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 .
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 “hook guide mechanism” of Claims 5-6 and 15 and the “rotation mechanism” of Claims 4 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show directional details (such as axes) with respect to the position of the boom in the relationship with a fuel supply vessel and an unmanned vessel as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are shown in the table below, along with additional comments by the Examiner:
Limitation
interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
Claim
(first recitation)
Interpreted as
Additional Notes
boom attachment mechanism
1
Any component of a standard refueling “boom” known to the art, wherein a nozzle, dispenser, or fuel conduit is extended and/or retracted.
Examiner notes that while Applicant’s Specification briefly mentions applicability to sea-borne vessels, the disclosure does not distinguish itself from “boom” refueling in other environments, such as aerial or land-based apparatuses, which are well-known and also employ check valves.
fueling attachment mechanism
1
Any component of a vehicle associated with a fuel tank, said fuel tank being capable of either supplying or receiving fuel.
This limitation is paired with indefinite language in independent Claims 1 and 12; see the corresponding rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation to this limitation as shown here.
guide mechanism
1
Any component or structure of a vehicle capable of receiving a “boom”, nozzle, or other fuel dispensing apparatus, and facilitating fuel flow into a receiving fuel tank.
It is unknown if the “guide mechanism” of the independent claims is the component of the functionally similar “hook guide mechanism” of the dependent claims; see the corresponding rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation to this limitation as shown here.
attachment mechanism
2
See Examiner’s interpretation for “boom attachment mechanism” above.
In light of Applicant’s Specification (para 26), it appears that the “attachment mechanism” of Claim 2 is the same as the “boom attachment mechanism” of Claim 1. However, this is not clear in the claims. See the corresponding rejection of this item under 35 USC 112(b) below.
rotation mechanism
4
Any component of a standard refueling “boom” known to the art that facilitates the extension, retraction, or movement of the “boom”
This component is not depicted in the Drawings; see the corresponding Drawing objection.
hook guide mechanism
6
Any component or structure of a vehicle capable of facilitating the reception or coupling of a “boom”, nozzle, or other fuel dispensing apparatus, and facilitating fuel flow into a receiving fuel tank, wherein said component or structure has a curved, or “hook-like” shape.
This component is not depicted in the Drawings; see the corresponding Drawing objection.
Additionally, it is unknown if the “guide mechanism” of the independent claims is the component of the functionally similar “hook guide mechanism” of the dependent claims; see the corresponding rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b). In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation to this limitation as shown here.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 14, Claims 1, 4, 12, and 14 refer to a “lateral position” for the boom. Claim 10 additionally refers to a “perpendicular” extension of said boom. However, Applicant’s disclosure does not adequately depict what Applicant considers to be “lateral”, or “perpendicular”. Examiner specifically notes the following:
- Although the claims and Specification contain variations of the phrase “laterally with respect to a longitudinal axis” and “perpendicular to the longitudinal axis”, Examiner notes that the drawings do not have any axes or similar references to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what is considered to be “a longitudinal axis”, or what is “lateral” and/or “perpendicular”. Furthermore, it is unclear, if the two terms “lateral” and “perpendicular” are synonymous, or if they have differing meanings.
- The inventive concept of the claimed invention is drawn to refueling in a three-dimensional space, and the broad nature of the disclosure and claims covers fueling and receiving “vessels” of all shapes and sizes, wherein said refueling (per the claims) could occur under water, on the sea surface, on land, in the air, or in outer space. Given this broad scope, the lack of definitive guidance concerning these aforementioned terms makes it both unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art on how to make or use the claimed invention, and what would, or would not, infringe upon the scope of the claim(s).
- Examiner makes further note of Applicant’s Specification para 24:
“A wide variety of vessel types may serve as a tanker such as a surface vessel, semi-submersible vessel or submersible, all of which may be either manned or unmanned…. During refueling operations, the boom 120 is positioned lateral, and preferably perpendicular, to the longitudinal axis of the tanker 110, generally in the same plane as the ocean and above the surface of the water.”
As mentioned above, Applicant does not provide any showing of a “longitudinal axis of the tanker 110” in the Drawings. It is additionally unknown how a “semi-submersible” or “submersible” vessel could have a refueling boom located “generally in the same plane as the ocean and above the surface of the water” as taught at para 24. Furthermore, since the ocean, by definition, exists in three dimensions, the phrase “the same plane as the ocean” is also confusing in this context to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As shown above, it is unclear if Applicant’s disclosure teaches an apparatus wherein:
a) the refueling boom protrudes from the side (relatively port or starboard) of the tanker vessel,
b) the refueling boom protrudes from the front and back (relatively forward or aft) of the tanker vessel at an inclined or declined angle,
c) the refueling boom protrudes from the top or bottom of the tanker vessel, or
d) some other configuration.
- The basic geometric definition of the word “lateral” would mean “a direction moving away from the center or midline of an object or body” (see Merriam-Webster). Therefore, for any three-dimensional object such as a refueling vessel, the term “lateral”, in terms of boom orientation, could be read by one of ordinary skill in the art as meaning the boom is positioned in “any direction or angle away from the longitudinal centerline of either the fueling vessel or unmanned vessel”.
Therefore, in light of the above discrepancies and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation to all claim limitations concerning the orientation and movement of the claimed “refueling boom”, that is, any system wherein a fuel conduit is established at an angle (in any direction) relative to either the fore and aft center-line (e.g., the keel) of the fueling (tanking) vessel, or the fore and aft center line (e.g., the keel) of the receiving vessel.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim contains the limitation (item numbers from Applicant’s Specification added by Examiner for clarity) “the boom attachment mechanism (130) includes a ball- shaped coupling (170).” Although this limitation (item 170) has verbatim support at para 31 and Fig 11 (which appears to depict a simple ball 170 placed on the end of boom mechanism 130), the disclosure offers no detail on 1) how the ball actually “couples”, 2) what corresponding component the ball “couples” with or to, nor 3) how fluid would flow from a conduit within the boom mechanism 130 through a ball 170. To the contrary, Specification para 31 merely states “a ball-shaped coupling 170 may be used instead of a hook.”
The Examiner finds that this disclosure of a “ball-shaped coupling” is ambiguous and vague enough that one of ordinary skill in the art could neither make nor use the claimed invention according to Claim 7, or determine what would or would not infringe upon the claim.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Claim 1 contains the following verbiage: “a boom attachment mechanism at the distal end of the boom and configured to engage a fueling attachment mechanism of an other of the fuel supply vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled”.
Here, it is unclear if the “fueling attachment mechanism” refers to a) a component of the “fuel supply vessel”, b) a component of the “unmanned vessel to be fueled”, or c) there are two “fueling attachment mechanisms”, wherein one is a component of the fuel supply vessel and the other a component of the fuel receiving vessel. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite.
Additionally, the phrase “an other of the fuel supply vessel” is incomprehensible, and also renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 contains similar language, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Claim 2 contains the limitation/language, “the boom includes a valve configured to open when the attachment mechanism is under tension”. Claim 13 contains similar language. For each claim, it is unknown if the component “attachment mechanism” is a) the “boom attachment mechanism” established at antecedent Claim 1, b) the “fueling attachment mechanism” established in independent Claims 1 and 12, or c) some other component (that would lack antecedent basis due to the word “the” in the phrase).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 15, the claims refer to a “hook guide mechanism”. Although this component is mentioned in the Specification, Applicant neither assigns an item number to it, nor includes it in the Drawings (see objections above). Since independent Claims 1 and 12 establish a “guide mechanism” (identified as item 130 in the Specification) that appears to perform a similar “guiding” function, it is unknown if the “hook guide mechanism” and “guide mechanism” are the same, or different components.
Further regarding Claims 1-17, the scope of Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and 14 are indefinite for the reasons listed above in the corresponding rejections under 35 USC 112(a). The remaining claims depend upon either Claim 1 or Claim 12, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies in addition to those noted above.
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 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.
(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 1, 4- 5, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellen (US 2011/0067619).
Regarding Claim 1, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, comprising:
- a refueling boom (Fig 1 and para 40, boom 124) configured to extend laterally with respect to a longitudinal axis (see Examiner's BRI of this limitation above) of one of a fuel supply vessel (mother ship 102) and an unmanned vessel (auxiliary craft 130) to be fueled during refueling operations (fueling is one of the tasks accomplished by the invention, per at least para 42);
- a boom attachment mechanism (Para 39, the combination of mother-ship coupler 118, cable tensioner 120, and cable 122) at the distal end of the boom (see at least Fig 1a) and configured to engage a fueling attachment mechanism (the combination of auxiliary-craft fixture 132, and auxiliary-craft coupler 134) of an other of the fuel supply vessel (102) and the unmanned vessel (130) to be fueled;
- a guide mechanism (auxiliary-craft fixture 132) configured to capture the refueling boom and guide the boom attachment mechanism toward the fueling attachment mechanism (paras 40 and 48 teach item 132 as a "hook" to engage the looped cable 122 of the boom attachment mechanism).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, further comprising a rotation mechanism to move the boom from a stored longitudinal position to a lateral position for refueling (para 40 describes boom 124 as being both rotable and extendable; Examiner interprets this teaching as being capable of rotating "from a stored longitudinal position to a lateral position for refueling", as shown in Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 5, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, wherein the boom attachment mechanism includes a hook guide mechanism (cable 122, which is engaged by hook auxiliary-craft fixture 132, per paras 40 and 48).
Regarding Claim 8, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, wherein the refueling boom, the boom attachment mechanism, and the guide mechanism are configured to allow towing of the fueling vessel by the unmanned vessel to be fueled or the unmanned vessel to be fueled by the fueling vessel (per the Pellen reference, the unmanned vessel is fueled by the fueling vessel; see at least paras 42-43).
Regarding Claim 10, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, wherein the refueling boom is configured to extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of one of the fueling vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled during refueling operations (para 40 describes boom 124 as being both rotable and extendable; Examiner interprets this teaching as being capable of extending perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis of the fueling vessel, as shown in Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 11, Pellen discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, wherein the boom attachment mechanism includes an integrated nozzle and the fueling attachment mechanism includes a fuel filler neck configured to matingly receive the integrated nozzle (para 73 teaches complimentary male/female connectors 568 and 566 for fuel transfer between mother-ship coupler 118 and auxiliary-craft coupler 134. Examiner interprets this teaching as describing an integrated nozzle and fuel filler neck as presently claimed).
Regarding Claim 12, Pellen discloses a method of using the autonomous refueling system of claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), comprising:
- extending the refueling boom laterally with respect to a longitudinal axis of one of a fuel supply vessel and an unmanned vessel to be fueled during refueling operations (para 40 describes boom 124 as being both rotable and extendable; Examiner interprets this teaching as being capable of extending perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis of the fueling vessel, as shown in Fig 1a);
- engaging the fueling attachment mechanism of an other of the fuel supply vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled with the boom attachment mechanism (per the Pellen reference, the unmanned vessel is fueled by the fueling vessel; see at least paras 42-43 and para 73);
- capturing the refueling boom (via the looped cable 122 and complementary hook of auxiliary-craft fixture 132) and guiding the boom attachment mechanism toward the fueling attachment mechanism with the guide mechanism (see at least paras 40 and 48).
Regarding Claim 14, Pellen discloses a method of using the autonomous refueling system of claim 1, further comprising a rotation mechanism to move the boom from a stored longitudinal position to a lateral position for refueling, and the method further comprising moving the boom from the stored longitudinal position to the lateral position with the rotation mechanism (para 40 describes boom 124 as being both rotable and extendable; Examiner interprets this teaching as being capable of rotating "from a stored longitudinal position to a lateral position for refueling", as shown in Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 16, Pellen discloses a method of using the autonomous refueling system of claim 1,
- wherein the refueling boom, the boom attachment mechanism, and the guide mechanism are configured to allow towing of the fueling vessel by the unmanned vessel to be fueled or the unmanned vessel to be fueled by the fueling vessel (per the Pellen reference, the unmanned vessel is fueled by the fueling vessel; see at least paras 42-43), and
- the method further comprising allow towing of the fueling vessel by the unmanned vessel to be fueled or the unmanned vessel to be fueled by the fueling vessel with the refueling boom, the boom attachment mechanism, and the guide mechanism (per the Pellen reference, the unmanned vessel is fueled by the fueling vessel; see at least paras 42-43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellen, in view of Harris et al. (US 8,568,076).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Pellen teaches the claimed invention, to include the ability to refuel an unmanned vessel via a boom. The Pellen reference does not address the specifics of the act of refueling, does not explicitly recite a valve, and is therefore silent on:
- a system wherein the boom includes a valve configured to open when the attachment mechanism is under tension, allowing fuel to flow, as claimed at Claim 2, and
- a method wherein the boom includes a valve configured to open when the attachment mechanism is under tension, allowing fuel to flow, and the method further comprising opening the valve, allowing fuel to flow, with the attachment mechanism is under tension, as claimed at Claim 3.
Harris et al., however, teaches a valve operated under towing tension at Fig 4a and Col 8, line 63- Col 9, line 12, Col 9, lines 32- 61, and Col 10, line 11). Examiner finds that the teachings of the Harris reference read upon apparatus Claim 2 and method Claim 13.
The Pellen and Harris references each teach refueling of unmanned vessels. The Harris reference provides more detailed guidance, and enables refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the unmanned vessel due to close proximity to the fueling vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general disclosure of Pellen with the detailed valve teachings of Harris et al. in order to gain the advantages of more detailed guidance, and enabling refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the unmanned vessel due to close proximity to the fueling vessel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellen, in view of McClellan et al. (US 2021/0284289).
Regarding Claim 3, Pellen teaches the claimed invention, to include the ability to refuel an unmanned vessel via a boom. The Pellen reference does not address protecting the boom or the surrounding environment, and is therefore silent on the refueling boom (being) padded to prevent damage to at least one of the fuel supply vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled as claimed at Claim 3.
However, it is well-known to protect a boom or other sensitive equipment from collision forces through the use of pads. McClellan et al., for example, teaches a refueling boom (being) padded to prevent damage to at least one of the fuel supply vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled. Specifically, the McClellan reference teaches that is known to place " a shock-absorbing material (e.g., rubber)" on maritime positioning equipment, to include "cradle arms 202", per at least para 22).
The Pellen and McClellan references each teach refueling of vessels. The McClellan reference provides more detailed guidance, and enables refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the refueling boom and other equipment through the use of rubber padding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general disclosure of Pellen with the detailed material padding teachings of McClellan et al. in order to gain the advantages of more detailed guidance, and enabling refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the refueling boom and other equipment through the use of rubber padding.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellen, in view of Gallo (US 4,066,098).
Regarding Claim 7, the claim reads “7. The system of claim 1, wherein the boom attachment mechanism includes a ball- shaped coupling.”
Examiner reserves final comment on the patentability of this claim pending resolution of the rejections of Claim 7 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) as presented above. However, Examiner notes for the record that ball-joint couplings are well known, as evidenced by Gallo, who teaches a maritime fuel loading arm/bunkering assembly comprising " a flanged outlet at said first end, a swivel joint, a first cargo-carrying ball joint, a straight pipe section, and a second cargo-carrying ball joint coupled to said bunker manifold on said vessel". See at least Claims 4-5 and 10, and Col 5, lines 6-49).
The Pellen and Gallo references each teach refueling of vessels. The Gallo reference provides more detailed guidance on boom linkage, giving the obvious advantage of an articulated boom with greater flexibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general disclosure of Pellen with the detailed articulated joint teachings of Gallo in order to gain the advantages of more detailed guidance, and enabling refueling in a manner that utilizes a more flexible boom.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellen, in view of Galway (US 10,053,195).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Pellen teaches the claimed invention, to include the ability to refuel an unmanned vessel via a boom. The Pellen reference does not address protecting the boom or the surrounding environment, and is therefore silent on:
- a system further including a shock absorption system operably associated with the boom to allow at least one of vertical articulation and longitudinal extension, as claimed at Claim 9, and
- a method further including a shock absorption system operably associated with the boom to allow at least one of vertical articulation and longitudinal extension; and the method further comprising absorbing shock in the boom with the shock absorption system in at least one of vertical articulation and longitudinal extension. as claimed at Claim 17.
However, shock absorption systems for refueling booms are well-known for both aerial and maritime-based operations, and necessary to protect the boom and fuel from the dynamic fluid forces of the surrounding environment (air and/or water). One example of the prior art is provided by Galway, who teaches shock absorption for an extendable boom assembly at Fig 2D, Col 6, lines 39-64, and at Claim 3). Examiner finds the teachings of Galway read upon both the system Claim 9 and method Claim 17.
The Pellen and Galway references each teach refueling of vessels. The Galway reference provides more detailed guidance, and enables refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the refueling boom and other equipment through the use of shock absorption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general disclosure of Pellen with the detailed shock absorption teachings of Galway in order to gain the advantages of more detailed guidance, and enabling refueling in a manner that mitigates potential damage to the refueling boom and other equipment through the use of shock absorption techniques.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner reserves final comment on the patentability of the claims pending resolution of the drawing objections and rejections under 35 112(a) and (b) as presented above. However, Examiner notes for the record that inclusion of the subject matter of dependent Claim 6, drawn to a system wherein “the guide mechanism includes a wedge with a wide opening and a closed end that directs the refueling boom and the hook guide mechanism towards the closed end of the wedge upon engagement, ensuring alignment of the boom attachment mechanism toward the fueling attachment mechanism” into the base claim would (probably) be overcome the prior art cited in this Office Action. The method of Claim 15 contains similar subject matter.
Specifically, although the system and method of Pellen teaches a “hook guide mechanism” that “ensur(es) alignment of the boom attachment mechanism toward the fueling attachment mechanism” as shown above, the design of Pellen does not require “a wedge with a wide opening and a closed end that directs the refueling boom and the hook guide mechanism towards the closed end of the wedge upon engagement”. Examiner concludes that modifying Pellen to arrive at the above subject matter of Claims 6 and 15 would amount to impermissible hindsight, there being no reason to do so, and doing so would likely “break” the operations of Pellen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
As mentioned above, the broad nature of Applicant’s independent claims (drawn to a refueling boom, boom attachment mechanism, and guide mechanism) covers a wide range of refueling applications, to include those conducted on land or in the air. The Examiner takes particular note of aerial refueling technology that has existed for decades and operate in similar fashion at least as claimed by Applicant in the independent claims.
Gjerdrum (US 2003/0136874) not only teaches limitations similar to those of Applicant, but also refers to earlier examples of the prior art, as shown below and applied to Applicant’s Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, Gjerdrum discloses a system for autonomous refueling of unmanned vessels, comprising:
- a refueling boom configured to extend laterally with respect to a longitudinal axis of one of a fuel supply vessel and an unmanned vessel to be fueled during refueling operations (Gjerdrum teaches (see para 28) this is known through at least Weiland (1978, US Pat No 4,872,284, which teaches a "boom having a pair of aerodynamic surfaces formed into a Vee and known as ruddevators, for moving the boom about the following axes: a tiltable vertical axis for boom movement in a sideways direction or in azimuth; a lateral axis for boom movement in an up-and-down direction or in elevation; and a longitudinal axis for movement of the boom about a roll axis." Examiner concludes this configuration reads upon the present "refueling boom configured to extend laterally with respect to a longitudinal axis" limitation. See also para 29, and the teachings of Robinson (1978, US Pat No 4,129,270). NOTE: Gjerdrum apparently mistakenly attributes the Weiland reference to US 4.872,284; the correct reference is US 4072283 A);
- a boom attachment mechanism at the distal end of the boom and configured to engage a fueling attachment mechanism of an other of the fuel supply vessel and the unmanned vessel to be fueled (see Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation above. Gjerdrum teaches (see para 37) this is known through at least Greenhalgh (1999, US Pat No 5,921,294, which teaches "an apparatus attached to a fuel hose and deployed rearwardly of a tanker craft…for inflight refueling of an aircraft and includes a fuel valve for controlling the flow of fuel through the valve, (and) a coupler attached to the fuel valve for receiving and locking onto the probe of a receiving aircraft and for conveying fuel through the coupler and to the probe of the receiving aircraft”). Here, the "apparatus" configured to "deploy rearwardly" is analogous to the presently claimed "boom attachment mechanism", and the "coupler" is analogous to the presently claimed "fueling attachment mechanism".
- a guide mechanism configured to capture the refueling boom and guide the boom attachment mechanism toward the fueling attachment mechanism (Gjerdrum teaches (see para 40) this is known through at least Ward (1996, US Pat No 5,573,206), which teaches "“a fuel supply hose and drogue system comprising an elongated boom having inboard and outboard end portions, and having pivotal support structure at the inboard end portion to accommodate pivoting of the boom between retracted position adjacent the airplane fuselage and extended position in which the boom projects away from the fuselage; the boom having a guide to guide endwise extension and retraction of the hose and drogue to and from aircraft refueling deployed position; and hose and drogue control structure carried by the aircraft fuselage for effecting storage, and- hose and drogue endwise extension and retraction via the guide”).
Examiner notes, however, that the references cited above are additionally silent on the aforementioned subject matter of Applicant’s Claims 6 and 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights