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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Moroto (US 5562565 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Moroto discloses a drive for a vehicle, the drive comprising:
an internal combustion engine; (Element 1)
a freewheel device, including at least one gear (Element 9, component F);
a drive shaft (Element 22), the internal combustion engine configured for being drive-operatively connected to the drive shaft of the drive via the freewheel device, the freewheel device being configured to decouple the internal combustion engine from the drive shaft if a rotational speed of the drive shaft exceeds a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine; and
a bridging device (Element C2) which is designed to couple the internal combustion engine to the drive shaft in at least one operating situation of the drive if the internal combustion engine is separated from the drive shaft by the freewheel device.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroto in view of Bratel (US 20100203777 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Moroto discloses drive according to claim 1, wherein the drive in addition includes an electric machine (Element 27), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal combustion engine and the electric machine are configured for being drive-operatively connected with the drive shaft via the freewheel device in such a way that (a) only the internal combustion engine is, (b) only the electric machine is, or (c) the internal combustion engine and the electric machine together are configured for driving the drive shaft, the drive being for a vehicle formed as a watercraft.
Bratel discloses wherein the internal combustion engine and the electric machine are configured for being drive-operatively connected with the drive shaft via the freewheel device in such a way that (a) only the internal combustion engine is, (b) only the electric machine is, or (c) the internal combustion engine and the electric machine together are configured for driving the drive shaft, the drive being for a vehicle formed as a watercraft. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the freewheel device of Moroto for the freewheel Bratel which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to use a known structure for the undisclosed structure of the freewheel that is recognized as suitable for freewheels in hybrid engines.
Regarding Claim 3, Moroto in view of Bratel discloses the drive according to claim 1, wherein the freewheel device is formed as a mechanical freewheel, as a transmission mechanism, or as a part of a transmission mechanism. (See Bratel Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 4, Moroto in view of Bratel discloses the drive according to claim 1, wherein the bridging device is arranged on the freewheel device, is integrated into the freewheel device, or is arranged parallel to the freewheel device. (See Bratel Fig 1.)
Regarding Claim 5, Moroto in view of Bratel discloses the drive according to claim 1, wherein the bridging device is formed as a coupling. (A clutch is a type of coupling.)
Regarding Claim 7, Moroto in view of Bratel discloses the watercraft, comprising:
a drive, including:
an internal combustion engine;
a freewheel device, including at least one gear;
a drive shaft, the internal combustion engine configured for being drive-operatively connected to the drive shaft of the drive via the freewheel device, the freewheel device being configured to decouple the internal combustion engine from the drive shaft if a rotational speed of the drive shaft exceeds a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine; and
a bridging device which is designed to couple the internal combustion engine to the drive shaft in at least one operating situation of the drive if the internal combustion engine is separated from the drive shaft by the freewheel device, the drive shaft being a propeller shaft of the watercraft, being configured for being drive-operatively connected with a propeller shaft of the watercraft, or being drive-operatively connected with a propeller shaft of the watercraft. (See rejection Claim 2 above.)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroto in view of Bratel (US 20100203777 A1) and further in view of Sinclair (US 2939328 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Moroto in view of Bratel discloses the drive according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses wherein the bridging device is formed as a magnetic coupling.
Sinclair discloses wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling. (C5,L5) It would have been
obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the magnetic bridging
device of Sinclair with the freewheel of Bratel which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation
of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to use a known substitute recognized as suitable for re-
engaging the clutch of Bratel that synchronizes the clutch.
Claims 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroto in view Bratel in view of Bielefeld (US 10794474 B1)
Regarding Claim 10, Bratel discloses method for operating a watercraft, the method comprising the steps of: providing that the watercraft includes: a drive, including: an internal combustion engine; a freewheel device, a drive shaft, the internal combustion engine configured for being drive-operatively connected to the drive shaft of the drive via the freewheel device, the freewheel device being configured to decouple the internal combustion engine from the drive shaft if a rotational speed of the drive shaft exceeds a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine; and a bridging device which is designed to couple the internal combustion engine to the drive shaft in at least one operating situation of the drive if the internal combustion engine is separated from the drive shaft by the freewheel device, the drive shaft being a propeller shaft of the watercraft, being configured for being drive-operatively connected with a propeller shaft of the watercraft, or being drive-operatively connected with a propeller shaft of the watercraft; (See rejection of Claim 7 above) but does not explicitly disclose closing the bridging device during a braking maneuver to reduce a rotational speed of the propeller shaft, the internal combustion engine being coupled with the propeller shaft and being dragged by the propeller shaft.
Bielefield discloses closing the bridging device during a braking maneuver to reduce a rotational speed of the propeller shaft, the internal combustion engine being coupled with the propeller shaft and being dragged by the propeller shaft. (C7, L35). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the bridging device to assist with braking as taught by Bielefeld which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to brake more effectively.
Regarding Claim 8, Mototo in view of Bratel and further in view of Bielefield discloses a watercraft according to claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a shift transmission which is arranged between the freewheel device and the propeller of the watercraft, the shift transmission being configured to reverse a direction of rotation of the propeller relative to a direction of rotation of the internal combustion engine when the shift transmission is shifted.
Bielefield discloses a shift transmission which is arranged between the freewheel device and the propeller of the watercraft, the shift transmission being configured to reverse a direction of rotation of the propeller relative to a direction of rotation of the internal combustion engine when the shift transmission is shifted. (Element 20). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a reverse transmission as taught by Bielefeld which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to reverse more effectively.
Regarding Claim 9, Mototo in view of Bratel and further in view of Bielefield discloses watercraft according to claim 7, further comprising a control device (Bielefield) which is operatively connected with the bridging device, wherein the control device is configured for carrying out a method for operating the watercraft, the method comprising the steps of:
providing that the watercraft includes the drive;
closing the bridging device during a braking maneuver (Bielefield, C7, L35 also paragraph starting at line 61) to reduce a rotational speed of the propeller shaft, the internal combustion engine being coupled with the propeller shaft and being dragged by the propeller shaft.
Claims 11, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroto in view of Bratel in view of Bielefeld (US 10794474 B1) and further in view Caouette (US 20100125383 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Moroto in view of Bratel in view of Bielefeld discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein prior to the braking maneuver the watercraft is driven by only the internal combustion engine or by an electric machine of the drive together with the internal combustion engine, where braking involves closing the bridging device but does not explicitly disclose wherein the following steps are performed for the braking maneuver: stopping a fuel supply to the internal combustion engine; controlling the electric machine to decelerate the propeller shaft.
Caoette discloses controlling the electric machine to decelerate the propeller shaft. (Claim 11) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the electric machine to assist with braking as taught by Couette by controlling the electric machine to decelerate the propeller shaft which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to cut the fuel to the engine and use the engaged engine commonly known as engine braking which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to brake more effectively.
Regarding Claim 12, Moroto in view of Bratel in view of Bielefeld and further in view of Caouette discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein prior to the braking maneuver the watercraft is driven only by an electric machine, wherein the internal combustion engine is stopped, wherein the following steps are performed for the braking maneuver: redirecting the electric machine to decelerate the propeller shaft; and closing the bridging device. (Caouette, claim 11)
Regarding Claim 13, Moroto in view of Bratel in view of Bielefeld and further in view of Caouette discloses the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the watercraft includes a control device configured for carrying out the steps of the method.
Caoette discloses an engine control device. (Element 200) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to configure the control device to carry out the method of Claim 10 which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bratel is to automate a manual task.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has traversed the 112a for a negative limitation rejection by removing “passive.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 24 Sept 2026
