Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 December 2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10 December 2025.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the drawing objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The drawing objection(s) are withdrawn.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found moot in light of the new rejection below.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "load transmission mechanism, " first introduced in claim 2:
the transfer load mechanism is configured to transmit the axial load acting on the outer propeller shaft to the bearing 48 and comprises the step portion 51and the rear stopper 52 on the outer peripheral side of the front-end-side portion of the outer propeller shaft 4; or an equivalent thereof (see FIG. 4).
B. “bearing support mechanism,” first introduced in claim 2:
the bearing support mechanism supports the first bearing and prevents the first bearing from being displaced in the front direction and may comprise a stopper 54 and a spacer 53, or an equivalent thereof (see FIG. 4).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogino (JP H07323892), hereafter referred to as Ogino.
Examiner note: see tertiary Non-Patent Literature reference “What’s the Difference Between Bearings?” from machinedesign.com dated August 26, 2015, for evidence that tapered roller bearings have a higher thrust (synonymous with axial) load capacity than a straight roller bearing.
Regarding Claim 1, Ogino discloses the following:
An outboard motor for a contra-rotating propeller type, comprising:
an outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) extending in a front-rear direction and having a tubular shape, to whose rear portion a first propeller (2; FIG. 1) is mounted;
an inner propeller shaft (5) extending in the front-rear direction and disposed at an inner peripheral side of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4), to whose rear portion a second propeller (3) is mounted;
a rear driven gear (12) disposed at a rear side of a drive gear (29) coupled to a lower end side of a drive shaft (27) extending in an up-down direction, configured to mesh with the drive gear (29), and coupled to a front end side of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4);
a front driven gear (11) disposed at a front side of the drive gear (29), configured to mesh with the drive gear (29), and coupled to a front end side of the inner propeller shaft (5); and
a case (4; FIG. 4) covering a front portion of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4), a front portion of the inner propeller shaft (5), the drive gear (29), the rear driven gear (12), and the front driven gear (11),
wherein a first bearing (18) rotatably supporting the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) on the case (4; FIG. 4) and configured to receive an axial load acting on the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) in a front direction from the first bearing toward the rear driven gear (see [0056] last sentence) is provided at an outer peripheral side of the front portion of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogino discloses the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 1,
wherein the first bearing (18) is disposed between the front portion of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) and the case (4; FIG. 4), wherein a load transmission mechanism (6b, FIG. 2) configured to transmit the axial load acting on the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) in the front direction to the first bearing (18) is provided at the outer peripheral side of the front portion of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4), and
wherein a bearing support mechanism (36; FIG. 2; [0056]) supporting the first bearing (18) so that the first bearing (18) is not displaced in the front direction with respect to the case (4; FIG. 4) is provided at the case (4; FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogino discloses the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 1,
wherein the first bearing (18) is disposed at an outer peripheral side of the rear driven gear (12) or at a rear side of the rear driven gear (12).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogino discloses the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 1,
wherein a second bearing (20) rotatably supporting the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) on the case (4; FIG. 4) is provided at an outer peripheral side of the outer propeller shaft (6; FIG. 1-2, 4) and at a rear side of the first bearing (18).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogino discloses the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 4,
wherein the first bearing (18) has a larger load capacity (it is noted the first bearing is shown in FIG. 2 to be a tapered roller bearing explicitly described as receiving thrust front the outer shaft in [0056] while the second bearing is described as a needled bearing in [0034]; thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the first bearing inherently has a higher load capacity in the axial direction) while the in an axial direction than the second bearing (20).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL, “Double Row Tapered Bearing - TDO Bearings _ American Roller Bearing - wayback capture 18 August 2019”, hereafter referred to as Double Row, and NPL, “Double-Row Tapered Roller Bearings - NSK Bearings for Metal Making - Wayback machine 25 Oct 2021,” hereafter referred to as NSK.
Regarding Claim 6, Ogino discloses the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 1,
Ogino does not disclose the following:
wherein the first bearing is disposed at a rear side of a third bearing so as to be adjacent to the third bearing, the third bearing rotatably supporting the rear driven gear on the case.
However Double Row and NSK teaches the following:
double row taper bearings are well known in the art (Page 1, Double Row; Page 2, NSK).
Ogino as modified by Double Row and NSK results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the first bearing (right side bearing of the double row tapered bearing) is disposed at a rear side of a third bearing (left side bearing of the double row tapered bearing) so as to be adjacent to the third bearing (left side bearing of the double row tapered bearing), the third bearing (left side bearing of the double row tapered bearing) rotatably supporting the rear driven gear (12) on the case (4; FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single row taper bearing as disclosed by Ogino, with the double row taper bearing, as taught by Double Row, with the reasonable expectation of providing a bearing that can accommodate axial loads in both directions (see NSK, Page 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogino as modified by Double Row and NSK teaches the following:
The outboard motor according to claim 6,
wherein the third bearing (left side bearing of the double row tapered bearing) is configured to receive an axial load acting on the third bearing (left side bearing of the double row tapered bearing) in a rear direction from the rear driven gear (12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745