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 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, the current disclosure does not explain or depict the recited common inlet opening in a manner consistent with the claim. While claim 12 recites that “the plurality of flow channels open out into a common inlet distributor having a common inlet opening,” (newly amended) figure 2 depicts top and bottom flow channels 5, each of which connect to an (individual) inlet distributor 71 and inlet opening 73. The applicant’s intent seems to be that each flow channel somehow connect to the same (perhaps circumferential) distributer and/or opening, but nothing in the disclosure as originally or currently filed explains how this is accomplished. It is unclear what feature is being recited. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted to state that the channels merge at some point.
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 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambregts US 2021/0163111 in view of Rott US 2011/0201238 and Misorski US 11,548,604.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Lambregts Figure 5)]
PNG
media_image1.png
399
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lambregts teaches an underwater propulsion unit comprising:
a plastic housing 3 configured for water to flow around; and
a housing (around 17) configured to receive an electrical drive 17 so that the electrical drive is sealed off from surroundings,
wherein the housing is arranged inside the plastic housing that includes a plurality of openings 27, 30 that are connected via a flow channel, and
wherein the plastic housing is configured such that, when the water flows around the plastic housing, the water flows at least partially around the housing (abstract).
Lambregts does not explicitly teach that the electrical drive housing is watertight. Rott teaches an underwater propulsion unit comprising:
An outer housing 100 configured for water to flow around; and
a drive housing 122 configured to receive an electrical drive 101 so as to be sealed off from surroundings in a watertight manner [0033],
wherein the drive housing is arranged inside the outer housing that includes a plurality of openings (front and back) that are connected via a flow channel, and
wherein the outer housing is configured such that, when the water flows around the outer housing, the water flows at least partially around the drive housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
167
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Rott Figure 1A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrical drive of Lambregts with a watertight housing as taught by Rott in order to ensure that the electric motor is not exposed to water and does not short or corrode.
Neither Lambregts nor Rott explicitly teach that the flow channel comprises turbulators that are connected to the metal housing. Misorski teaches a marine heat exchanger in which the jacket/flow channel 38 comprises “diagonal corrugations or other surface irregularities that…creat(e) non-laminar or turbulent flow to increase heat transfer” (column 4, lines 31-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor housing of Lambregts with a turbulators as taught by Misorski in order to increase the heat transfer capability.
Neither Lambregts nor Rott explicitly teach that the electrical drive housing is metal, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the drive housing from metal in order to make it strong and facilitate maximum heat transfer, 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 2, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts also teaches that the plastic housing 3 comprises an inlet opening 27 in a front region, and an outlet opening 30 in a rear region, and the flow channel extends along a longitudinal axis of the underwater propulsion unit (the channel extends at least partially longitudinally).
Regarding claim 3, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts also teaches that the flow channel is at least partially formed by the metal housing (as the water contacts the motor).
Regarding claim 5, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts also teaches that the electrical drive comprises an electric motor 17.
Regarding claim 6, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Lambregts also teaches that the electrical drive 17 is configured to drive a propeller 7 via a drive shaft 31.
Regarding claim 7, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rott also teaches that the (as taught) metal housing 122 comprises a metal tube that includes at least one of a front tube seal at a front end and a rear tube seal at a rear end thereof (as it is water tight).
Regarding claim 8, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Lambregts and Rott also teach that the drive housing comprises a cable seal (at 16) at the front end thereof, for sealing a cable, and a shaft seal at the rear end thereof. If applicant does not agree that the cable seal is at the front end, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the cable at the front in order to make it easier to access, accommodate spacing concerns or ease manufacturability, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts also teaches that the plastic housing 3 comprises a plurality of flow channels (at least one per side).
Regarding claim 10, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Lambregts also teaches that the flow channels are separated from one another by longitudinal ribs 46 that fix the metal housing 17 to the plastic housing 3. Note that the ribs are spaced along the longitude of the housing, and are slanted such that each rib can be considered at least partially longitudinal. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the ribs aligned longitudinally or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired water flow, manufacturability or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Lambregts also teaches that the flow channels each open out into at least one of separate inlet openings 27 and outlet openings 30 in the plastic housing.
Regarding claim 12, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Lambregts also teaches that the flow channels open out into a common inlet distributor having a common inlet opening in a front region of the plastic housing. As best understood, all channels merge together inside the housing, and the front region can be interpreted broadly.
Regarding claim 13, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts also teaches that the metal housing 17 is arranged substantially centrally in the plastic housing 3, and the plastic housing includes a cable 18 guide channel between the metal housing and the plastic housing.
Regarding claim 14, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Lambregts also teaches that at least one of the openings 27, 30 and the flow channel comprise fixed flow limitation means to adjust a flow through the flow channel. Note that any aperture can be considered a flow limitation means.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambregts US 2021/0163111 in view of Rott US 2011/0201238, Misorski US 11,548,604 and Nelson US 3,814,961.
Regarding claim 4, Lambregts, Rott and Misorski teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lambregts does not teach that the plastic housing is connected to a shaft tube via a shaft tube molding. Nelson teaches an underwater propulsion unit comprising a plastic housing 25 connected to a shaft tube 24 via a shaft tube molding 174. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrical drive of Lambregts with a shaft tube connected to the housing as taught by Nelson in order to use off-the-shelf components, or simplify manufacturing or repair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the motor housing of Lambregts with turbulators/corrugations as taught by Misorski. The examiner with analyze the factual inquiries (Graham factors) as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art-
Both Lambregts and Misorski are directed to marine propulsion units, and in particular how to transfer heat created by the propulsion unit to adjacent liquid.
Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art-
Lambregts teaches that outside water is brought inside an outer casing, forming a kind of water jacket which flows past an inner heat producing motor. Heat is then transferred from the skin of the heat-producing motor directly to the water that has been brought in, and then the water is discharged. Misorski also teaches that outside water is brought into a water jacket (column 4, lines 19-24), and then heat is transferred from the skin of the heat-producing engine directly to water in the water jacket, but adds that turbulators/corrugations on the skin increase this heat transfer (column 4, lines 31-35).
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.-
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that while the source/location of cooling water in Lambregts and Misorski differ, the principles of heat transfer will still function the same in either interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily see that if the corrugations help heat flow from the engine to the cooling jacket water in Misorski, they would also do the same for Lambregts.
As such, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the teachings of Misorski to Lambregts.
The applicant also argues that Lambregts teaches away from turbulators, because the outer housing is designed to reduce turbulence. The examiner has two responses:
First, Lambregts teaches that the outer housing 3 is shaped to be hydrodynamic. The applicant points to paragraphs [0012, 0055 and 0060], all of which discus ensuring a smooth flow of water around the outer casing and as in passes the inlets- this is all in an effort to push the entire propulsion unit smoothly through the water. Lambregts does not teach that the water flow is intended be smooth inside the cooling jacket. The teachings of Misorski clearly apply to the internal heat transfer interfaces, not the external flow surfaces on which Lambregts discusses reducing turbulence.
Second, even if corrugations inside the housing are seen as increasing (external) turbulence (and to be clear, they are not), a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 10 USPQ2d 1843. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that even if a minor amount of drag is induced, it would be outweighed by the advantageous increase in heat transfer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615