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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jemt US 2011/0287674.
Regarding claim 1, Jemt discloses a propulsion unit for propelling a vessel, the propulsion unit comprising:
a main body 224, 226 configured to be arranged at a keel of the vessel and comprising a first pivot point 222,
a fin 216 being movably arranged in relation to the main body,
a lever arm, the fin connected to the first pivot point via the lever arm;
an actuator assembly for generating a heave motion of the fin in relation to the main body, the actuator assembly comprising at least one actuator 234,
an actuating rod 262 connected to the at least one actuator, the actuating rod connected to the lever arm via a second pivot point 268 to allow the actuating rod and the lever arm to rotate in relation to each other;
wherein the fin is connected to the first pivot point such that the fin is arranged to pivot around the first pivot point when the at least one actuator generates the heave motion of the fin, thereby generating a pitch motion of the fin [0059].
PNG
media_image1.png
390
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Jemt Figure 7
In this interpretation, the fin 216 can flex about the lever arm 223, resulting in a pitching movement that is at least partially about the pivot point and a result of the heave motion.
Regarding claim 2, Jemt discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jemt also discloses that the at least one actuator 234 is a linear actuator.
Regarding claim 4, Jemt discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jemt also discloses that the actuator assembly is configured to be operated with an oscillating pattern, thereby generating an oscillating heave and pitch motion of the fin [0059].
Regarding claim 32, Jemt discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jemt also discloses that the main body 224, 226 is arranged to the keel of the vessel and wherein the fin 216 is configured to perform a pitch and heave motion in relation to the keel of the vessel [0059].
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 1, 2, 4 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jakobsen US 4,332,571.
Regarding claim 1, Jakobsen discloses a propulsion unit for propelling a vessel 1, the propulsion unit comprising:
a main body 18 configured to be arranged at a keel of the vessel and comprising a first pivot point,
a fin (rear of tilting element 30) being movably arranged in relation to the main body;
a lever arm (14 and the portion of tilting element 30 between the pivot point and the rear fin), the fin connected to the first pivot point via the lever arm;
an actuator assembly for generating a heave motion of the fin in relation to the main body, the actuator assembly comprising at least one actuator 10, and
an actuating rod connected to the at least one actuator, the actuating rod connected to the lever arm (through the piston housing) via a second pivot point to allow the actuating rod and the lever arm to rotate in relation to each other;
wherein the fin is connected to the first pivot point such that the fin is arranged to pivot around the first pivot point when the at least one actuator generates the heave motion of the fin, thereby generating a pitch motion of the fin (column 3, line 53-column 4 line 4).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Pivot Point)][AltContent: textbox (1st Pivot Point)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
219
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Jakobsen Figure 3
Please note that as presented in accordance with current application figures 1A and 1B (Species A), there is one actuator 4a and one pivot point 5a. As such, the heave and pitch moments are interpreted as different components of the motion of fin 3 and lever arm 7 pivoting about point 5a.
In an alternate interpretation, the actuator rod is not directly connected to the lever arm via a second pivot point. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the orientation of the actuators in order to reduce movement of the hydraulic connections, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. As reversed, the actuator rod would be directly connected to the lever arm via the second pivot point.
Regarding claim 2, Jakobsen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jakobsen also discloses that the at least one actuator 10, is a linear actuator.
Regarding claim 4, Jakobsen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jakobsen also discloses that the actuator assembly is configured to be operated with an oscillating pattern, thereby generating an oscillating heave and pitch motion of the fin (column 3, line 53-column 4 line 4).
Regarding claim 32, Jakobsen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jakobsen also discloses that the main body 18 is arranged to the keel of the vessel 1 and wherein the fin (rear of tilting element 30) is configured to perform a pitch and heave motion in relation to the keel of the vessel (column 3, line 53-column 4 line 4).
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Jemt US 2011/0287674 or Jakobsen US 4,332,571 in view of Blicharski US 2,091,845.
Regarding claim 35, Jemt or Jakobsen (separately) disclose the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Jemt nor Jakobsen teach that the propulsion unit comprises a sliding joint, the second pivot point connected to the lever arm via the sliding joint.
Blicharski teaches a propulsion unit for propelling a vessel, the propulsion unit comprising a fin 140 connected to the vessel via a lever arm 14, and an actuating rod 30 connected to the lever arm via a sliding joint 300. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion systems of Jemt or Jakobsen with a sliding joint between the actuating rod and the lever arm (and rotationally fixed actuating rod) as taught by Blicharski in order to further limit the movement of the hydraulic connections or obtain the desired movement.
PNG
media_image3.png
202
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Blicharski Figure 1b
Regarding claim 36, Jemt or Jakobsen (separately) and Blicharski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 35. Blicharski is silent as to the details of the sliding joint 300, however a sliding joint on a lever arm must inherently comprise an elongated slot in which the second pivot point is slidably moveable. This could be met by a pin joint in a slot formed in the lever arm, or a slidable tube on the outside of the lever arm- in which case the inside of the tube is interpreted as the slot and the pivot point is the theoretical center of rotation for the connection, which moves along the lever arm. Alternatively, the examiner is taking official notice that a pin in a slot is a well-known sliding joint. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a pin in a slot in order to ensure that the rod and arm can pivot with respect to each other while allowing the relative sliding motion, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this case, the applicant has made amendments to the claims and stated that they are not met by Jemt or Jakobsen, but as detailed above, they appear to be. The newly added claims are addressed in combination with Blicharski.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615