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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 21 October 2024. Claims 1-19 and 31 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-19 and 31 are currently amended. Claims 20-30 are cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. SE2250467-4, filed on 19 April 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 October 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 3 has reference characters “116” and “118” should be swapped (See at least: Spec. page 16 of 27 lines 15-20 “starboard side 118” and “port side 116”).
Figs. 9 and 11 have no pointer arrow for reference character “202”.
Fig. 10 is missing reference characters “D, G, E and C”.
Fig. 22 pointer arrow for reference character “528” is incorrect, such that reference characters “528” and “526” both point to the same arm. Reference character “528” should point to the correct part.
Fig. 24 has pointer arrow intersecting the line for reference characters “C” and “D” however reference character “528” is missing on the end of the pointer arrow.
Fig. 27 is not clear that reference characters “C” and “D” is an axis that comes out of the fig. such as a +Z-axis.
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
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 at least: Abstract of 21 October 2024 is 166 words).
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 16 of 27 lines 28-29 recites “the first pivot axis A is transverse to the transverse axis B and to the longitudinal direction 104.” The definition of transverse is (1) acting, lying, or being across: set crosswise or (2) made at right angles to the long axis of the body. It is not clear how the first pivot axis A is transverse to the transverse axis B as at least fig. 2 does not show the two axes in the same plane lying or being across from each other.
Page 20 of 27 lines 10-13 recite “the second pivot axis C crosses the fourth pivot axis E... the third pivot axis D crosses the fifth pivot axis G”. It is not clear in figs. 6-14 that the axis C and E and/or D and G cross each other. Cross as a verb is defined as (1) to lie or be situated across and (2) intersect. Fig. 8 best shows that the axis E and G are offset in the longitudinal direction 104 (they are in a different plane) to that of axis C and D therefore it is not clear how the axis would move to cross with each other without a reference structure or an specific view. Applicant may be referring to Fig. 19 where the image of a front or rear view the axis appears to cross each other. {Examiner notes: Applicant spec. has no clearly defined coordinate system relating to a specific structure of the invention. Instead, Applicant uses various axis that are not in plane to each other nor related to a common coordinate system, causing confusion in the spec. and further in the claim language.}
Page 25 of 27 lines 13-20 is in reference to figs 22-28, however is unclear as base unit 202, centre of effort 222, first strut 206, centre of effort 223 and second strut 208 are not in the figs. listed. The structure is found in at least fig. 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
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 1-19 and 31 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a longitudinal extension” in line 14. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a longitudinal extension” Therefore, it is not clear if “a longitudinal extension” in line 14 is the same or different than that of line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 1 line 4 to recite “a first longitudinal extension” and line 14 to recite “a second longitudinal extension”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the direction” in line 18. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a longitudinal direction”, however this cannot be “the direction” due to line 19 “transverse to the longitudinal direction”. Therefore, “a direction” has not be recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets line 18 to recite at least “a direction”.
Claims 2-19 and 31 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the direction” in line 2. Claim 1 line 18 recites “the direction”. However, claims 1 and 2 do not previously recite “a direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets line 2 be correct as claim 1 is interpreted to recite “a direction”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a direction” twice once in line 2 and line 4. Claim 1 line 18 recites “the direction”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a direction” of claim 5 is the same or different than “the direction” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 5 to recite “the direction” in lines 2 and 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the centre of effort” twice once in line 5 and line 6. Claim 1 and 7 do not previously recite “a centre of effort”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 7 line 5 to recite “a first centre of effort” and line 6 to recite “a second centre of effort”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the direction” in line 2. Claim 1 line 18 recites “the direction”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the direction” of claim 10 is the same or different than “the direction” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 to be correct due to claim 1 Examiner interpretation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the centre of effort” twice once in line 5 and line 6. Claim 1, 8 and 11 do not previously recite “a centre of effort”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 line 5 to recite “a first centre of effort” and line 6 to recite “a second centre of effort”.
The term “crosses” in at least claim 19 is indefinite in view of the spec. and figs. Cross as a verb is defined as (1) to lie or be situated across and (2) intersect. It is not clear in the spec. and figs. that a set of axis does or does not cross due to (1) the axis are imaginary lines drawn in the center of the pivot point and (2) pivot points are on different planes {spaced apart on a horizontal axis (x-axis)} (See at least: spec. objection above for more details). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 19 to recite “the second pivot axis appears to cross the fourth pivot axis on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing when looking at a front or a rear view of the hydrofoil arrangement while the third pivot axis appears to cross the fifth pivot axis on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing when looking at a front or a rear view of the hydrofoil arrangement.”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a longitudinal extension” in line 1. Claim 1 lines 4 and 14 recite “a longitudinal extension”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a longitudinal extension” in claim 31 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 31 to recite “the first longitudinal extension”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a longitudinal direction” in line 2. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a longitudinal direction”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a longitudinal direction” in claim 31 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 31 to recite “the longitudinal direction”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a body” in line 2. Claim 1 line 3 recites “a body”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a body” in claim 31 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 31 to recite “the body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-12, 14-18 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sahlin (US 20120255479 A1) {cited on IDS submitted on 21 October 2024}. See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
1005
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
359
1013
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sahlin discloses a hydrofoil arrangement (hydrofoil arrangement; See at least: figs. 1-18 and abstract) for a hydrofoil watercraft (hydrofoil craft 4; See at least: figs. 1-2), wherein the hydrofoil arrangement comprises
one or more base units (strut mounting units 9, 11 and linking device 16; See at least: figs. 2-3 and 6) attachable to a body (See at least: fig. 2) of the hydrofoil watercraft having a longitudinal extension (See at least: figs. 1-2 which show hydrofoil craft 4 having a length in the forward to aft direction) extending in a longitudinal direction (See at least: figs. 1-2; forward to aft direction as viewed in the figs.),
a lifting wing (lifting wing 6; See at least: figs. 1-8),
a first strut (either of struts 8, 10; See at least: figs. 1-8) attached to the lifting wing (See at least: figs. 1-8), and
a second strut (opposite of either of struts 8, 10 selected above; See at least: figs. 1-8) attached to the lifting wing (See at least: figs. 1-8),
wherein the first strut is pivotally attached (See at least: figs. 1-6 with para. [0034] “the port strut 8 is pivotably attached to the hydrofoil craft 4 at a transversally upwards towards the centre of the hydrofoil craft 4 inclined axis A (see also FIG. 3) and the starboard strut 10 is in a corresponding way pivotably attached to the hydrofoil craft 4 at a transversally upwards towards the centre of the hydrofoil craft 4 inclined axis B (see also FIG. 3), where each strut 8, 10 can pivot relative the hydrofoil craft 4 around the respective pivot axes A and B.” and para. [0035] for a different embodiment) to the base unit and is rotatable in relation to the base unit,
wherein the second strut is pivotally attached (See at least: figs. 1-6 with para. [0034] and para. [0035]) to the base unit and is rotatable in relation to the base unit,
wherein the lifting wing comprises a first end portion (either of port side 21 or starboard side 23; See at least: fig. 6 and a second end portion (opposite of either of port side 21 or starboard side 23 selected above; See at least: fig. 6),
wherein the lifting wing has a longitudinal extension (See at least: figs. 1-6 where lifting wing 6 has a length in the port to starboard direction) extending from the first end portion to the second end portion,
wherein the first and second struts are configured to attach the lifting wing to the base unit such that the longitudinal extension of the lifting wing extends in the direction (See at least: figs. 1-6 which show port to starboard directions) of a transverse axis (See at least: figs. 4 and 5 which both show a dotted line axis labeled with reference characters “A” and “B” at each end, which is viewed as port to starboard) transverse to the longitudinal direction (forward/aft, see above),
wherein the first and second struts and the lifting wing are rotatable about a first pivot axis (“transversal axis”; See at least: fig. 5 where the fig. shows rotation about an imaginary axis that would be in the direction out of the page {+z-axis} when viewing fig. 5 approx. at or about reference character “6” with paras. [0040]-[0041] where para. [0041] recites “This central part 24 of the lifting wing 6 will assume a torsional deflection when the port side 21 and the starboard side 23 of the lifting wing 6 assume angular displacements in opposite directions around a transversal axis...” where the unlabeled transversal axis is “a first pivot axis”, {See Examiner modified figs. 1-2 and 5, below}) in relation to the base unit, the first pivot axis being transverse (up and down; See at least: Examiner modified figs. 1-2 and 5) to the transverse axis (port/starboard) and the longitudinal direction (fwd/aft), and
wherein the first and second struts are configured to rotate about the transverse axis in relation to the base unit while the first and second struts and the lifting wing rotate about the first pivot axis in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 1-8).
PNG
media_image4.png
614
1034
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when subjected to a lateral hydrodynamic force (hydrodynamic forces; See at least: para. [0043] and inherent characteristic {Examiner Rationale: this is an inherent characteristic that hydrodynamic forces will act in different directions as the watercraft moves on/through the water. Additionally, the application’s hydrofoil arrangement and the prior art hydrofoil arrangement are substantially identical and therefore it is understood that both perform the same when operating the watercraft in water.}) in the direction of the transverse axis, the first and second struts are configured to rotate about the transverse axis in relation to the base unit while the first and second struts and the lifting wing rotate about the first pivot axis in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 5-6 which best show this with Examiner modified figs. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the first and second struts are configured to rotate about the transverse axis in relation to the base unit in opposite directions (See at least: figs. 5-6 where fig. 5 best show this movement with Examiner modified figs. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when the first and second struts rotate about the transverse axis in relation to the base unit, the longitudinal extension of the lifting wing is configured to twist about the transverse axis (See at least: figs 7-7a; which best show this movement).
Regarding claim 5, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the first strut is movable in a direction in parallel to the transverse axis (See at least: figs. 4-6 where the combination of the figs.; show a starting condition of fig. 4 and a movement direction in figs 5-6 of struts 8, 10 in directional vectors that include movement parallel to the transvers axis), and
wherein the second strut is movable in a direction in parallel to the transverse axis (See at least: figs. 4-6 where the combination of the figs.; show a starting condition of fig. 4 and a movement direction in figs 5-6 of struts 8, 10 in directional vectors that include movement parallel to the transvers axis).
Regarding claim 6, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the first strut is fixedly attached to the lifting wing (See at least: fig. 7a which is shown as fixed along with the combination of fig. 9 and para. [0023] “FIG. 9 shows schematically a partly sectioned back view according to a second embodiment of the invention, where one lifting wing is solidly attached on each strut”, where solidly attached is interpreted to include fixed), and
wherein the second strut is fixedly attached to the lifting wing (See at least: fig. 7a which is shown as fixed along with the combination of fig. 9 and para. [0023] “FIG. 9 shows schematically a partly sectioned back view according to a second embodiment of the invention, where one lifting wing is solidly attached on each strut”, where solidly attached is interpreted to include fixed).
Regarding claim 7, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the hydrofoil watercraft is configured to travel in a forward direction (general forward travel direction F; See at least: fig.8), and
wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the first pivot axis is positioned in front of the centre of effort of the first strut (either one of centre of effort 12, 14; See at least: figs. 2 and 8) and in front of the centre of effort of the second strut (the opposite of either centre of effort 12, 14 selected above; See at least: figs. 2 and 8) in the forward direction.
Regarding claim 8, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the first strut is rotatable about a second pivot axis (either of pivot axes A and B; See at least: figs. 1-8) in relation to the base unit, and
wherein the second strut is rotatable about a third pivot axis (opposite of either of pivot axes A and B selected above; See at least: figs. 1-8) in relation to the base unit.
Regarding claim 9, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the second pivot axis is unparallel to the third pivot axis (See at least: figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “B” are not parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 10, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when subjected to a lateral hydrodynamic force (hydrodynamic forces; See at least: para. [0043] and inherent characteristic {Examiner Rationale: this is an inherent characteristic that hydrodynamic forces will act in different directions as the watercraft moves on/through the water. Additionally, the application’s hydrofoil arrangement and the prior art hydrofoil arrangement are substantially identical and therefore it is understood that both perform the same when operating the watercraft in water.}) in the direction of the transverse axis, the first and second struts are configured to rotate about the transverse axis in relation to the base unit the first and second struts and the lifting wing rotate about the first pivot axis in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 5-6 which best show this with Examiner modified figs. 1-2 and 5), while the first strut rotates about the second pivot axis in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 5-6), and while the second strut rotates about the third pivot axis in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the hydrofoil watercraft is configured to travel in a forward direction (general forward travel direction F; See at least: fig. 8), and
wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the second and third pivot axes are positioned in front of the centre of effort of the first strut (either of centre of effort 12, 14; See at least: figs. 2 and 8) and in front of the centre of effort of the second strut (the opposite of either centre of effort 12, 14 selected above; See at least: figs. 2 and 8) in the forward direction.
Regarding claim 12, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the hydrofoil arrangement comprises a first support arm (See at least: fig. 4 where transverse arms {port/starboard direction} are shown linking respective strut mounting units 9, 11 to respective struts 8, 10) attaching the first strut to the base unit wherein the hydrofoil arrangement comprises a second support arm (See at least: fig. 4 where transverse arms {port/starboard direction} are shown linking respective strut mounting units 9, 11 to respective struts 8, 10) attaching the second strut to the base unit,
wherein the first support arm is pivotally attached to the base unit and is rotatable in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 4-5 showing the pivoting movement), and
wherein the second support arm is pivotally attached to the base unit and is rotatable in relation to the base unit (See at least: figs. 4-5 showing the pivoting movement).
Regarding claim 14, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) crosses the third pivot axis (“B” or “A”) above one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing (See at least: figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “B” appear to cross in the figs. above the lifting wing 6).
Regarding claim 15, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) crosses the third pivot axis (“B” or “A”) above the base unit (See at least: figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “B” appear to cross in the figs. above respective strut mounting units 9, 11 and linking device 16).
Regarding claim 16, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) is transverse (The definition of transverse is (1) acting, lying, or being across: set crosswise or (2) made at right angles to the long axis of the body) to the transverse axis and the longitudinal direction (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the directions forward to aft and figs. 4-5 “AB” axis are all viewed as being transverse to “A” or “B” in the first definition; {Examiner notes: the second definition requires a right angle where at least figs. 3 and 6 do not show a right angle}), and
wherein the third pivot axis (“B” or “A”) is transverse to the transverse axis and the longitudinal direction (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the directions forward to aft and figs. 4-5 “AB” axis are all viewed as being transverse to “B” or “A” in the first definition; {Examiner notes: the second definition requires a right angle where at least figs. 3 and 6 do not show a right angle}).
Regarding claim 17, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) is unparallel to the transverse axis and the longitudinal direction (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the directions forward to aft and figs. 4-5 “AB” axis are all viewed as not parallel to “A” or “B”), and
wherein the third pivot axis (“B” or “A”) is unparallel to the transverse axis and the longitudinal direction (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the directions forward to aft and figs. 4-5 “AB” axis are all viewed as not parallel to “B” or “A”).
Regarding claim 18, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein the first strut is rotatable about a fourth pivot axis (either of pivot axes C, D; See at least: figs. 2-3 and 5-8) in relation to the base unit, and
wherein the second strut is rotatable about a fifth pivot axis (opposite of pivot axes C, D selected above; See at least: figs. 2-3 and 5-8) in relation to the base unit.
Regarding claim 31, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses the hydrofoil watercraft having a longitudinal extension extending in a longitudinal direction, wherein the hydrofoil watercraft comprises a body and one or more hydrofoil arrangements (See at least: figs. 1-18) according to claim 1 (See at least: Rejection above for at least claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahlin (US 20120255479 A1) {cited on IDS submitted on 21 October 2024}.
Regarding claim 14, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) crosses the third pivot axis (“B” or “A”) on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing (See at least: para. [0035] alternate embodiment with figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “C” inversed per the alternate embodiment of para. [0035] would cross below at least mounting units 9, 11; See at least Examiner modified fig. 3 below showing axis A’ and B’).
PNG
media_image5.png
433
511
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sahlin does not explicitly disclose on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing. However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed simple dimensional changes of length or spacing of the structure shown in figs. 3 and 6 of Sahlin to achieve the claimed feature. Applicant has not disclosed that a specific arrangement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with dimensional changes of length or spacing because the watercraft can vary in size such that the hydrofoil arrangement would be sized for the specific watercraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the embodiment of para. [0035] of Sahlin to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 19, Sahlin discloses all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Additionally, Sahlin discloses wherein when the base unit is attached to the body of the hydrofoil watercraft the second pivot axis (“A” or “B”) crosses the fourth pivot axis (“C” or “D”) on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing (See at least: figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “C” or “B” and “D” are viewed as crossing in a fwd or rear view above figs. 4-5 axis “AB” and the lifting wing 6) while the third pivot axis (“B” or “C”) crosses the fifth pivot axis (“D” or “C”) on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing (See at least: figs. 3 and 6 where “A” and “C” or “B” and “D” are viewed as crossing in a forward or rear view above figs. 4-5 axis “AB” and the lifting wing 6).
Sahlin does not explicitly disclose on the level of or below one or more of the transverse axis and longitudinal extension of the lifting wing. However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed simple dimensional changes of length or spacing of the structure shown in figs. 3 and 6 of Sahlin to achieve the claimed feature. Applicant has not disclosed that a specific arrangement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with dimensional changes of length or spacing because the watercraft can vary in size such that the hydrofoil arrangement would be sized for the specific watercraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the structure shown in figs. 3 and 6 of Sahlin to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (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 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights