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 .
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 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) 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dane et al (US 7789723) in view of Petrovich (US 4610212). With respect to claims 1, 11, 14, 20, Dane et al disclose the basic claimed structure including a submersible sailing vessel (note the Abstract) with a hull assembly (including 301), a keel (including 312) coupled to and extending from the hull assembly and a wind catching assembly (including 308). Also disclosed by Dane et al is propelling means 117 and buoyance compensation means 313. Not disclosed by Dane et al is the wind catching assembly coupled to and extending from the keel. Petrovich teaches a hull assembly 2, 3 sized and shaped to accommodate at least one person with a ballast keel assembly 6 and a wind catching assembly 4, 5, 8 coupled to and extending from the keel (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dane et al with the wind catching assembly coupled to and extending from a ballast keel and to have the hull accommodate at least one person as taught by Petrovich with a high likelihood of success for improved vessel balance and stability. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. With respect to claim 4, note Dane et al, Figures 4-6. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the art of designing complex and expensive sailboat stability systems would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would clearly be knowledgeable is boat stability systems and would be familiar with various boat stability systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dane et al (US 7789723) in view of Petrovich (US 4610212), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stiewe (EP 3225545 A1). With respect to claims 8-9, Dane et al do not disclose an inflatable sail via compressed gas. Stiewe teaches an inflatable sail 1 with hose 7 and compressed gas (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dane et al with an sail inflated via compressed gas as taught by Stiewe with a high likelihood of success for improved safety via improved buoyancy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the art of designing complex and expensive sailboat stability systems would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would clearly be knowledgeable is boat safety systems and would be familiar with various boat safety systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Petrovich does not disclose a keel. However, the assembly including element 6 of Petrovich is a keel by being the bottommost longitudinal structural element of the watercraft. Note, for example, the cited Wikipedia definition of a watercraft keel as the bottommost longitudinal structural element of a watercraft.
Applicant further alleges that Petrovich does not disclose a wind catching assembly coupled to and extending from the keel. However, note that the wind catching assembly 4, 5, 8 is coupled to the keel 6 (note Figure 4).
Applicant further alleges that there is no reason to combine the Dane et al and Petrovich teachings because Dane et al is already drawn toward watercraft stability. However, to the contrary, since Dane et al are already concerned about watercraft stability that would make the combination more desirable. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the art of designing complex and expensive sailboat stability systems would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would clearly be knowledgeable is boat stability systems and would be familiar with various boat stability systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
It is noted that the terminal disclaimer overcomes the double patenting rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wikipedia definition of a keel.
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 STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615