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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approaches” in claim 1 (line 10) and claim 10 (line 10) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approaches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it is unclear what voltage level or range of voltage levels would be considered as “approaches” one half an inter-terminal voltage of the battery (as recited in claims 1 and 10). How close does the inductive voltage of the generator have to be to one half of an inter-terminal voltage of the battery to be considered as “approaches” one half of an inter-terminal voltage of the battery? For this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to determine the scope of the claims and what is included or excluded by the claims.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the water propulsion system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to refer back to “watercraft propulsion system” (as recited in claim 1, line 1) or if this is intended to introduce a new “water” propulsion system. For examination purposes, claim 7 is being interpreted as referring back to the watercraft propulsion system.
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)(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) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaneyuki (US 5,418,401).
Regarding claim 10, Kaneyuki teaches a power system (see Figs. 1-4) comprising: an engine (not shown, see col. 3, lines 1-2); a generator (1) to be driven by the engine; a rectifier regulator (4, 5 & 8) connected to the generator; a battery (10 & 12, see col. 3, lines 28-49) to be charged with power generated by the rectifier regulator; and a charging controller (20) configured or programmed to control the charging of the battery with the power generated by the rectifier regulator such that an inductive voltage of the generator approaches one half an inter-terminal voltage of the battery (controller 20 controls charging of the first battery 10 (e.g. a 12v battery) by opening and closing of switch 15 when the output of the rectifier regulator is approximately 14.5 volts, which is approximately half the voltage of second battery 12 (e.g. a 24v battery), see Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 3, lines 2-49; col. 4, lines 3-12; col. 5, lines 15-49).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneyuki teaches: The power system according to claim 10, wherein the battery includes a first battery (10) having a first inter-terminal voltage (e.g., 12v, see col. 3, lines 33-34), and a second battery (12) having a second inter-terminal voltage (e.g., 24v, see col. 3, lines 43-45) that is higher than the first inter-terminal voltage; the power system further comprises an engine rotation speed sensor to detect a rotation speed of the engine (see col. 4, lines 7-12); and the charging controller (20) includes a switch (15) to connect the rectifier regulator to either one of the first battery and the second battery (the switch 15 connects the rectifier regulator to first battery 10, see Fig. 1), and a controller configured or programmed to control the switch according to the engine rotation speed detected by the engine rotation speed sensor (see col. 4, lines 7-12 and col. 5, line 15 – col. 6, line 2).
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) 1, 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneyuki (US 5,418,401) in view of Lebreux et al (US 6,857,918 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, Kaneyuki teaches a propulsion system (see Figs. 1-4) comprising: an engine (not shown, see col. 3, lines 1-2); a generator (1) to be driven by the engine; a rectifier regulator (4, 5 & 8) connected to the generator; and a charging controller (20) configured or programmed to control the charging of a battery (10 & 12, see col. 3, lines 28-49) with the power generated by the rectifier regulator such that an inductive voltage of the generator approaches one half an inter-terminal voltage of the battery (controller 20 controls charging of the first battery 10 (e.g. a 12v battery) by opening and closing of switch 15 when the output of the rectifier regulator is approximately 14.5 volts, which is approximately half the voltage of second battery 12 (e.g. a 24v battery), see Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 3, lines 2-49; col. 4, lines 3-12; col. 5, lines 15-49).
Kaneyuki does not specifically teach (regarding claim 1) a watercraft propulsion system and a propeller to be driven by the engine; (regarding claim 7) wherein the watercraft propulsion system includes an outboard motor; (regarding claim 8) a hull; a battery provided on the hull; and the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1 provided on the hull; and (regarding claim 9) an electrical load provided on the hull and connected to the battery.
Lebreux et al teaches a watercraft propulsion system (see Fig. 7) including an engine (ICE 230), a propeller to be driven by the engine (see col. 21, lines 17-21), a first battery (240, 14V) and a second battery (238, 42V) having a higher inter-terminal voltage than the inter-terminal voltage of the first battery; wherein the watercraft propulsion system includes an outboard motor (see col. 21, lines 17-21); a hull (12); a battery provided on the hull (238 & 240); and an electrical load (peripherals) provided on the hull and connected to the battery (see col. 12, lines 44-45).
In view of Lebreux et al’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the vehicle of Kaneyuki to be a watercraft and include: (regarding claim 1) a watercraft propulsion system and a propeller to be driven by the engine; (regarding claim 7) wherein the watercraft propulsion system includes an outboard motor; (regarding claim 8) a hull; a battery provided on the hull; and the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1 provided on the hull; and (regarding claim 9) an electrical load provided on the hull and connected to the battery, since Lebreux et al teaches that watercraft can include a multiple battery & multiple voltage electrical system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention would recognize that watercraft could be an implementation of the system taught by Kaneyuki.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneyuki as modified by Lebreux et al teaches the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the battery includes a first battery (10) having a first inter-terminal voltage (e.g., 12v, see col. 3, lines 33-34), and a second battery (12) having a second inter-terminal voltage (e.g., 24v, see col. 3, lines 43-45) that is higher than the first inter-terminal voltage; the watercraft propulsion system further comprises an engine rotation speed sensor to detect a rotation speed of the engine (see col. 4, lines 7-12); and the charging controller (20) includes a switch (15) to connect the rectifier regulator to either one of the first battery and the second battery (the switch 15 connects the rectifier regulator to first battery 10, see Fig. 1), and a controller configured or programmed to control the switch according to the engine rotation speed detected by the engine rotation speed sensor (see col. 4, lines 7-12 and col. 5, line 15 – col. 6, line 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note: the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections presented above must also be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kaneyuki as and Lebreux et al do not teach the specific components and connections as recited in claims 3-6 and 12-15. Furthermore, without the benefit of applicant’s invention, it would not have been obvious combine these various components from the other prior art references (see attached PTO-892) in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the additional references cited on the attached PTO-892, which are directed to vehicle and/or watercraft electrical charging systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859