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 .
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.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
This application may qualify for “Small Entity Status” and, therefore, applicant may be entitled to the payment of reduced fees. In order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, applicant must make a determination of entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(f) and make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status in the manner set forth in 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1) or 37 CFR 1.27(c)(3). Accordingly, if applicant meets the requirements of 37 CFR 1.27(a), applicant must submit a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(c) before fees can be paid in the small entity amount. See 37 CFR 1.27(d). The assertion must be signed, clearly identifiable, and convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1). No particular form is required.
If applicant qualifies as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27, applicant may also qualify for “Micro Entity Status” under 35 U.S.C. 123. See 37 CFR 1.29 for the requirements to establish micro entity status for the purpose of paying micro entity fees.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
“Spinning Stabilized Ship (SSS)” (Title), where the instant disclosure also gives “SSS generates … [thrust] when it isn’t spinning” (Specification, page 4, Detailed Description).
Each of the “Brief Descriptions of Drawings” is replete with unclear or inexact terms. For example, “200 is a view showing the bottom is rotationally symmetrical” where “200” is not a view but rather the exterior perimeter or circumferential surface of the ship (Examiner’s phrasing, not from Applicant’s specification), referred to as “bottom 200” in the instant Detailed Description; or “201 is a view showing one of several, not limited in quantity or location, 360 degree thrusters,” where “201” is not a view but rather points to the structure of a 360 degree thruster, referred to as “360 degree thrusters 201” in the instant Detailed Description; or “205 is a view showing the waterline of all examples,” where 205 is the waterline, not a view. Plainly, the figure is “the view” and the structural elements should be labeled in the figure and described in the Specification using the labeling, e.g. thrusters 201, waterline 205, etc. Applicant’s use of labeling is not consistent throughout the disclosure.
Further, the Brief Description of the Drawings describes “examples of … wetted and unwetted surfaces”, but the Detailed Description of page 4 recites “[t]he wetted surface 218 of SSS must be rotationally symmetrical around its vertical axis.” Presumably Applicant has referred to the portion of figure 2 which has labeling 218, but 218 does not appear to point to any “wetted surface” as understood. As best understood, 218 points to an unwetted surface. Further, even if the meaning of 218 were understood, it would still be unclear if the intention was to refer to all wetted surfaces of all embodiments (e.g., “the wetted surfaces”), or only to the singular wetted surface of the embodiment having surface 218 (e.g., “the wetted surface 218”).
The Detailed Description recites “[t]he unwetted surface of SSS can be rotationally symmetrical 219 or not rotationally symmetrical 210 around its vertical axis”, which are similarly problematic. It appears that 219 points to an unwetted surface (i.e., “unwetted surface 219 of the shown embodiment”), not the element as recited (i.e., an element named “rotationally symmetrical 219”); and similarly, it appears 210 points to an unwetted surface (i.e., “unwetted surface 210 of the shown embodiment”). As but one example of how the aforementioned sentence could be made clear: “the unwetted surface of a SSS can be rotationally symmetrical around its vertical axis, such as the unwetted surface 219 of the shown embodiment, or not rotationally symmetrical around its vertical axis, such as the unwetted surface 10 of the shown embodiment.”
The above have been identified as examples of terms at issue in the instant Specification, but Examiner notes that the issues are not limited to the above examples, and the Specification is replete with such issues.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 2 and 3 show modified forms of construction in the same view.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both a “view” and a “bottom”; “201” has been used to designate both a “view” and “360 degree thrusters”; “202” has been used to designate both a “view” and a “360 degree range”; “203” has been used to designate both a “view”, “propulsion capability”, and “propulsive thrust”, neither of which appears to be a structural element of the invention; “204” has been used to designate both a “view” and “spinning”; each of 207-209, 211-218, and 220-221 have been used to designate both a “side view” and respective surfaces, with “213” specifically being “unwetted surface 213”, “218” specifically being “wetted surface 218” and “hemisphere 218”, and “217” specifically being “conical frustum 217”; “210” has been used to designate both a “side view” and “not rotationally symmetrical 210”; “219” has been used to designate both a “side view”, “rotationally symmetrical 219”, and “semi ellipse 219”.
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. 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.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the above-identified issues. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4 are 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 claims contain 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.
Claims 1-4 recite “SSS”, which is not a recognized term of the art. The instant Specification appears to define “SSS” both as spinning (i.e., “SSS is a spinning (rotating) stabilized ship”, Specification, page 1, Background) and non-spinning (i.e., “SSS generates … [thrust] when it isn’t spinning”, Specification, page 4, Detailed Description), and therefore gives conflicting definitions.
Claim 1 recites “wetted surface”, and the instant Specification denotes the “wetted surface” as element 218 (Specification, page 4, Detailed Description), “[t]he wetted surface 218 of SSS”) and the “waterline” as element 205 (“205 is a view showing the waterline of all examples”, Specification, page 3, Brief Description of Drawings, last line under section for Fig. 1). However, the portion of figure 3 which shows element 218 shows the surface 218 above the waterline 205, which thereafter gives conflicting definitions for Applicant’s terminology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-4 recite “SSS” which is not a term of art and is not defined by the claim. Although Applicant is permitted to be their own lexicographer, limitations from the Specification are not imported into the claims.1 Further, the instant Specification appears to define “SSS” both as spinning (i.e., “SSS is a spinning (rotating) stabilized ship”, Specification, page 1, Background) and non-spinning (i.e., “SSS generates … [thrust] when it isn’t spinning”, Specification, page 4, Detailed Description). In the interest of compact prosecution, term “SSS” is examined as a vessel which is capable of spinning.
Claim 1 recites “wetted”, which is similarly unclear as explained above. Plainly, it is unclear what structure is required for the claim. For instance, it is unclear if the term “wetted” requires the presence of water on the surface (e.g., be wet, or freshly painted), or if the term requires the surface to be submerged or partially-submerged in, e.g., a body of water, or if the term requires the surface to merely be capable of being wetted, submerged, or otherwise. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrasing is examined as a functional limitation (e.g., that the structure is capable of being at least partially submerged, and the “wetted” surface is the portion of the structure which is submerged).
Claim 3 recites “spinning (rotating)” and it is unclear if the term “rotating” is an added limitation, or is attempting to narrow the meaning of “spinning.”
Claim 4 recites “spin (rotate)”, which is similarly unclear as explained above.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (SU 1761585).
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art discloses SSS (figs. 1-2) has a rotationally symmetrical (fig. 2) wetted surface (i.e., “semi-submersible” vessel has both a wetted surface and unwetted surface) around its vertical axis (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, the prior at discloses SSS (figs. 1-2) can generate a 360 degree range of propulsive thrust around its vertical axis using 360 degree thrusters (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art discloses SSS can generate thrust for spinning (rotating) itself around its vertical axis (fig. 2) to generate gyroscopic stabilization (the structure is capable of performing the functional limitation, insomuch as fig. 2 shows the capability of the system to rotate) using 360 degree thrusters (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art discloses SSS can generate thrust to synchronously spin (rotate) itself and generate propulsive thrust (fig. 2 shows both conditions which can be controlled) in a 360 degree range around its vertical axis using 360 degree thrusters (fig. 2).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (JP 2010537882).
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art discloses SSS (figs. 1, 3, and especially the embodiment of figs. 4-5 and 7-9) has a rotationally symmetrical (see figures) wetted surface (at least by figure 16, vessel is shown as having both a wetted surface and unwetted surfaces that depend upon waterline) around its vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior at discloses SSS (figs. 1, 3, and especially the embodiment of figs. 4-5 and 7-9) can generate a 360 degree range of propulsive thrust (e.g., clear from figures 7-9) around its vertical axis using 360 degree thrusters (e.g., figs. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art discloses SSS can generate thrust for spinning (rotating) itself around its vertical axis (e.g., figs. 4-5, 7-9) to generate gyroscopic stabilization (the structure is capable of performing the functional limitation, insomuch as figures shows the capability of the system to rotate) using 360 degree thrusters (see figures).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art discloses SSS can generate thrust to synchronously spin (rotate) itself and generate propulsive thrust (e.g., figures 7-9 show both conditions which can be controlled) in a 360 degree range around its vertical axis using 360 degree thrusters (see figures).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (US 283,091).
The prior art shows, in at least figure 1, a vessel with a rotationally symmetric wetted surface (i.e., spherical) around its vertical axis (fig. 1 shows the claimed arrangement, where the body of the floating vessel A has a rotationally-symmetric surface at the waterline).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yost (US 2024/0375794).
Yost discloses, in at least figures 5 or 7, a cargo ball (100) with a rotationally-symmetric exterior surface (i.e., a sphere), which includes thrusters (114) and/or engine (122) that are capable of providing spin (e.g., para. 43) and/or thrust (e.g., para. 46) to the mechanism in any desired direction, which thereafter meets the claimed limitations insomuch as the invention of Yost can be placed in any environment, including water, to meet the claimed functionality of a “wetted” surface.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 2,313,295).
The prior art shows, in figures 1-2, a buoyant system including a number of frames A, B, C, which are pivotally connected with each other and a plurality of buoyant rollers F, which performs a gyratory motion, and thereafter meets the claimed limitations.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lundberg (US 4,580,517).
Lundberg discloses a semisubmersible offshore vessel with azimuth thruster propellers that meet the claimed limitations.
No Allowable Subject Matter
Although the entire disclosure is replete with errors, as identified in the body of the rejection above, the Examiner notes that the inventive concept, as best understood, has been thoroughly searched; and that the above-identified prior art encapsulates the disclosure to such a high degree that no allowable subject matter can be identified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 MPEP 2111.01(II): "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.");
Prosecution Insights