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 § 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 19 recites a force transfer mechanism, an electrical signal transmission mechanism, and a fluid transport mechanism. However, the specification does not adequately disclose the fluid transport mechanism or how all three mechanisms are configured to operate together. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and use the claimed arrangement without undue experimentation.
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.
Claims 17, 19-20, 27, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hobday (US 3354857 A).
Regarding claim 17, Hobday discloses a foil assembly for hydrofoil, the foil assembly comprising:
a mast having a first cavity (Figure 5, 4);
a foil (Figure 5, 22, 23);
and a connector having a T-shaped configuration (Figure 5, connector structure formed at the lower portion of strut (4) and extending laterally toward hydrofoil wing sections 22, 23) that comprises;
a first connector part coupled to the foil (Figure 5, circular structure 26 coupled toward hydrofoil wing sections 22, 23);
and a second connector part coupled to the mast (Figure 5, connector portion associated with elements ( end of strut 4), the connector having a second cavity that opens into the first cavity to collectively form a chamber for housing hydrofoil operational elements(Figure 5, recessed/internal region show around circular structure 26, communicating with the hollow/internal region of strut 4 and accommodating control rods 24, 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For purposes of examination and the prior art rejection below, claim 19 is interpreted as reciting the force transfer mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, Hobday discloses:
The foil assembly of claim 17, wherein the hydrofoil operational elements comprise a force transfer mechanism (24,25), an electrical signal transmission mechanism, and a fluid transport mechanism (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20, Hobday discloses:
The foil assembly of claim 17, wherein the hydrofoil operational elements comprise a control device for controlling a tilt of a fin connected to a lever (Figure 6, control mechanism 46, including circular plate 27 and the forward portion of dashed line structure functioning as a lever; control rods 24, 25 controlling the angular position/tilt of the hydrofoil).
PNG
media_image2.png
757
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Hobday discloses:
The foil assembly of claim 17, wherein the first connector part (circular structure 26) is mounted in a recess on the foil such that a surface of the foil (hydrofoil wing sections, (22, 23) and a visible surface of the first connector (26) part form an assembly (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 31, Hobday discloses a connector for a hydrofoil foil assembly:
a foil (Figure 5, 22, 23);
a mast (Figure 5, 4);
a first connector part coupled to the foil (Figure 5, circular structure 26 coupled toward hydrofoil wing sections 22, 23);
a second connector part coupled to the mast (Figure 5, connector portion associated with the lower end of strut 4);
and a connector cavity that opens into a longitudinal cavity of the mast to collectively form a chamber for housing hydrofoil operational elements (Figure 5, recessed/internal region show around circular structure 26, communicating with the hollow/internal region of strut 4 and accommodating control rods 24, 25).
Regarding claim 32, Hobday discloses a hydrofoil comprising a foil assembly that includes:
a mast having a first cavity (Figure 5, 4);
a foil (Figure 5, 22, 23);
and a connector having a T-shaped configuration (Figure 5, connector structure formed at the lower portion of strut (4) and extending laterally toward hydrofoil wing sections 22, 23) that comprises;
a first connector part coupled to the foil (Figure 5, circular structure 26 coupled toward hydrofoil wing sections 22, 23);
and a second connector part coupled to the mast (Figure 5, connector portion associated with the lower end of strut 4), the connector having a second cavity that opens into the first cavity to collectively form a chamber for housing hydrofoil operational elements(Figure 5, recessed/internal region show around circular structure 26, communicating with the hollow/internal region of strut 4 and accommodating control rods 24, 25).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday in view of Lobisser (US 20170355429 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hobday does not teach:
the foil assembly of claim 17, wherein the mast comprises a hollow body having a plurality of spars separating the hollow body into a plurality of chambers, one chamber in the plurality of chambers forming the first cavity.
Lobisser illustrates known prior art hydrofoil structures comprising:
a hollow body having a plurality of spars (11a, 11b) separating the hollow body into a plurality of chambers (17), wherein one of the plurality of chambers forms a cavity (Figures, 1C).
PNG
media_image3.png
616
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention’s effective filling date to modify the hollow mast of Hobday to incorporate the known prior art multi-chamber structure illustrated by Lobisser, in order to provide internal structural support while providing separate internal spaces for accommodating components within the mast.
Claims 21, 22-24, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday.
Regarding claim 21, Hobday discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the lever arm having a length that is between 50% and 100% of the chord of the find. 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 length of Hobday’s lever arm to between 50% and 100% of the chord of find to provide a lever arm of sufficient length to transmit the control force to the fin and control the angular position thereof, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Hobday teaches:
the foil assembly of claim 21, wherein the lever is at least partially housed in the chamber (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 23, Hobday teaches:
the foil assembly of claim 22, wherein the control device comprises a connecting rod (24) having a lower end (28) operatively connected to the lever associated with the foil and an upper end (28’) connected to a control mechanism (27), wherein movement of the control rod provides translational movement along a substantially vertical axis to control the angular position of the foil (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 24, Hobday discloses:
The foil assembly of claim 23, wherein the lever arm is arranged forward of the pivot axis of the fin, such that movement of the connecting rod (24, 25) applies a pulling force to the lever arm during deflection of the fin, thereby enabling the connecti9ng rod to operate in traction (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 28, Hobday discloses the claimed invention except for the connector is formed of monolithic titanium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to form Hobday’s connector of monolithic titanium in order to provide a strong and corrosion resistant connector suitable for use in a marine environment, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 29, Hobday discloses the claimed invention except for a surface area of the chamber in any transverse section plane of the mast is greater than 4800 mm2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to increase the cross-sectional size of Hobday’s chamber to provide a surface area greater than 4800mm2, in order to provide sufficient internal space for accommodating the hydrofoil operational elements, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 30, Hobday discloses the claimed invention except for a surface area of the chamber is greater than or equal to 45% of a total surface area occupied by the mast on any transverse section plane of the mast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to increase the cross-sectional size of Hobday’s chamber to occupy at least 45% of the total cross-sectional area of the mast, in order to provide sufficient internal space for accommodating the hydrofoil operational elements, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday in view of Stephenson (US 4995575 A).
Regarding claim 25, Hobday does not teach:
the foil assembly of claim 24, wherein the translational movement mechanism comprises a carriage movable on a rail and a ball screw to move the carriage.
Stephenson teaches:
a translational movement mechanism comprising a carriage assembly (20) movable along a guide structure and a ball screw drive mechanism (42), including ball screw driveshaft (45) configured to translate the carriage assembly (30) (Figure 2A; Col 6, lines 33-48).
PNG
media_image4.png
462
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention’s effective filling date to modify the control mechanism of Hobday to incorporate the carriage and ball screw drive mechanism as taught by Stephenson, in order to provide controlled translational movement for actuating the foil control mechanism.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday in view of Stephenson and Venables et al. (US 10246170 B2, hereafter Venables).
Regarding claim 26, Hobday and Stephenson do not teach:
The foil assembly of claim 25, wherein the translational movement mechanism comprises a driven pulley configured to drive the ball screw, connected via a transmission belt to a driving pulley rotated by a motor.
Venables teaches:
A translational movement mechanism comprising a driven pulley configured to drive the ball screw, wherein a motor (20) drives a small driving pulley (22), a drive belt is connected between the small driving pulley (22) and a large driven pulley (24), and the large driven pulley (24) is connected to shaft (16), which forms part of a ball screw arrangement with housing (14) , whereby rotation of shaft (16) causes translational movement of housing (14) (Figures 4-5).
PNG
media_image5.png
477
689
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
537
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention’s effective filling date to modify the ball screw drive mechanism of Stephenson, as applied to Hobday, to incorporate the motor driven belt and pulley arrangement as taught by Venables, in order to transmit rotary motion from the motor to the ball screw to provide controlled translational movement of the carriage.
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.
/KEVIN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
