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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is an incomplete sentence. It should be rephrased to –and the electric motor rotationally drives—or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Alexander Figure 13)]
PNG
media_image1.png
385
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 13, 16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander US 6,142,841 in view of Sills US 6,406,339.
Regarding claim 1, Alexander teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device (main propulsion system- column 9, lines 44-54) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body; and
a second propulsion device (any of 311, 312, 313) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device;
the second propulsion device 311, 312, 313 is a propulsion device of an electric type using an electric motor 220 as a power source (abstract);
the second propulsion device 311, 312 includes a longitudinal thruster that generates propulsion force for moving the boat body at least forward or backward and a lateral thruster 313 that generates propulsion force for moving the boat body at least leftward or rightward.
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system.
Alexander does not teach details of the first propulsion device. Sills teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body 12;
a first propulsion device 28 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body by injection of a jet water flow;
the first propulsion device includes an engine 30 of an internal combustion type and a jet pump 32 that is driven by the engine.
PNG
media_image2.png
179
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Sills Figure 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a jet water flow first propulsion device as taught by Sills in order to utilize a proven water jet propulsion for efficient high-speed travel independent of the (second) docking maneuvering system.
If the applicant does not agree that the engine of Sills is internal combustion, then the examiner is taking official notice that internal combustion engines are well-known in the art. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an internal combustion engine for the main power source in order to use a powerful engine tailored for long duration use, 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).
Regarding claim 3, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device includes an impeller 311, 312, 313 disposed in a water passage 301, 302, 303 through which water flows, and the electric motor that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage.
Regarding claim 4, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device 311, 312, 313 includes an impeller disposed in a water passage 301, 302, 303 through which water flows, and the power source that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage (as something causes the impeller to rotate), and
the water passage includes an inlet formed at a position exposed above a water surface when the jet propulsion boat is in a planing state (column 11, lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 5, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Alexander also teaches that the water passage 301, 302, 303 includes an outlet formed at a position away from a center of gravity of the jet propulsion boat in a longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 7, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also discloses that:
the second propulsion devices includes the longitudinal thruster; and
the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 passing through the boat body, and a power source disposed inside the boat body to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from one end of the water passage (column 13, lines 23-28).
If the applicant does not agree that the power source is inside the boat body, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with an electric inside the boat body as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to protect all system components from the external environment.
Regarding claim 11, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the longitudinal thruster is detachably attached to the boat body, as everything is detachable to some degree. In an alternative interpretation, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thrusters detachable in order to simplify maintenance or replacement, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 12, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 that each inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from openings at opposite ends of corresponding one of a pair of left and right water passages 301, 302 extending in the longitudinal direction, and
each of the longitudinal thrusters has a mechanism that changes a direction of a water flow flowing through the corresponding one of the water passages (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse).
Regarding claim 13, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, and the power source that rotationally drives the impeller, and
the power source is capable of changing a rotation direction of the impeller (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 16, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that: the lateral thruster includes an impeller 313 disposed in a water passage 303 passing through the boat body, and the power source provided inside the boat body to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow in a lateral direction from one end of the water passage (each impeller has its own motor- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 18, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device includes a pair of left and right longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 and a lateral thruster 313.
Regarding claim 19, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Alexander also teaches that:
the pair of longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 are disposed on the respective left 14 and right 12 sides of a rear part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces a longitudinal direction, and
the lateral thruster 313 is disposed in a front part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 20, Alexander teaches a propulsion boat which planes on water in an inclined posture in which a bow rises, the propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body; a
first propulsion device that imparts propulsion force to the boat body (main propulsion system- column 9, lines 2-5), the propulsion force capable of moving the propulsion boat; and
a second propulsion device 311, 312, 313 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device,
wherein the second propulsion device includes an impeller disposed in a water passage 301, 302, 303 through which water flows, and a power source that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage, and
the water passage includes an entrance formed at a position exposed above from a water surface when the propulsion boat is in a planing state (column 11, lines 51-55).
Alexander does not teach details of the first propulsion device. Sills teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body 12; and
first propulsion device 28 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body, the propulsion force capable of moving the propulsion boat in a planing state; and
the first propulsion device includes an engine 30 of an internal combustion type and a jet pump 32 that is driven by the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a jet water flow first propulsion device as taught by Sills in order to utilize a proven water jet propulsion for efficient high-speed travel independent of the (second) docking maneuvering system.
If the applicant does not agree that the engine of Sills is internal combustion, then the examiner is taking official notice that internal combustion engines are well-known in the art. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an internal combustion engine for the main power source in order to use a powerful engine tailored for long duration use, 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).
Regarding claim 21, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, and the water passage includes a rear opening that opens straight backward. Note that as the opening is completely in the flat rear face of the hull, it can be said to open straight backward.
Regarding claim 22, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the boat body includes a hull, but is silent as to particulars of the deck and engine. Sills teaches that the boat body includes a hull 12, a deck 29 overlying the hull, and a seat (a lowered portion of the deck) covering an upper surface of the deck, and the engine 30 is disposed below the seat and behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a deck/cover/seat over first propulsion device as taught by Sills in order to provide a place for the operator to sit and/or keep the machinery out of sight.
PNG
media_image3.png
117
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Sills Figure 5
Regarding claim 23, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 and the lateral thruster 313,
each of the longitudinal thrusters includes an impeller disposed in a water passage through which water flows, and the electric motor that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage, and
the electric motors of the pair of longitudinal thrusters are arranged behind the lateral thruster symmetrically with respect to a center axis of the boat body extending in a longitudinal direction.
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander US 6,142,841 in view of Sills US 6,406,339 and Duclos US 11,173,993.
Regarding claim 21, Alexander and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, but in an alternative interpretation the water passage does not include a rear opening that opens straight backward. Duclos teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device 32 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body (column 4, lines 44-53); and
a second propulsion device 30.1, 30.2 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device, wherein
the first propulsion device includes an engine of an internal combustion type,
the second propulsion device is a propulsion device of an electric type using an electric motor 38 as a power source; and
the second propulsion device includes a longitudinal thruster that generates propulsion;
that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the water passage includes a rear opening 50 that opens straight backward.
PNG
media_image4.png
245
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Duclos Figure 8
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with longitudinal thruster ducts that open straight backward as taught by Duclos in order to enable the thrusters to be used for purely forward propulsion when desired.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11-13, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duclos US 11,173,993 in view of Sills US 6,406,339.
PNG
media_image5.png
304
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5- Duclos Figure 2
Regarding claim 1, Duclos teaches a jet propulsion boat 10 comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device that imparts propulsion force to the boat body (column 4, lines 44-53); and
a second propulsion device 30.1, 30.2 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device, wherein
the first propulsion device includes an engine 32 of an internal combustion type,
the second propulsion device is a propulsion device of an electric type using an electric motor 38 as a power source, and the second propulsion device includes a longitudinal thruster that generates propulsionforce for moving the boat body at least forward or backward and/or a lateral thruster that generates propulsion force for moving the boat body at least leftward or rightward.
Duclos does not teach that the first propulsion device is an injection jet pump. Sills teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body 12;
a first propulsion device 28 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body by injection of a jet water flow;
the first propulsion device includes an engine 30 of an internal combustion type and a jet pump 32 that is driven by the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a jet water flow first propulsion device as taught by Sills in order to utilize a proven water jet propulsion for efficient high-speed travel independent of the (second) docking maneuvering system.
Regarding claim 3, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that the second propulsion device includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the electric motor 38 rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage.
Regarding claim 5, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Duclos also teaches that the water passage 44 includes an outlet formed at a position away from a center of gravity of the jet propulsion boat in a longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 7, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also discloses that:
the second propulsion devices includes the longitudinal thruster; and
the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 passing through the boat body, and a power source disposed inside the boat body to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from one end of the water passage.
Regarding claim 11, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that the longitudinal thruster is detachably attached to the boat body, as everything is detachable to some degree. In an alternative interpretation, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thrusters detachable in order to simplify maintenance or replacement, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 12, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 30.1, 30.2 that each inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from openings at opposite ends of corresponding one of a pair of left and right water passages 44 extending in the longitudinal direction, and
each of the longitudinal thrusters has a mechanism that changes a direction of a water flow flowing through the corresponding one of the water passages (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse).
Regarding claim 13, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the power source that rotationally drives the impeller, and
the power source is capable of changing a rotation direction of the impeller (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse- column 4, lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 21, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the water passage includes a rear opening that opens straight backward.
Regarding claim 22, Duclos and Sills teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Duclos also teaches that the boat body includes a hull, but is silent as to particulars of the deck and engine. Sills teaches that the boat body includes a hull 12, a deck 29 overlying the hull, and a seat (a lowered portion of the deck) covering an upper surface of the deck, and the engine 30 is disposed below the seat and behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Duclos with a deck/cover/seat over first propulsion device as taught by Sills in order to provide a place for the operator to sit and/or keep the machinery out of sight.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant argues that neither Alexander nor Sills teach both the jet pump internal combustion engine (first) propulsion device and the electric (second) propulsion device. However, this is the essence of a 103 obviousness rejection- understanding that Alexander teaches a main propulsion system apart from the docking system (column 9, lines 44-54), one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the jet pump of Sills would be an obvious choice for this main propulsion system.
In response to applicant's argument that Alexander does not have room for the jet drive of Sills, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). However, as mentioned above, Alexander already teaches a separate main propulsion system (column 9, lines 44-54).
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, applicant argues that there is no need for a main propulsion system in Alexander. Again, this ignores the fact that Alexander already teaches a separate, main propulsion system (column 9, lines 44-54). Plus, the applicant argues that “Alexander already provides a mechanism for full control over its marine vessel, in terms of speed and direction of thrust, thus obviating any need for additional propulsion means” (page 11) despite the fact that Alexander teaches that its docking maneuvering system does not function at planing speeds (column 11, lines 51-55).
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