moving vertically.”
In response to applicant’s argument of a hull structure intrinsically comprising pairs of transverse structural elements defining one or several cavities, the applied reference, Atkinson (US20140144362), anticipates the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection supra (a mast 20 the ship structure intrinsically comprising transverse structural elements defining at least in part at least one respective cavity 16) thus being “integral” to the hull. Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atkinson (US20140144362) is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument of a support carrying a base of the sail propulsion unit and that is capable of moving vertically, the amended claim 1 states the supports are “movable in a generally vertical direction” in which Atkinson still satisfies (a support 36 for said sail propulsion unit 18, said support 36 being movable in a generally vertical direction within the cavity 16). Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atkinson (US20140144362) is maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL KENNETH P FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)270-0397. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1700.
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 5712724530. 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.
/M.P.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights