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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi US 5,263,884 in view of Cameron US 4,113,291.
Regarding claim 1, Oishi teaches an outboard motor 1, comprising:
an engine 20; and
an accommodation cover forming an accommodation space accommodating the engine and provided with an opening (where 28 passes through), wherein
the accommodation cover includes:
a lower cover 22 configured to accommodate a lower part of the engine;
an upper cover 24 attached to the lower cover and configured to accommodate an upper part of the engine; and
a plurality of lock portions 56 provided in a connection part between the lower cover and the upper cover facing the accommodation space and configured to fix the upper cover to the lower cover, wherein
a part of the plurality of lock portions includes an interlocking mechanism 36, 30 configured to lock or unlock the part of the plurality of lock portions simultaneously in response to a single operation performed with a tool 28 inserted into of the accommodation space from outside of the accommodation space through the opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Oishi Figure 2
Oishi does not teach a lid configured to open and close the opening. Cameron teaches a security locking system for accessing a door latch which comprises
an accommodation cover forming an accommodation space accommodating equipment and provided with an opening 38, wherein the accommodation cover includes:
a lid 44 configured to be able to open and close the opening;
a door 10;
a main housing 12; and
a plurality of lock portions 24, 26, 28 provided in a connection part between the door and the housing, wherein
a part of the plurality of lock portions includes an interlocking mechanism 24 configured to lock or unlock the part of the plurality of lock portions simultaneously in response to a single operation performed with a tool (socket wrench) inserted into the accommodation space from outside of the accommodation space through the opening with the lid removed from the opening.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Cameron Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the opening handle of Oishi with a special tool and protected opening/access point as taught by Cameron in order to prevent unauthorized opening of the engine cover.
Please note that the pocket formed by the cup washer 38 is at least partially within the accommodation space, as it is inside the door (and also the accommodation space could be interpreted to include the entire cup washer). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recess the cup further into the accommodation space in order to provide a more flush exterior, 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 2, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions includes a first lock portion 56 and a second lock portion 56B, 56C, wherein
the first lock portion includes an operation part on which the single operation is performed, wherein
the interlocking mechanism includes a transmission part 30 configured to transmit the single operation to the second lock portion, wherein
the outboard motor is configured to be attachable to a rear part 14 of a vessel, wherein
the first lock portion is provided on a front side relative to the second lock portion.
Regarding claim 3, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi also teaches that:
each of the plurality of lock portions includes:
an engaged part 54 provided in the upper cover 24; and
an engaging part 56 provided in the lower cover 22 and configured to be engageable with or disengageable from the engaged part in response to an pivot operation of the engaging part, wherein
the interlocking mechanism 36, 30 is connected to the engaging part.
Regarding claim 4, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions are provided along the connection part, wherein
among the plurality of lock portions, a number of lock portions F1 provided on a left side of the outboard motor is different from a number of lock portions R1, R2 provided on a right side of the outboard motor.
Regarding claim 5, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions are provided along the connection part, wherein
among the plurality of lock portions, a number of lock portions R1, R2 provided on a rear side of the outboard motor is larger than a number of lock portions F1 provided on a front side of the outboard motor.
Regarding claim 6, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi does not teach that the plurality of lock portions includes: an independent lock portion provided in the connection part between the lower cover and the upper cover independently of the interlocking mechanism and configured to be independently locked or unlocked. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add another locking system in order to have redundant latches or increase safety by requiring two motions to unlatch the cover, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As modified, some locks will operate independently of the other interlocking mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Oishi also teaches a vessel, comprising: an outboard motor according to claim 1; and a hull to which the outboard motor is attached (see Oishi figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cameron also teaches that the lid 44 is coupled to the accommodation cover 10 via a couple part 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the opening handle of Oishi with a special tool and protected opening/access point as taught by Cameron in order to prevent unauthorized opening of the engine cover.
Regarding claim 9, Oishi and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. As taught, the opening is provided in the lower cover, wherein the lid is coupled to the lower cover via the couple part (as that is where the tool of Oishi is located). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the opening, lid and couple part on the lower cover in order to allow the mechanism to stay in place when the upper cover is removed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi US 5,263,884 or Uchida US 4,971,587 in view of Cameron US 4,113,291.
Regarding claim 1, Uchida discloses an outboard motor, comprising:
an engine 10; and
an accommodation cover 1 forming an accommodation space accommodating the engine and provided with an opening (where 43 passes through), wherein
the accommodation cover includes:
a lower cover 2 configured to accommodate a lower part of the engine;
an upper cover 3 attached to the lower cover and configured to accommodate an upper part of the engine; and
a plurality of lock portions 5, 6 provided in a connection part between the lower cover and the upper cover facing the accommodation space and configured to fix the upper cover to the lower cover, wherein
a part of the plurality of lock portions includes an interlocking mechanism 91 configured to lock or unlock the part of the plurality of lock portions simultaneously in response to a single operation performed with a tool 55 inserted into of the accommodation space from outside of the accommodation space through the opening.
Uchida does not teach a lid configured to open and close the opening. Cameron teaches a security locking system for accessing a door latch which comprises
an accommodation cover forming an accommodation space accommodating equipment and provided with an opening 38, wherein the accommodation cover includes:
a lid 44 configured to be able to open and close the opening;
a door 10;
a main housing 12; and
a plurality of lock portions 24, 26, 28 provided in a connection part between the door and the housing, wherein
a part of the plurality of lock portions includes an interlocking mechanism 24 configured to lock or unlock the part of the plurality of lock portions simultaneously in response to a single operation performed with a tool (socket wrench) inserted into the accommodation space from outside of the accommodation space through the opening with the lid removed from the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the opening handle of Uchida with a special tool and protected opening/access point as taught by Cameron in order to prevent unauthorized opening of the engine cover.
Please note that the pocket formed by the cup washer 38 is at least partially within the accommodation space, as it is inside the door (and also the accommodation space could be interpreted to include the entire cup washer). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recess the cup further into the accommodation space in order to provide a more flush exterior, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image3.png
295
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Uchida Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions includes a first lock portion 5 and a second lock portion 6, wherein
the first lock portion includes an operation part on which the single operation is performed, wherein
the interlocking mechanism includes a transmission part 41, 91 configured to transmit the single operation to the second lock portion, wherein
the outboard motor is configured to be attachable to a rear part 12 of a vessel, wherein
the first lock portion is provided on a front side relative to the second lock portion.
Regarding claim 3, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida also teaches that:
each of the plurality of lock portions includes:
an engaged part 24 provided in the upper cover 3; and
an engaging part 28 provided in the lower cover 2 and configured to be engageable with or disengageable from the engaged part in response to an pivot operation of the engaging part, wherein
the interlocking mechanism 41, 91 is connected to the engaging part.
Regarding claim 4, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions are provided along the connection part, wherein
among the plurality of lock portions, a number of lock portions 5 provided on a left side of the outboard motor is different from a number of lock portions 6, 6’ provided on a right side of the outboard motor.
Please note that without further limitations, the 5 and 6/6’ locations can be considered the left and right sides of the motor. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the front lock 5, or any lock, more to the side of the housing in order to accommodate the expected loads or provide room for other internal components, 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 5, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida also teaches that:
the plurality of lock portions are provided along the connection part, wherein
among the plurality of lock portions, a number of lock portions 6, 6’ provided on a rear side of the outboard motor is larger than a number of lock portions 5 provided on a front side of the outboard motor.
Regarding claim 6, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida does not teach that the plurality of lock portions includes: an independent lock portion provided in the connection part between the lower cover and the upper cover independently of the interlocking mechanism and configured to be independently locked or unlocked. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add another locking system in order to have redundant latches or increase safety by requiring two motions to unlatch the cover, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As modified, some locks will operate independently of the other interlocking mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Uchida also teaches a vessel, comprising: an outboard motor according to claim 1; and a hull 12 to which the outboard motor is attached (see Uchida figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cameron also teaches that the lid 44 is coupled to the accommodation cover 10 via a couple part 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the opening handle of Uchida with a special tool and protected opening/access point as taught by Cameron in order to prevent unauthorized opening of the engine cover.
Regarding claim 9, Uchida and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. As taught, the opening is provided in the lower cover, wherein the lid is coupled to the lower cover via the couple part (as that is where the tool of Uchida is located). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the opening, lid and couple part on the lower cover in order to allow the mechanism to stay in place when the upper cover is removed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi US 5,263,884 or Uchida US 4,971,587 in view of Cameron US 4,113,291 and Krause US 2,211,829.
Regarding claim 6, Oishi and Uchida (separately) and Cameron teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Oishi nor Uchida teach that the plurality of lock portions includes: an independent lock portion provided in the connection part between the lower cover and the upper cover independently of the interlocking mechanism and configured to be independently locked or unlocked.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Krause Figure 5)]
PNG
media_image4.png
241
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Krause teaches an accommodation cover locking mechanism wherein the lock portions include:
a lock 15 connected to an interlocking mechanism 20; and
an independent lock portion 41 provided in the connection part between the lower cover 1 and the upper cover 2 independently of the interlocking mechanism and configured to be independently locked or unlocked.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the locking system of Oishi or Uchida with an independent lock portion as taught by Krause in order to provide a 2nd step of redundancy and ensure the upper cover is not inadvertently released.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have 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'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