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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the friction brake (claim 4) and clutch (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 (and all claims which depend therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite that the handle can be moved to “a locking position in which none of the engagement positions can be changed,” however the disclosure does not indicate how this is achieved. No mechanism is explained that could function as a lock for the control handle.
Claim 4 recites “a friction brake adapted to hold the handle in the actual rotational position of the handle,” however the disclosure gives no details to the form of this brake, its location, or how it operates.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the electric drive system is adapted to rotate the propeller with a rotational speed that corresponds to the speed of the sailboat, such that the propeller does not induce any drag,” however the disclosure does not provide any explanation as to how this is achieved. The disclosure does not explain how the control handle can ascertain the speed of the (unclaimed) sailboat, how it calculates the corresponding rotational speed, or any other element that would enable the process to be practiced.
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, 4 and 9 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.
Claim 1 recites “a locking position in which none of the engagement positions can be changed.” It is unclear if this indicates that the set points are variable and this locking position fixes them to a specific position, or if this means that the handle cannot be moved (including out of the locking position). For the purposes of this action, the locking position will be interpreted as a handle location that prevents movement in at least one direction.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the actual rotational position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the “actual” rotational position differs from other non-actual rotational positions.
Claim 9 recites “reduces the speed of the sailboat with a speed between 0.3 to 1 knot.” It is unclear if this is how much the speed is reduced by, what the speed is reduced to, or designating which sailboat is having its speed reduced.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda US 7,331,834.
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Yasuda discloses a control handle for controlling an electric drive system of a sailboat, where the control handle comprises a handle and a handle shaft, where the control handle is provided with a plurality of engagement positions, where
a first engagement position F is adapted to engage a forward drive mode of the electric drive system,
a second engagement position R is adapted to engage a reverse drive mode of the electric drive system,
a third engagement position (center of F and R) is adapted to engage an idle drive mode of the electric drive system,
wherein the first engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a first direction B from the third engagement position, and
the second engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a second direction B from the third engagement position,
wherein a fourth engagement position ST is adapted to engage a hydro energy generation mode of the electric drive system, where the fourth engagement position is reached by moving the handle in a first longitudinal direction on the handle shaft, and
in that the control handle further comprises a locking position ENG in which none of the engagement positions can be changed, where the locking position is reached by moving the handle in a second longitudinal direction (when starting from ST) on the handle shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Yasuda Figure 2
Please note that only the handle is positively recited, and as the handle of Yasuda is configured to perform control functions in different positions, it could be adapted to perform the recited functions in a different drive system.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yasuda also discloses that the first direction is a clockwise direction and the second direction is a counter-clockwise direction. Note that no frame of reference is recited.
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yasuda also discloses that the first longitudinal direction is a direction towards a mounting plate of the handle.
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, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson US 6,994,601 in view of Yasuda US 7,331,834.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Larsson Figure 1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
278
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Larsson teaches a control handle 7 for controlling an electric drive system of a sailboat, where the control handle is provided with a plurality of engagement positions,
where a first engagement position is adapted to engage a forward drive mode of the electric drive system,
a second engagement position is adapted to engage a reverse drive mode of the electric drive system,
a third engagement position is adapted to engage an idle drive mode of the electric drive system,
wherein the first engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a first direction from the third engagement position, and
the second engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a second direction from the third engagement position,
wherein a fourth engagement position is adapted to engage a hydro energy generation mode of the electric drive system.
In this case, Larsson teaches that the control handle is movable between “six such distinct relative positions, which correspond in order in the path of movement of the movable part; high speed of the boat backwards, normal speed backwards, neutral position (see definition above), charging position (see definition above), normal speed forwards and high speed forwards” (column 6, lines 10-15).
Larsson does not teach that the control handle comprises a handle and a handle shaft, the fourth engagement position is reached by moving the handle in a first longitudinal direction on the handle shaft, or that the control handle further comprises a locking position in which none of the engagement positions can be changed, where the locking position is reached by moving the handle in a second longitudinal direction on the handle shaft. Yasuda teaches discloses a control handle for controlling an electric drive system of a sailboat, where the control handle comprises a handle and a handle shaft, where the control handle is provided with a plurality of engagement positions, where
a first engagement position F is adapted to engage a forward drive mode of the electric drive system,
a second engagement position R is adapted to engage a reverse drive mode of the electric drive system,
a third engagement position (center of F and R) is adapted to engage an idle drive mode of the electric drive system,
wherein the first engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a first direction B from the third engagement position, and
the second engagement position is reached by rotating the handle in a second direction B from the third engagement position,
wherein a fourth engagement position ST is adapted to engage a separate function of the drive system, where the fourth engagement position is reached by moving the handle in a first longitudinal direction on the handle shaft, and
in that the control handle further comprises a locking position ENG in which none of the engagement positions can be changed, where the locking position is reached by moving the handle in a second longitudinal direction (when starting from ST) on the handle shaft (note that the ENG position can be interpreted as a locking position in that to make other moves, the handle must first be disengaged from the ENG position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Larsson with a control handle (and associated drive system) as taught by Yasuda in order to enable single-handed operation of the motor and its functions. As modified to control the functions of Larsson, the ST position could now be mapped to the hydro energy generation mode.
Regarding claim 2, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Both Larsson and Yasuda teach that the first direction is a clockwise direction and the second direction is a counter-clockwise direction. Note that no frame of reference is recited.
Regarding claim 3, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yasuda also teaches that the first longitudinal direction is a direction towards a mounting plate of the handle.
Regarding claim 5, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Larsson also teaches that the electric drive system further comprises an electric machine 2, a propeller 4, a battery 3 and an electronic control unit 6.
Regarding claim 7, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Larsson also teaches an axle clutch (column 8, lines 1-4), but does not give further details. Yasuda teaches that the electric machine 20 is disconnected from the propeller 54 by a clutch 40 when the idle drive mode is engaged (column 6, lines 35-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Larsson with a clutch as taught by Yasuda in order to physically disengage the motor and prevent unintended motion of the propeller.
Regarding claim 8, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Larsson also teaches that the electric drive system in the hydro energy generation mode controls the rotation of the propeller to a rotational speed that corresponds to a speed that is lower than the actual speed of the sailboat, such that the electric machine generates electricity to the battery (as this is how hydro energy generation functions).
Regarding claim 9, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Larsson does not specifically teach that the controlled rotation of the propeller reduces the speed of the sailboat with a speed between 0.3 to 1 knot, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the prop resistance during generation in order to find the optimum balance between power generated and drag induced, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 11, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Larsson also teaches a sailboat comprising the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson US 6,994,601 in view of Yasuda US 7,331,834 and Okabe US 6,884,132.
Regarding claim 4 as best understood, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Larsson nor Yasuda teach that the control handle is provided with a friction brake adapted to hold the handle in the actual rotational position of the handle. Okabe teaches an outboard motor arm 84 with a control handle 98 which is provided with a friction brake 202 adapted to hold the handle in the actual rotational position of the handle (column 11, lines 7-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the control handle of Larsson and Yasuda with a friction brake as taught by Okabe in order to enable a user to fix the position of the handle as desired.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson US 6,994,601 in view of Yasuda US 7,331,834 and Caouette CA 2,643,878.
Regarding claim 6 as best understood, Larsson and Yasuda teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Neither Larsson nor Yasuda teach that the electric drive system is adapted to rotate the propeller with a rotational speed that corresponds to the speed of the sailboat, such that the propeller does not induce any drag, when the idle drive mode is engaged. Caouette teaches an electric propulsion system for a marine craft with regeneration, wherein the electric drive system is adapted to rotate the propeller with a rotational speed that corresponds to the speed of the sailboat, such that the propeller does not induce any drag (“electronically cancel the drag associated to fixed blade propeller(s) whether fixed or rotating, connected to an electric motor, by ordering the motor(s) controller(s) to switch to torque mode and supplying very small amount of power to the motor to turn the propeller in sync with the flow of water, so that no drag is created-“ claim 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Larsson with drag cancellation as taught by Caouette in order to minimize or eliminate drag when saying on wind power (and with the engine in idle mode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suzuki US 9,896,176 teaches a control handle for a marine propulsion device in which the handle can be rotated to engage a variety of functions.
Kinpara US 9,422,045 teaches a control handle for a marine propulsion device in which the handle comprises a detent to prevent inadvertent motion.
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