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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50-150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed elements must be clearly identified in the figures or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The ends of the wing plates configured to extend out of two sides of the ship body as claimed in claim 1
the vertical slide rails (are they in Figure 1 without an item number?)
please distinguish between each hydraulic cylinder and each respective piston rod (e.g., 5, 5a, 7, 7a)
the transverse supports of claim 3 (possibly in Figure 1, please provide item number)
first hydraulic cylinders and second hydraulic cylinders (specifically a figure depicting more than two hydraulic cylinders does not appear to be included in the figures)
the hinge point in claim 3
steel wire ropes of claim 4
The office notes it appears the swinging wing plate is in a window of the vessel in Fig. 4; clearer drawings are suggested.
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 the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP §608.01(m). An example will be provided in the rejections section. Please amend the claims with indentations accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Please amend each of the claims to conform with standard U.S. claim practice.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in the final line “ends of the wing plates extend pout of two sides of the ship body). The office best understands claim 1 to recite the structure comprises a portal arranged on the ship body (3, Fig. 1 and 4) with vertical slide rails on two sides of the portal (i.e., two vertical slide rails), slide plates on the front of the vertical slide rails configured to slide thereon (two of them – items 4 and 11, Fig. 4), a first hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod, said cylinder arranged on the portal with the piston rod connected to the plurality of side plates (cylinder with piston 5, Figure 4) and a wing plate (3, Fig. 1 and 4), wherein the wing plate extends out of the side of the ship body (Figs. 1 and 4).
The claim is indefinite because more than one hydraulic cylinder is claimed, and more than one wing plate is claimed. It appears to be in error and related to the foreign translation as stated above.
More specifically it is indefinite as it is unclear how exactly one wing plate, particularly wing plate 6 in the figures, can extend out of two sides of the ship body (see Figure 4 for example).
Claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiency. Correction/clarification is required. Applicant is required to review all the claims for similar discrepancies (e.g., plural vs. singular, etc.) and correct them.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (CN 105857541A).
Regarding claim 8, Cao discloses a ship body (the office notes the main body of the ship illustrated best in figures 1 and 3-4 of Cao including at least the hull 1), provided with a swinging wing plate structure for providing buoyancy for the ship body (wing 2).
Regarding claim 9, Cao discloses the ship body according to claim 8, comprising:
a ship main body (figures 1, 3-4), wherein the ship main body is provided with vertical structures on two sides (two sides of the hull as is evidenced by line 4 of page 3 of the attached translation of Cao) and inclined plates in front and rear (best seen in figures 1, 3-4, the office notes the front and rear of the ship),
two ends of the vertical structures on the two sides extend out of the inclined plates in the front and rear of the ship main body (figures 1, 3-4),
lower ends of the vertical structures extend out of a bottom of the ship main body (figures 1, 3-4),
accommodating grooves are provided on the two sides of the ship main body (groove 6, at least fig. 3), wherein the wing plate structures are arranged in the accommodating grooves (a groove 6 may be respectively disposed on both sides of the hull 2 for storing the wing 2, see page 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, and Krammer et al. (US 12,606,274), hereinafter Krammer.
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a swinging wing plate structure for providing buoyancy for a ship body, comprising:
a portal arranged on the ship body (the office notes the portal(s) on the sides of the hull wherein support 3 is arranged), wherein two sides of the portal are provided with vertical slide rails (two-pins 4-1 of support 3, Figs. 1 and 3),
slide plates are slidably connected to front surfaces of the vertical slide rails (annotated Fig. 3 below; free to slide, page 3)
first push-pull devices are arranged on the portal (the office notes push-pull rod 4-2 for each portal on each side of the hull; Fig. 3),
wherein the first push-pull devices are connected to the slide plates (via 4 and 4-1; see annotated Figure 3 below),
the slide plates are provided with wing plates (wing(s) 2), and
ends of the wing plates extend out of two sides of the ship body (the wing 2 can be… opened to an approximately T-shaped position with the hull 1 when in use).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cao does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the push-pull device is specifically a hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod. However, Krammer teaches a push-pull device configured to automatically move the deck of a ship hull between a raised position and a lowered position, specifically comprising a hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the push-pull rod of Cao with the hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod, as taught by Krammer, with a reasonable expectation of success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). The motivation for the hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod would be the predictable outcome of powered and controlled movement via hydraulic actuation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cao discloses the swinging wing plate structure for providing buoyancy for a ship body according to claim 1, wherein:
the slide plates comprise first slide plates and second slide plates (annotated Figure 3 above),
the first slide plates are fixedly connected to the second slide plates correspondingly (via 4 and 4-1; at least Figure 3), and
the piston rods of the first hydraulic cylinders are connected to the first slide plates (the office notes 4-2 is connected to the first slide plate and the second slide plate, at least Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention. Specifically, Cao teaches the wing plates movably connected to the second slide plates (via rotation and push-pull actuation; page 3), a connection structure that is a connection frame hinged to the second slide plates and the wing plates connected to the connection frame (support 3, at least Fig. 3), but the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically a plurality of transverse supports and a second hydraulic cylinder or a pair of second hydraulic cylinders comprising a piston rod/piston rods, wherein the transverse supports are connected to the first slide plates, the second hydraulic cylinder(s) is/are hinged to the transverse supports, and the piston rod of the second hydraulic cylinder is hinged to the wing plates.
Additionally, CN 112519952A, cited by Applicant, teaches an adjustable T-type hydrofoil stealth composite vessel, and correspondingly a swinging hydrofoil structure to provide hull buoyancy extending beneath the ship from the bottom of the ship body comprising a vertical slide (guide column 36) with a hydraulic cylinder and piston rod connected to a wing plate (plate 6 and working box 4 with cylinder 67 having flange plate 39) provided with wing plates that extend out from the hull (extending hydrofoils 2), a slide plate (mounting base plate 6), transverse supports (webbing of hydraulic cylinder), a second hydraulic cylinder (27), but the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically a portal arranged on the ship body wherein a plurality of vertical slide rails are provided with slide plates slidably connected specifically to the front surfaces of the slide rails, and wherein the transverse supports are connected to the first slide plates, the second hydraulic cylinder(s) is/are hinged to the transverse supports, and the piston rod of the second hydraulic cylinder is hinged to the wing plates. The specifically claimed arrangement would require hindsight reconstruction, particularly rearranging the parts so that the wing plates extend out of two sides of the ship body as in Applicants figures, particularly from portals arranged on the sides of the ship body (figures 4-5).
Likewise, JP2002316687, cited by Applicant teaches a hydrofoil device for a ship which is attached to a portal in a hull for providing buoyancy for a ship body, comprising:
a swinging wing plate structure for providing buoyancy for a ship body (Fig. 3), comprising:
a portal arranged on the ship body (the office notes the portal arranged on the hull, Fig. 3), wherein two sides of the portal are provided with vertical slide rails (left and right guide rails 23, Fig. 3),
a slide plate is slidably connected to front surfaces of the vertical slide rails (lifting body 13, Fig. 3)
a first transmission mechanism is arranged on the portal and connected to the slide plates (Figure 3),
the slide plates are provided with wing plates wherein the ends of the wing plates extend out of two sides of the ship body (hydrofoil 17, Fig. 3), but the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically a first and second slide plate, fixedly connected, wherein the first transmission mechanism is specifically a hydraulic cylinder with a piston rod, wherein the piston rod is connected to the first slide plate and the structure further comprises a plurality of transverse supports and a second hydraulic cylinder or a pair of second hydraulic cylinders comprising a piston rod/piston rods, wherein the transverse supports are connected to the first slide plates, the second hydraulic cylinder(s) is/are hinged to the transverse supports, and the piston rod of the second hydraulic cylinder is hinged to the wing plates. The specifically claimed arrangement comprising a plurality of hydraulic cylinders and transverse supports as the actuation arrangement for the system and transmission mechanism for the wing plates would be beyond an obvious modification and/or substitution of parts because it would require hindsight reasoning in order to be beneficial. In particular, substituting the actuation arrangement taught in the prior art with the plurality of hydraulic cylinders and transverse supports as a transmission mechanism for the wing plates of the invention and rearranging the particular parts of the frame of the invention so that they are in working order with the transmission mechanism and also including in the arrangement the wing plates extending out of two sides of the ship body as in Applicants figures, (i.e., from portals arranged on the sides of the ship body as in figures 4-5).
Zhao Yang (CN 113400871 A), cited by applicant, hereinafter Yang teaches a swinging wing plate structure for providing buoyancy for a ship body (Fig. 1 with hydrofoil wing plate 1)), first hydraulic cylinders (10 or 7) arranged directly on the wing plate (1), and ends of the wing plates extend out of two sides of the ship body (page 3 of translation: The present invention is composed of two sets of "hydrofoil devices" as described above, and they are arranged in a symmetrical manner on the preset positions on both sides of the lower rear part of the vehicle body in an orderly manner), a connection structure is a connection frame (connection seat 4) is hinged (hinge assembly 2), the wing plates connected to the connection frame (4 and 1), there are transverse supports (B and C), a second hydraulic cylinders (the other cylinder of 7 and 10) is hinged to the transverse supports (support C or support B accordingly), and piston rods of the second hydraulic cylinder is hinged to the wing plate (rods of either cylinder 10 or cylinder 7), but Yang does not include in the teaching a portal arranged on the ship body or slide rails or slide plates.
Modifying Yang to include a portal on the watercraft and to include slide rails and slide plates in the assembly would require rearranging Yang so that two sides of the portal are provided with the vertical slide rails are included on two sides of the portal, the slide plates are slidably connected to front surfaces of the vertical slide rails, the piston rods of the first hydraulic cylinders are connected to the slide plates, the slide plates then connect to the wing plates, and wherein the connection frame is hinged to a second slide plate of the slide plates and the transverse supports are connected to a first slide plate of the slide plate. Such a detailed rearrangement would require a hindsight understanding of the assembly in order to construct Yang in a working manner. Further, the rearrangement of parts of Yang would destroy the inventors intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lord (US 484,503) teaches a ship with side wings or buoys (D). Norman, Jr. (US 3,648,641) teaches an automatic wing stabilizer for boats that is hinged and hangs down substantially parallel to the side of the boat but when the boat is moving at a minimum speed and there above, the stabilizer automatically swings upwardly and outwardly on the top of the water line. Ligozio (US 5,404,830) and Adams (3,545,399) each teach retractable wings/swing wings in pockets on the sides of the hull that are deployed to control pitch at high speeds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights