DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An application was filed by applicant on 08/27/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the recesses” should be – the plurality of recesses – throughout the claims.
“the branch tubes” should be – the plurality of branch tubes – throughout the claims.
“one or some of the recesses” should be – at least one of the plurality of recesses – throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
7. The claimed features “the recess” (claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims), “the other side (claim 2)” and “its/their rear portions” (claims 6 and 7) lack sufficient antecedent.
8. Use of pronouns such as “its” or “their” does not make clear the features referred to.
9. The term “mildly” in claim limitation “mildly inclined part” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the indefinite. The term “mildly” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claimed feature “inclined part” is rendered indefinite by the relative term “mildly”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1: (STKK) JP 2004284546 A, cited by applicant. Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, D1 discloses a ship (see Figs. 1-3 and corresponding written description) comprising: a ship hull [1]; and a gas supply apparatus (para. [0005] of the machine translation) that supplies a ship bottom (Fig. 1) of the ship hull with a gas; wherein: the ship bottom is provided with a plurality of recesses (Fig. 3) supplied with the gas; the recesses are spaced apart from each other in a width direction (Fig. 3); each of the recesses extends in a back and forth direction (Fig. 3); the gas supply apparatus includes a gas supply source [2] (see para. [0005] of the machine translation) that supplies the gas, and a gas supply tube [3] that supplies the gas supplied from the gas supply source [2] toward the recesses; the gas supply tube [3] includes an ejection end opened rearward in the back and forth direction (implicit, Fig. 1); the recesses are opened forward in the back and forth direction (implicit); the gas supply tube [3] extends forward from the ship hull (see para. [0005] of the machine translation); the gas supply tube extending outside the ship hull is inserted into the recess from a front opening of the recess in the back and forth direction; and the ejection end is positioned in the recess (Fig. 3). D1 also discloses the features of claims 2 and 4 (Fig. 3 and corresponding written description).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: JP 2004284546 A (STKK), cited by applicant, in view of D3: US 4993349 A (SOLARI FRANCO [IT]), also cited by applicant. Regarding claims 3 and 5-7, D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific features recited in claims 3 and 5-7 regarding arrangement of branch tubes. D1 discloses the provision of two branch tubes. Providing a branch tube to supply the gas to each of the recesses in a particular orientation would have been considered obvious as a matter of preference, especially since the advantages achieved for such would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art; see for example the Figs. 1-7 of D3 and corresponding written description. D1 discloses implicitly the provision of at least one screw (propeller). Although not explicitly disclosed in D1, one skilled in the art would not position said screw on an extension of each of the recesses as in claim 5 since the bubbles emitted in vicinity would decrease the propelling efficiency, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The specific features of claims 6 and 7 regarding orientation or recess curvature correspond respectively to merely one of several straightforward possibilities which one skilled person would consider, depending on the circumstances, without undue exercise or unexpected results recognized, in order to achieve a desired result (see for example document D3 which shows similar curvature for its recesses; see Figs. 1-7 and corresponding written description). Providing the above features would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate function and operation as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such arrangement to facilitate function and operation for the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: JP 2004284546 A (STKK), cited by applicant. Regarding claims 8 and 9, D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific features recited in claims 8 and 9 regarding the recess orientation. However, D4 discloses such features with similar recess orientation: see Figs. 5, 6 and 8 of D4 and corresponding written description. Providing such features would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate function and operation as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate function and operation for the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
15. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose gas supply apparatuses for ship hulls.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Q Jimenez, who can be reached at phone number (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
17. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights