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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eveleth (US 20130247807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eveleth discloses:
a kit for installing hydrofoils for a boat, the boat comprising at least two hulls connected to one another by at least one connecting arm , the at least one connecting arm forming at least one structural element (as Eveleth discloses that the invention may be applied to a catamaran in paragraph 112, and the catamaran includes two hulls connected by structural cross members),
the kit for installing hydrofoils comprising:
at least one support block intended to be attached to the at least one structural element (as disclosed by the outer apparatus portions Figure 1, 1-2, 1-3, which are secured to the structural element and provide support for the hydrofoil mounting assembly),
at least two hydrofoil arms, each having a hydrofoil intended to be at least partially submerged (Figure 1, 1-4, 1-5),
wherein the at least one support block comprises:
at least one adapter part shaped to interact with the structural element and to be attached to the latter (as disclosed by the inner portions of the apparatus in Figure 1, 1-2. 1-3, which conform to and engage the structural element, thereby functioning as an adapter between the structural element and the hydrofoil mounting plate),
the adapter part providing a reference plane for the hydrofoil arm(s), a plate on which at least one of the at least two hydrofoil arms is intended to be mounted (Figure 1, 1-6),
the plate being capable of being mounted on the at least one adapter part along the reference plane (Figure 1, 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Eveleth discloses;
A method for equipping a boat with a kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, the boat comprising at least one structural element (as Eveleth discloses that the invention may be applied to a catamaran in paragraph 112, and the catamaran includes two hulls connected by structural cross members),
the equipping method comprising the following steps:
attaching at least one adapter part to the structural element (as disclosed by the inner portions of the apparatus in Figure 1, 1-2. 1-3, which conform to and engage the structural element, thereby functioning as an adapter between the structural element and the hydrofoil mounting plate),
attaching at least one plate to the at least one adapter part along the reference plane (Figure 1, 1-6),
the adapter part and the plate participating in the formation of at least one support block (as disclosed by the outer apparatus portions Figure 1, 1-2, 1-3, which are secured to the structural element and provide support for the hydrofoil mounting assembly),
mounting the hydrofoil arms on the plate(s) (Figure 1, 1-4, 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Eveleth discloses the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one adapter part has a longitudinal housing shaped to receive a portion of the connecting arm forming the support element (Figure 3, hydrofoil holder).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 12-13,17-19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleth in view of Atwood ( US 2200250 A) and Simard et al. ( US 20010027739 A1, hereafter Simard).
Regarding claim 2, Eveleth teaches the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, wherein each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms is mounted on the corresponding plate.
However, Eveleth does not teach using at least a first and a second ball joint arranged on either side of the hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms with at least one of the at least first and the second ball joints mounted movably in translation relative to the plate.
Atwood teaches a hinge system comprising first and second ball and socket joints positioned on opposite sides of a hinged member, wherein the ball and socket joints provide multi-axis angular movement between connected member (Figure 1-12).
Simard teaches a hydrofoil/rudder mounting arrangement in which the hydrofoil is mounted for vertical translational movement relative to the supporting structure, thereby permitting movement between raised and lowered positions (Fig 5, 11; paragraphs 70-80).
PNG
media_image2.png
619
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
463
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil mounting assembly by incorporating the ball and socket joints as taught by Atwood and vertically translatable mounting arrangement as taught by Simard in order to provide a hydrofoil mounting having increased freedom of movement, including universal angular adjustment and vertical translational adjustment, thereby facilitating installation, alignment, and operational adjustment of the hydrofoil while maintaining a secure pivotal connection.
Regarding claim 3, Eveleth does not teach the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least first and second ball joints for each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms are both movable in translation relative to the plate.
Atwood teaches a hinge system comprising first and second ball and socket joints positioned on opposite sides of a hinged member, wherein the ball and socket joints provide multi-axis angular movement between connected member (Figure 1-12).
Simard teaches a hydrofoil/rudder mounting arrangement in which the hydrofoil is mounted for vertical translational movement relative to the supporting structure, thereby permitting movement between raised and lowered positions (Fig 5, 11; paragraphs 70-80). Since the supported assembly translates as a unit, all mounting joints associated with the assembly undergo the same translational movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil mounting assembly by incorporating the ball and socket joints as taught by Atwood and vertically translatable mounting arrangement as taught by Simard such that both the first and second ball joints are movable in translation relative to the plate, in order to provide a hydrofoil mounting having increased freedom of movement, including universal angular adjustment and vertical translational adjustment, thereby facilitating installation, alignment, and operational adjustment of the hydrofoil while maintaining a secure pivotal connection.
Regarding claim 5, Eveleth teaches;
wherein the kit for installing hydrofoils further includes, for each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms, a complementary support for said hydrofoil arm on the boat on which the hydrofoil arm is mounted by means of a sliding pivot connection (Figure 3, 3-4, 3-5).
PNG
media_image4.png
613
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Eveleth does not teach;
The kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 3, wherein, for each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms, the at least first and second ball joints equip an end of said hydrofoil arm which has no hydrofoil, the at least first and second ball joints defining together an axis of pivoting of the hydrofoil arm with respect to the structural element.
Atwood teaches a hinge system comprising first and second ball and socket joints positioned on opposite sides of a hinged member, wherein the ball and socket joints support the hinged member and collectively define a pivot axis about which the hinged member pivots while permitting multi-axis angular movement between connected members provide multi-axis angular movement between connected member (Figure 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil mounting assembly by incorporating the ball and socket joints as taught by Atwood such that the first and second ball joints are positioned at an end of the hydrofoil arm opposite the hydrofoil and together define an axis of pivoting of the hydrofoil arm with respect to the structural element, in order to provide a hydrofoil mounting having increased angular freedom of movement while maintaining a secure pivotal connection and facilitating adjustment of the hydrofoil during installation and operation.
Regarding claim 12, Eveleth teaches the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 5, wherein the sliding pivot connection is removable (Figure 3, hydrofoil holder).
Regarding claim 13, Eveleth, Atwood and Simard teach the invention as claimed in claim 5, except for wherein the sliding pivot connection is provided by a strap. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a strap for the ball joint sliding pivot connection, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Eveleth teaches:
A kit for installing hydrofoils for a boat, the kit for installing hydrofoils comprising:
at least one support block intended to be attached to the at least one structural element(as disclosed by the outer apparatus portions Figure 1, 1-2, 1-3, which are secured to the structural element and provide support for the hydrofoil mounting assembly),
at least two hydrofoil arms, each having a hydrofoil intended to be at least partially submerged (Figure 1, 1-4, 1-5),
wherein the at least one support block comprises:
at least one adapter part shaped to interact with the structural element and to be attached to the latter element (as disclosed by the inner portions of the apparatus in Figure 1, 1-2. 1-3, which conform to and engage the structural element, thereby functioning as an adapter between the structural element and the hydrofoil mounting plate),
the adapter part providing a reference plane for the hydrofoil arm(s)(Figure 1, 1-6),
a plate on which at least one of the at least two hydrofoil arms is intended to be mounted (Figure 1, 1-6),
However, Eveleth does not teach wherein each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms is mounted on the corresponding plate using at least a first and a second ball joint arranged on either side of the hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms with at least one of the at least first and the second ball joints mounted movably in translation relative to the plate.
Atwood teaches a hinge system comprising first and second ball and socket joints positioned on opposite sides of a hinged member, wherein the ball and socket joints provide multi-axis angular movement between connected member (Figure 1-12).
Simard teaches a hydrofoil/rudder mounting arrangement in which the hydrofoil is mounted for vertical translational movement relative to the supporting structure, thereby permitting movement between raised and lowered positions (Fig 5, 11; paragraphs 70-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil mounting assembly by incorporating the ball and socket joints as taught by Atwood and vertically translatable mounting arrangement as taught by Simard in order to provide a hydrofoil mounting having increased freedom of movement, including universal angular adjustment and vertical translational adjustment, thereby facilitating installation, alignment, and operational adjustment of the hydrofoil while maintaining a secure pivotal connection.
Regarding claim 18, Eveleth teaches;
The kit for installing hydrofoils for a boat according to claim 17, wherein the kit for installing hydrofoils is for a boat monohull boat that comprises a deck and a hull (Figure 1, 1-1, 1-7),
the structural element comprising at least the deck of the boat (Figure 1, 1-2, 1-3),
the adapter part having a bearing surface complementary to a portion of the deck of the boat on which it is intended to bear. The adapter portions of holders which are configured to engage and bear against the deck to support the hydrofoil mounting assembly. The surface of the adapter portions that interfaces with and bears against the deck constitutes the claimed bearing surface complementary to the portion of the deck on which it is intended to bear (Figure 1, 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
661
619
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Eveleth, Atwood and Simard teach the invention as claimed in claim 18, except for the kit for installing hydrofoils for a boat according to claim 18, wherein one out of the adapter part and the plate comprises a strap passage to allow the passage of a strap surrounding the hull in order to attach the support block to the deck. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a strap and corresponding strap passage for the ball joint attachment arrangement, 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).
Regarding claim 20, Eveleth teaches;
The kit for installing hydrofoils for a boat according to claim 17, the kit for installing hydrofoils is for a boat comprising at least two hulls connected to one another by at least one connecting arm, the at least one connecting arm forming at least one structural element (as Eveleth discloses that the invention may be applied to a catamaran in paragraph 112, and the catamaran includes two hulls connected by structural cross members).
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleth in view of Atwood.
Regarding claim 6, Eveleth teaches
The kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, wherein each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms is mounted on the corresponding plate which the hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms is mounted by means of a sliding pivot connection (Figure 3, 3-4, 3-5).
Eveleth does not teach the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, using a ball joint and wherein there is further provided a complementary support for each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms on the boat.
Atwood teaches a hinge system comprising first and second ball and socket joints positioned on opposite sides of a hinged member, wherein the ball and socket joints support the hinged member and collectively define a pivot axis about which the hinged member pivots while permitting multi-axis angular movement between connected members provide multi-axis angular movement between connected member (Figure 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil mounting assembly by incorporating the ball and socket joints as taught by Atwood such that each hydrofoil arm is mounted by a ball joint and further supported by the corresponding ball and socket joint structure, in order to provide increased angular freedom of movement while maintaining stable support of the hydrofoil arm, thereby facilitating adjustment during installation and operation.
Regarding claim 7, Eveleth teaches the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 6, wherein an inclination adjustment system is further provided for each hydrofoil arm of the at least two hydrofoil arms (Figure 2c, 2c-4).
PNG
media_image6.png
663
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Eveleth teaches the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 6, wherein the sliding pivot connection is removable (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Eveleth and Atwood teach the claimed invention except for the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 7, wherein the sliding pivot connection is provided by a strap.
It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a strap as the sliding pivot connection in place of the ball joint sliding pivot connection , 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).
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleth in view of Enzmann (EP 2516246 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Eveleth does not teach the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one rudder blade having an additional hydrofoil.
Enzmann teaches a tail rudder (Figure 2, 22) having an additional hydrofoil (Figure 2, 220) mounted thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil equipped watercraft to further include a rudder blade having an additional hydrofoil , as taught by Enzmann, in order to provide additional hydrodynamic lift and improve the handing, steering performance, stability , and control of the watercraft.
Regarding claim 16, Eveleth does not teach the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 8 wherein the additional hydrofoil of the of the at least one rudder blade is a T-shaped hydrofoil.
Enzmann teaches a watercraft including T-bearing surfaces mounted to vertically extending support members wherein the T-bearing surfaces define T-shaped hydrofoils configured to provide hydrodynamic lift and stabilize the watercraft (Abstract; Figure 3, 220, 240, 242, 244, 260, 262, 264).
PNG
media_image7.png
625
698
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention’s effective filling date, to modify the hydrofoil sailboat of Eveleth, as modified by Hackney, by providing the additional hydrofoil on the rudder blade in the form of the T-shaped hydrofoil as taught by Enzmann, in order to increase hydrodynamic lift, improve stability and control of the watercraft, and enhance the efficiency of the hydrofoil system while maintaining stable operation of the watercraft.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleth in view of Hackney (US 4218986 A) and Enzmann.
Regarding claim 9, Eveleth and Enzmann do not teach the kit for installing hydrofoils as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a mounting system for mounting the at least one rudder blade on the boat, the mounting system comprising:
a first and a second mounting elements rotatable on the hull of the boat about a common rudder axis,
the second mounting element (being intended to be arranged along the rudder axis below the first mounting element when the boat is afloat,
the first mounting element having a pivot axis along which the rudder blade is intended to pivot, the pivot axis being transverse to the rudder axis, and in that the second mounting element is intended to be assembled to one out of the rudder blade and the hull by elastic interlocking.
Hackney teaches:
a first and a second mounting elements rotatable on the hull of the boat about a common rudder axis (Figure 1, 16, 20),
the second mounting element (being intended to be arranged along the rudder axis below the first mounting element when the boat is afloat (Figure 1, 16, 20),
the first mounting element having a pivot axis along which the rudder blade is intended to pivot, the pivot axis being transverse to the rudder axis, and in that the second mounting element is intended to be assembled to one out of the rudder blade and the hull by elastic interlocking (Figure 1, 10, 26; Col. 2, lines 3-45).
PNG
media_image8.png
663
436
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention’s effective filling date, to modify Eveleth’s hydrofoil sailboat by incorporating the rudder mounting system as taught by Hackney such that the rudder blade is mounted to the hull by first and second mounting elements defining a common axis and a transverse pivot axis, in order to provide a reliable and pivotable rudder mounting that facilitates steering control, allows the rudder to pivot when encountering underwater obstructions, and improves the durability and operability of the hydrofoil equipped watercraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the kit for installing hydrofoils adjustment system comprising “ and two gears meshed together and rotating as one with the first and second ball joints, respectively.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is indicated allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0117. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights