DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/16/2026 for application number 18/753,005 filed on 6/25/2024, in which claims 1-16 were previously presented for examination.
3. Claim(s) 2 has/have been canceled, and claim(s) 1, 5-11, and 15-16 has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, and 3-16 is/are currently pending.
Examiner Notes
4. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
5. Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claim(s) 1, 15, and 16. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811).
6. Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Disclosure
8. Applicant has addressed the objections to the abstract. Accordingly the objections are withdrawn.
Claims Objections
9. Claims 9-10 have been amended to address the claim objections. Accordingly the claim objections are withdrawn.
Rejections to the Claims Under § 112
10. Applicant has amended the claims to address the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112. Accordingly the rejections are withdrawn.
The Independent Claims
11. Applicant argues the amended claim(s) 1 is/are allowable over Liu et al. (WO-2021249645-A1). Applicant continues, Liu fails to disclose each and every feature of claim 1. Liu does not disclose “determining, by the controller, values for a set of control parameters based on the request, wherein the set of control parameters comprises at least one thrust magnitude parameter including at least one of: a rotational speed and an eccentricity, and at least one thrust direction parameter comprising at least one of: a yaw angle and an offset angle of an angle of attack of the cyclorotor propeller” and “controlling, by the actuator arrangement receiving the values for the set of control parameters from the controller, the cyclorotor propeller based on the values received.”
12. However, Examiner asserts, Liu, in view of Fig. 2 (reproduced and annotated below for Applicant’s convenience) and Fig. 7, anticipates the claimed invention. As portrayed by Fig. 2, Apparatus 100 (100 CNTL-APPR), is a controller which in combination with the vessel control systems 106 (106 VES-CNTL) and the wheel controller 200 (200 WH-CNTL) perform the functionality of the controller of the claimed invention. Fig. 2 illustrates that the controller 100, 106, and 200 are coupled and exchange data and control signals. Applicant asserts, the wheel controller 200 does not receive the command 524 as it seems to be suggested by the Examiner. Instead, the command 524 is received by the apparatus 100. (Page 9 lines 27-32.) Applicant also asserts, element 202 is a wheel motor which does not receive any such values for the set of control parameters as claimed from the wheel controller 200. However, Liu discloses the rotatable wheel 204 is powered by a wheel motor 202 and controlled by a wheel controller 200 (page 3, li. 29-30). In 608, wheel control data 528 is generated for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520 (Figs. 5-6, page 8, li. 20-22). As such, Liu discloses that element 202 is controlled by the wheel controller 200 which has the wheel control data 528. As mentioned above, the wheel control data 528 is generated based on the command 524.
13. Applicant also asserts, at page 13 lines 6-12 of Liu (cited on page 7 of the Office Action, with
respect to claim 2), it is clear from this passage that the parameters mentioned therein - such as a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity of the foil and a yaw angle - are received by the motion reference generation block 700 from the foil pitch function 532. (Page 12 lines 30-31.) The motion reference generation block 700 then outputs (to the foil motion control block 702) a reference angular foil position, a reference foil speed and a reference foil acceleration. (Page 13 lines 9-11). The motion reference generation block 700 is implemented in the apparatus 100. In other words, the foil drives (actuators) 210 in Liu do not receive the above-mentioned parameters but instead they only receive either the reference torque or, if the foil motion control block 702 is implemented in each foil drive 210, they receive the reference angular foil position, the reference foil speed and the reference foil acceleration, as explained on page 13 lines 20-27 of Liu.
14. However, Liu discloses, as shown in Fig. 7, the foil pitch function 532 provides the one or more parameters for the wheel controller 200 and to a propulsion control 700, 702 of the foil drives 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D. The wheel 204 is also rotating based on the one or more parameters. The one or more parameters for the wheel 204 is a rotational speed, or a streaming of angular position. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed Ω.sub.wheel_ref, an eccentricity e.sub.c of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle ψ (page 12, li. 24-26, and page 13, li. 4-9). That means, the wheel 204 and the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D are controlled by the controller, through receiving control signals based on the mentioned parameters. Accordingly, Liu anticipates each and every limitation of the claim and the rejection is maintained.
15. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
703
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Liu
16. Applicant argues independent claim(s) 15-16 has/have been amended similar to independent claim 1 and it/they is/are allowable for reasons similar to those presented in favor of patentability of claim 1.
17. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
18. Applicant argues dependent claim(s) is/are patentable by the virtue of their dependency on one of the independent claims and the additional features recited in the dependent claims.
19. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
20. 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.
21. Claim(s) 1 and 15-16
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (WO-2021249645-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Liu discloses a method for controlling a marine vehicle propulsion system, the propulsion system comprising a cyclorotor propeller, an actuator arrangement, and a controller, the method including (Liu, in at least Figs. 1, 6, page 1, lines 11-12, page 2, lines 28-33, page 3, lines 29-30, and page 7, lines 24-25, discloses propulsion systems are also known as a cyclorotor, a trochoidal propeller, or a Voith-Schneider propeller (VSP) [i.e., cyclorotor propeller]. A method for controlling propulsion of the marine vessel 102 [i.e., controlling a marine vehicle propulsion system]. The apparatus 100 comprises a vessel interface 506 couplable with a vessel control system 106. The rotatable wheel 204 is powered by a wheel motor 202 [i.e., an actuator arrangement]. The apparatus 100 is implemented within the wheel controller 200 [i.e., a controller]):
receiving, by the controller, a request comprising at least one force request and/or at least one torque request (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 8, lines 19-22, and page 9, lines 27-29 discloses in 606, a command 524 is received from the vessel control system 106. In 608, wheel control data 528 is generated for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520. The apparatus 100 receives [i.e., receiving, by the controller, a request] commands 524 (a thrust command [i.e., at least one force request and/or at least one torque request] or another type of command related to the propulsion));
determining, by the controller, values for a set of control parameters based on the request, wherein the set of control parameters comprises at least one thrust magnitude parameter including at least one of: a rotational speed and an eccentricity, and at least one thrust direction parameter comprising at least one of: a yaw angle and an offset angle of an angle of attack of the cyclorotor propeller (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 4, lines 28-30, page 8, lines 20-22, and page 13, lines 6-12, discloses in 608, wheel control data 528 is generated [i.e., determining, by the controller, values for a set of control parameters based on the request] for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520. The feedforward control calculates the needed wheel 204 speed (rpm) [i.e., a rotational speed] in the case of the engine-powered wheel 204 and send the reference wheel speed to the control of the engine 114. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity [i.e., a rotational speed and an eccentricity] of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle [i.e., a yaw angle]); and
controlling, by the actuator arrangement receiving the values for the set of control parameters from the controller, the cyclorotor propeller based on the values received (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 10, lines 2-4, discloses the foil wheel propulsion system 104 is controlled as an integrated unit [i.e., controlling, by the actuator arrangement receiving the values for the set of control parameters from the controller, the cyclorotor propeller based on the values received]).
In regard to claim 15
, Liu discloses a propulsion system for a marine vehicle, comprising a cyclorotor propeller, an actuator arrangement, and a controller (Liu, in at least Figs. 1, 6, page 1, lines 11-12, page 2, lines 28-33, page 3, lines 29-30, and page 7, lines 24-25, discloses propulsion systems are also known as a cyclorotor, a trochoidal propeller, or a Voith-Schneider propeller (VSP) [i.e., cyclorotor propeller]. An apparatus 100 for controlling propulsion of a marine vessel 102. The apparatus 100 comprises a vessel interface 506 couplable with a vessel control system 106. The rotatable wheel 204 is powered by a wheel motor 202 [i.e., an actuator arrangement]. The apparatus 100 is implemented within the wheel controller 200 [i.e., a controller]);
the controller comprising one or more processors and one or more memories including computer program code (Liu, in at least Fig. 5, page 5, lines 22-25, discloses The apparatus comprises one or more memories 502 [i.e., one or more memories] including computer program code 504, and one or more processors 500 [i.e., one or more processors] to execute the computer program code 504 [i.e., computer program code] to cause the apparatus 100 to perform the method as an algorithm 526 for controlling the propulsion of the marine vessel 102);
the one or more memories and the computer program code being configured to, with the one or more processors, cause at least the controller to receive a request including at least one force request and/or at least one torque request, and determine values for a set of control parameters based on the request, wherein the set of control parameters comprises at least one thrust magnitude parameter including at least one of: a rotational speed and an eccentricity, and at least one thrust direction parameter comprising at least one of: a yaw angle and an offset angle of an angle of attack of the cyclorotor propeller (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 4, lines 28-30, page 8, lines 19-22, and page 9, lines 27-29, and page 13, lines 6-12, discloses in 606, a command 524 is received from the vessel control system 106. In 608, wheel control data 528 is generated for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520. The apparatus 100 receives [i.e., receiving, by the controller, a request] commands 524 (a thrust command [i.e., at least one force request and/or at least one torque request] or another type of command related to the propulsion). The feedforward control calculates the needed wheel 204 speed (rpm) [i.e., a rotational speed] in the case of the engine-powered wheel 204 and send the reference wheel speed to the control of the engine 114. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity [i.e., a rotational speed and an eccentricity] of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle [i.e., a yaw angle]); and
the actuator arrangement being configured to at least control the cyclorotor propeller based on the values for the set of control parameters received from the controller (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 10, lines 2-4, discloses the foil wheel propulsion system 104 is controlled as an integrated unit [i.e., the actuator arrangement being configured to at least control the cyclorotor propeller based on the values for the set of control parameters received from the controller]).
In regard to claim 16
, Liu discloses a propulsion apparatus comprising a cyclorotor propeller, the cyclorotor propeller including at least one cyclorotor propeller wheel with at least two controllable blades attached to the wheel, wherein the propulsion apparatus is configured to (Liu, in at least Figs. 1, 3A, 6, page 1, lines 11-12, page 2, lines 28-33, page 3, lines 13-15 and 29-30, and page 7, lines 24-25, discloses propulsion systems are also known as a cyclorotor, a trochoidal propeller, or a Voith-Schneider propeller (VSP) [i.e., cyclorotor propeller]. An apparatus 100 for controlling propulsion of a marine vessel 102. The apparatus 100 comprises a vessel interface 506 couplable with a vessel control system 106. The foil wheel propulsion system 104 comprises a rotatable wheel 204 and a plurality of rotatable foils 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D attached perpendicularly to the wheel 204 [i.e., at least two controllable blades attached to the wheel]. The rotatable wheel 204 is powered by a wheel motor 202 [i.e., an actuator arrangement]. The apparatus 100 is implemented within the wheel controller 200 [i.e., a controller]):
receive a request including at least one force request and/or at least one torque request (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 8, lines 19-22, and page 9, lines 27-29 discloses in 606, a command 524 is received from the vessel control system 106. In 608, wheel control data 528 is generated for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520. The apparatus 100 receives [i.e., receiving, by the controller, a request] commands 524 (a thrust command [i.e., at least one force request and/or at least one torque request] or another type of command related to the propulsion));
determine values for a set of control parameters based on the request, wherein the set of control parameters comprises at least one thrust magnitude parameter including at least one of: a rotational speed and an eccentricity, and at least one thrust direction parameter comprising at least one of: a yaw angle and an offset angle of an angle of attack of the cyclorotor propeller (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 4, lines 28-30,, page 8, lines 20-22, and page 13, lines 6-12, discloses in 608, wheel control data 528 [i.e., values for a set of control parameters based on the request] is generated for the wheel controller 200 to control a foil pitch function 532 of the foil wheel propulsion system 104 based on the command 524 in view of the wheel operation status 520. The feedforward control calculates the needed wheel 204 speed (rpm) [i.e., a rotational speed] in the case of the engine-powered wheel 204 and send the reference wheel speed to the control of the engine 114. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity [i.e., a rotational speed and an eccentricity] of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle [i.e., a yaw angle]); and
control the cyclorotor propeller based on the values determined for the set of control parameters (Liu, in at least Fig. 6, page 10, lines 2-4, discloses the foil wheel propulsion system 104 is controlled as an integrated unit [i.e., controlling, by the actuator arrangement receiving the values for the set of control parameters from the controller, the cyclorotor propeller based on the values received]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. Claim(s) 3-8, and 12-14
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO-2021249645-A1) in view of Bradley et al. (US-20150321740-A1).
In regard to claim 3
, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Liu discloses the apparatus 100 centrally controls more than one foil wheel propulsion systems 104 in order to further optimize system performance (Liu, see at least page 5, lines 20-21), Liu is silent on wherein the determining the values for the set of control parameters is performed using an optimization method constrained by the request received and a pre-determined set of constraints for the set of control parameters.
However, Bradley teaches wherein the determining the values for the set of control parameters is performed using an optimization method constrained by the request received and a pre-determined set of constraints for the set of control parameters (Bradley, in at least Fig. 1, and [0041], teaches the control map is configured to control the system 100 in a manner that lowers or minimizes drag created by one or more of the blades [i.e., determining the values for the set of control parameters is performed using an optimization method constrained by the request received and a pre-determined set of constraints for the set of control parameters], thereby improving fuel efficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and minimize drag created by the blades and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 4
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 3, accordingly the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Further, Bradley teaches wherein the optimization method comprises maximizing hydrodynamic efficiency of the cyclorotor propeller (Bradley, in at least Fig. 1, and [0041], teaches the control map is configured to control the system 100 in a manner that lowers or minimizes drag created by one or more of the blades [i.e., maximizing hydrodynamic efficiency of the cyclorotor propeller], thereby improving fuel efficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and minimize drag created by the blades and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 5
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 4, accordingly the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Further, Bradley teaches wherein the maximizing hydrodynamic efficiency of the cyclorotor propeller comprises:
determining values for operating condition parameters including at least a current vessel velocity (Bradley, in at least [0095], teaches the control map is configured to optimize the drag reduction according to factors [i.e., determining values for operating condition parameters] such as vessel direction, speed [i.e., at least a current vessel velocity], and desired speed based on inputs such as those from ship sensors including those sensing parameters including attitude in roll, pitch, and yaw); and
obtaining, from a pre-determined feasibility solution set, thrust values corresponding to the request and the values for the operating condition parameters determined (Bradley, in at least [0055 & 0095], teaches the system allows change of vessel thrust to a direction and magnitude per command. The control map is configured to optimize the drag reduction according to factors such as vessel direction, speed, and desired speed based on inputs such as those from ship sensors including those sensing parameters including attitude in roll, pitch, and yaw [i.e., the pre-determined feasibility solution set is a first feasibility solution set]. The blades providing thrust are not limited to providing thrust and steering functions—e.g., the blades moving in a forward direction, meaning returning towards the thrust provision position, is used to provide direction thrust [i.e., thrust values corresponding to the request and the values for the operating condition parameters determined]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and use a control map to optimize the drag reduction and provide thrust to the blades and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 6
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 5, accordingly the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Further, Bradley teaches wherein the request comprises at least a thrust magnitude request and a thrust direction request (Bradley, in at least Fig. 1, [0002 & 0055 & 0095], teaches the blades 110 are controlled individually to accomplish desired vessel dynamics—e.g., vessel speed vector, thrust, and attitude. The map, or algorithm, is configured to control the vessel to lower or minimize drag created by one or more of the blades 110 against the water 115, to improve fuel efficiency, and the like. The system allows change of vessel thrust to a direction and magnitude per command. The control map is configured to optimize the drag reduction according to factors such as vessel direction, speed, and desired speed based on inputs such as those from ship sensors including those sensing parameters including attitude in roll, pitch, and yaw. The blades providing thrust are not limited to providing thrust and steering functions—e.g., the blades moving in a forward direction, meaning returning towards the thrust provision position, is used to provide direction thrust [i.e., at least a thrust magnitude request and a thrust direction request]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 7
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the determining the values for the set of control parameters comprises:
obtaining, from the pre-determined feasibility solution set, a maximum thrust magnitude corresponding to the values for the operating condition parameters and the thrust direction request (Liu, in at least Fig. 1, page 9, lines 8-10, discloses To achieve high performance (e.g. high efficiency, high thrust [i.e., obtaining, from the pre-determined feasibility solution set, a maximum thrust magnitude corresponding to the values for the operating condition parameters and the thrust direction request], etc.) operation, the foil wheel propulsion system 104 needs to follow the predefined foil pitch function 532 with a high accuracy);
determining a rotational speed value, an eccentricity value, and an angle value based on at least the thrust direction request, the thrust magnitude request, the maximum thrust magnitude obtained, and the pre-determined set of constraints, wherein the angle value is a yaw angle value or an offset angle value, and wherein the rotational speed value, the eccentricity value, and the angle value maximize the hydrodynamic efficiency of the cyclorotor propeller (Liu, in at least in at least Figs. 1, 2, 3A-3B, 5, page 4, lines 28-30, page 9, lines 8-10, and page 13, lines 6-12, discloses the feedforward control calculates the needed wheel 204 speed (rpm) [i.e., determining a rotational speed value] in the case of the engine-powered wheel 204 and send the reference wheel speed to the control of the engine 114. To achieve high performance ( e.g. high efficiency, high thrust [i.e., the thrust magnitude request and the maximum thrust magnitude obtained ], etc.) operation, the foil wheel propulsion system 104 needs to follow the predefined foil pitch function 532 with a high accuracy. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle [i.e., determining a rotational speed value, an eccentricity value, and an angle value based on at least the thrust direction request, the thrust magnitude request, the maximum thrust magnitude obtained, and the pre-determined set of constraints]); and
setting the rotational speed value, the eccentricity value, and the angle value as the values for the set of control parameters (Liu, in at least Figs. 1, 2, 3A-3B, 5, page 4, lines 28-30 and page 13, lines 6-12, discloses the feedforward control calculates the needed wheel 204 speed (rpm) in the case of the engine-powered wheel 204 and send the reference wheel speed to the control of the engine 114. If the foil pitch function 532 is a trochoidal function or a cycloidal function, the one or more parameters is a combination of a reference wheel speed, an eccentricity of the foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D, and a yaw angle [i.e., the rotational speed value, the eccentricity value, and the angle value as the values for the set of control parameters]. Examiner notes, the values are determined and set to be used by the marine vessel).
In regard to claim 8
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 7, accordingly the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Further, Bradley teaches wherein the method further comprises determining the pre-determined feasibility solution set by:
determining a thrust direction range and a plurality of thrust direction values included in the thrust direction range (Bradley, in at least [0055 & 0095], teaches the system allows change of vessel thrust to a direction [i.e., determining a thrust direction range and a plurality of thrust direction values included in the thrust direction range] and magnitude per command);
determining, per a thrust direction value of the plurality of thrust direction values determined, a maximum thrust magnitude value based on at least the thrust direction value, the values for the operating condition parameters, and the pre-determined set of constraints (Bradley, in at least [0055 & 0095], teaches the system allows change of vessel thrust to a direction [i.e., determining, per a thrust direction value of the plurality of thrust direction values determined, a maximum thrust magnitude value] and magnitude per command. The control map is configured to optimize the drag reduction according to factors such as vessel direction, speed, and desired speed based on inputs such as those from ship sensors including those sensing parameters including attitude in roll, pitch, and yaw [i.e., based on at least the thrust direction value, the values for the operating condition parameters, and the pre-determined set of constraints]);
storing, in the pre-determined feasibility solution set, the plurality of thrust direction values and the values for the operating condition parameters (Bradley, in at least Fig. 4, and [0116-0118], discloses at operation 416, the controller determines whether a new vessel-kinematic command (VKC) [i.e., pre-determined feasibility solution set] is present. In response to a new VKC, such as from the controller or vessel electronics triggered by a vessel operator, at block 418, the new VKC is accepted, stored in cache or other memory as a current VKC [i.e., storing the plurality of thrust direction values and the values for the operating condition parameters]); and
storing, in the pre-determined feasibility solution set, per a thrust direction value of the plurality of thrust direction values, the maximum thrust magnitude value determined corresponding to the thrust direction value and the values for the operating condition parameters (Bradley, Fig. 4, in at least [0055 & 0095 & 0116-0118], teaches the system allows change of vessel thrust to a direction [i.e., a thrust direction value of the plurality of thrust direction values] and magnitude per command. The control map is configured to optimize the drag reduction according to factors such as vessel direction, speed, and desired speed based on inputs such as those from ship sensors including those sensing parameters including attitude in roll, pitch, and yaw. At operation 416, the controller determines whether a new vessel-kinematic command (VKC) is present. In response to a new VKC, such as from the controller or vessel electronics triggered by a vessel operator, at block 418, the new VKC is accepted, stored in cache or other memory as a current VKC [i.e., storing, in the pre-determined feasibility solution set, per a thrust direction value of the plurality of thrust direction values, the maximum thrust magnitude value determined corresponding to the thrust direction value and the values for the operating condition parameters]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and store the vessel-kinematic command including thrust and its direction and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
In regard to claim 12
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
displaying, to a user of the propulsion system via a user interface, the pre-determined feasibility solution set as a feasibility map (Liu, in at least Fig. 1, and page 3, lines 2-5, discloses the user interface 108 implements the presentation of graphical, textual and possibly also auditory information [i.e., displaying, to a user of the propulsion system via a user interface] to the mariner 110. The user interface is used to perform required user actions in relation to manoeuvring the marine vessel 102 such as giving propulsion and steering commands [i.e., displaying the pre-determined feasibility solution set as a feasibility map]).
In regard to claim 13
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the request further comprises a mode request and the pre-determined set of constraints for the control parameters is determined based on the mode request (Liu, in at least Figs. 1-2, 3A-3B, page 9, lines 32-34, discloses every foil 214A, 214B, 214C, 214D is in a position control mode, and the wheel 204 is in a speed control mode or in a position control mode [i.e., a mode request and the pre-determined set of constraints for the control parameters is determined based on the mode request]).
In regard to claim 14
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 3, accordingly the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Further, Bradley teaches wherein the optimization method comprises minimizing a factor of the cyclorotor propeller (Bradley, in at least Fig. 1, and [0041], teaches the control map is configured to control the system 100 in a manner that lowers or minimizes drag created by one or more of the blades [i.e., minimizing a factor of the cyclorotor propeller], thereby improving fuel efficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Bradley with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor -- marine-propulsion system -- and minimize drag created by the blades and the combination would provide for a cycloidal marine-propulsion system that significantly reduces drag formed at vertical propeller blades of the system during high-vessel-speed operation (Bradley, see at least [0008]).
24. Claim(s) 9
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO-2021249645-A1) in view of Bradley et al. (US-20150321740-A1) and further in view of Derginer et al. (US-20200140052-A1).
In regard to claim 9
, Liu, as modified by Bradley, teaches the method of claim 5, accordingly the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Liu, as modified by Bradley, is silent on all claim limitations.
However, Derginer teaches wherein the request comprises at least a sway force request, a surge force request, and a yaw torque request (Derginer, in at least [0023], teaches the vessel dynamics model is used to solve for a surge command, a sway command, and/or a yaw command [i.e., at least a sway force request, a surge force request, and a yaw torque request] that achieve the desired inertial velocity for the particular marine vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Liu, as modified by Bradley, in view of Derginer with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – marine-propulsion system -- and use a dynamic model for solving surge command, a sway command, and a yaw command and the combination would provide for the model customization being done offline and requiring only minimal expertise and time (Derginer, see at least [0024]).
Claim Objections
25. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 rejection(s) noted above, claim(s) 10-11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
26. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
27. 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.
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
29. 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.
30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
31. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights