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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-7, 9, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alby et al (US 10800502; cited by Applicant) in view of Schroeder et al (US 4924696; cited by Applicant) and Tromblee (US 2004/0217757). With respect to claims 1-2, Alby et al disclose the basic claimed structure including an outboard propulsion system (Figure 1) with a first portion 28, 29 for attachment to a boat, the first portion 28, 29 is fixed about a substantially vertical axis (Figures 5-6) and a second portion 38 connected to the first portion 28, 29 and configured to rotate about a steering axis 44 (Figures 5-6) with the first portion having a sealed housing 28, 56 enclosing a member 62 having a longitudinal axis relative to which it may move when in use and the second portion has a gear 46, 72 configured to engage with the member 62, 70 (Figure 3) such that movement of the member 62 relative to its longitudinal axis generates rotational movement of the gear 52, 72 about the steering axis. Not disclosed by Alby et al is a sensor to determine the position of the member within the housing and a helical magnet with a Hall Effect sensor. Schroeder et al teach a sealed actuator housing with a rack and pinion and a contactless position sensor 106 with magnet (column 4, lines 42-50; claims 1, 3; all the Figures). Tromblee teaches a helical magnet in a Hall Effect sensor (claim 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Alby et al with a sensor with magnet to determine the position of the member within the housing as taught by Schroeder et al with a high likelihood of success for improved steering control and to form the sensor with a helical magnet for a Hall Effect as taught by Tromblee with a high likelihood of success for improved sensing accuracy. The combinations combine known features to achieve predictable results. With respect to claims 3-4, 7, 20, note Alby et al, all the Figures. With respect to claim 5, the steering axis of Alby et al could be non-vertical depending upon the attitude of the vessel. With respect to claim 6, note Alby et al, all the Figures and pump 58. With respect to claim 9, note Alby et al, note Figure 4 and chambers 67. With respect to claims 13-19, note Alby et al, note Figures 10-14 and the description of Figures 10-14. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex steering systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would be familiar with various steering sensing systems including Hall Effect sensors. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claims 8 and 10-11 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.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Marc Q. Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights