DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18949351.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 22-27, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high/low pressure” in claims 22 and 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high/low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner can’t quantify what is to be considered high pressure as opposed to low pressure.
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) 21-29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickborn US 10059405, and further in view of Martin US 2938490.
Claim 21, Rickborn discloses a modular keel [120] for a boat hull [100], the keel comprising: a base [bottom surface of boat] extending along a centerline of the hull, the base tapering aft to fore toward a vertex on the centerline [fig. 1], the vertex [bow tip] being formed by converging edges of the base; opposing curved segments laterally extending from the vertex toward a stern substructure [fig. 1 equidistant bulging sides], the opposing curved segments being outboard from the base, wherein each curved segment is defined between an edge of the base and an arcuate contour; wherein the arcuate contour extends from the vertex to a planar facet at the stern substructure; wherein the keel [120] is configured to displace a bow wave towards a stern of the hull during forward movement of the boat hull. [See figs 1-2; col. 6-7]
He does not disclose creating distinct pressure zones for drawing the keel back into water and reducing pitching. Martin discloses this limitation. He discloses hull geometry creates negative pressure/suction adjacent the hull during movement through water. [see cols. 3-4]. Thus, it 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 to have modified Rickborn with Bussard to provide reduce pitching on the vessel.
8. Claim 22, Rickborn discloses a fore transitional area [fig. 1] formed at the vertex and arranged to create a first high hydrodynamic pressure zone against the keel during forward movement of the boat hull; and an aft transitional area formed at the stern substructure and arranged to create a second high hydrodynamic pressure zone against the keel during forward movement of the boat hull; wherein the fore transitional area is configured and dimensioned to create increased hydrodynamic pressure concentrations in the first high pressure zone relative to the second high pressure zone in the aft transitional area; wherein the aft transitional area is further arranged to expel water away from the keel in a laminar flow pattern during forward movement of the boat hull. Applicant has only described ship hydrodynamic vessel properties that would be inherent to the vessel shape as shown in fig. 1.
9. Claim 23, Rickborn discloses an intermediate transitional area formed between the vertex and the stern substructure and arranged to create a low-pressure zone along the keel to dampen motion of the hull in waves. See fig. 1 circled area which inherently dampens waves.
10. Claim 24, Rickborn discloses wherein the aft transitional area is configured and dimensioned to reduce hydrodynamic pressure concentrations along the opposing curved segments from fore to aft. See fig. 1 wherein the keel starts narrow, widens then has an aft configuration directing water naturally back together at the aft end.
11. Claim 25, Rickborn discloses herein each opposing curved segment includes a variable arcuate surface that tapers between an edge of the base and a circumjacent segment of the hull to the vertex. See fig. 1
12. Claim 26, Rickborn discloses wherein the base further tapers fore to aft toward a rear vertex on the centerline, the rear vertex being formed by converging edges of the base. See fig. 1
13. Claim 27, Rickborn discloses wherein the aft transitional area contains the rear vertex. See fig. 1 stern area.
14. Claim 28, Rickborn discloses wherein each opposing curved segment has a concave-up profile. See figs 14-15
15. Claim 29, Rickborn discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 21, he does not disclose explicitly each opposing curved segment has a greater curvature proximate to a trough of the base than to the vertex. It has been held that finding optimal position or location is of ordinary skill in the art thus, it 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 to use said location to yield the desired curvature.
16. Claim 31, Rickborn discloses wherein the keel is configured and dimensioned to force water to exit the opposing curved segments in a laminar flow pattern toward the stern substructure during forward movement of the boat hull. See col. 3 last paragraph.
17. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickborn US 10059405, and further in view of Martin US 2938490 and Harper US 8122840.
18. Claims 30, Rickborn and Martin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 21, they do not disclose wherein the aft transitional area is arranged to create a forward thrust component on the hull based on curvature of both the base and opposing curved segments. Harper discloses this limitation, see col. 9 line 60- col. 10 line 10. Thus, it 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 to have modified Rickborn and Martin to have the vessel constructed as above to provide the forward thrust component.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 32-37 are allowed.
20. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art does not disclose; wherein the base includes a trough defining a bottom-most extremity of the keel along the centerline; wherein the curved segment is formed as a paraboloid surface having a maximum point amidship and coplanar with the trough of the base and a lateral apex of the arcuate contour.
21. Claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The multiple high-pressure zones are not disclosed.
22. Claims 39-40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art cited is relevant due to ship structure and hydrodynamic profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights