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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-12, 14, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pagan (US 548,655).
Regarding claim 1, Pagan teaches a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, the marine propeller comprising:
a propeller shaft (constituted by elements D and B together) having a first end configured to be driven by an engine or a motor, a second end defining a flange (Pagan, annotated FIG. 1 below), and a center axis extending through the propeller shaft, the flange defining an end surface extending transverse to the center axis (Pagan, annotated FIG. 1 below); and
a plurality of detachable blades (A) separately fixed to the flange of the propeller shaft (Figs. 1-3, page 1, lines 27-35), wherein a hollow area is defined between the detachable blades to form a hub-less propeller (Figs. 2-6),
wherein the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the flange (Figs. 2-6), and
wherein each of the detachable blades are independently removable from the flange of the propeller shaft (page, 1, lines 75-82).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the propeller comprises a cap connected to the detachable blades of the propeller (Pagan, annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Pagan the propeller comprises three or more detachable blades (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the detachable blades are fixed to the propeller shaft with a fixing system comprising bolts (C) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the plurality of detachable blades each comprise a fixing portion (base section A’) configured to be fixed to the end surface the flange (2) formed at the end of the propeller shaft, and wherein the hollow area is defined between the fixing portion of each of the plurality of detachable blades (Figs. 2-7; page 1, lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 12, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the end teaches the end surface is perpendicular to a center axis of the propeller shaft (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the flange by one or more bolts extending in a direction along a center axis of the propeller shaft (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 18, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the flange by one or more bolts extending in a direction along a center axis of the propeller shaft (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the hollow area is devoid of any support structure, and wherein the hollow area does not receive any portion of the propeller shaft therein (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches one of the detachable blades is removable while the remainder of the detachable blades are attached to the flange of the propeller such that each of the detachable blades are independently removable from the flange of the propeller shaft (Fig. 2, page, 1, lines 75-82).
Regarding claim 21, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the detachable blades forming the propeller are directly fixed only to the end surface of the flange (Fig. 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) 5, 7, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagan in view of Gonzalez (EP 2497709 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 7-8, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 including a propulsion system for providing a propulsion, the propulsion system comprising at least one engine or motor (inherent to the invention, as the propeller needs to be powered by an engine or a motor), the propeller and the propeller shaft conveying rotational from the at least one engine to the propeller. Pagan is silent is whether the propeller is for a propulsion system for a ship.
However, Gonzalez teaches marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, which propeller comprises a plurality of detachable blades (2) (Figs. 1-2, paras. 0016-0020), and which propeller is hub-less (“the blades are directly attached to the shaft”, para. 0007) and configured to be fixed to a propeller shaft (4) of the propulsion system of a ship, wherein the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to an end surface (6) of the propeller shaft (4) or an end surface of a flange (head 12 at the end of shaft is a flange) formed at the end of the propeller shaft (Figs. 1-2).
Gonzalez further teaches its propeller is used for providing a propulsion system for a ship (paras. 0008-0011 and 0016). Since the propeller of Gonzalez has substantially the same structure as that of Pagan, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to design the propeller of Pagan for use in a propulsion system of a ship for a particular application.
Regarding claim 9, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4 but fails to teach the fixing system additionally comprises studs (11) (para. 0019, Figs. 1-2).
However, Gonzalez teaches a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, which propeller comprises a plurality of detachable blades (2) (Figs. 1-2, paras. 0016-0020), and which propeller is hub-less (“the blades are directly attached to the shaft”, para. 0007) and configured to be fixed to a propeller shaft (4) of the propulsion system of a ship, wherein the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to an end surface (6) of the propeller shaft (4) or an end surface of a flange (head 12 at the end of shaft is a flange) formed at the end of the propeller shaft (Figs. 1-2).
Gonzalez further teaches the fixing system additionally comprises studs (11) (para. 0019, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include studs in the fixing system of Pagan as taught by Gonzalez as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none but an expected result; namely connecting the propeller blades to the flange.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagan in view of Sabourin et al. (US 9,291,145 B2) hereinafter Sabourin.
Regarding claim 13, Pagan teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Pagan further teaches the plurality of detachable blades each comprise a fixing portion (base section A’) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end is configured to be fixed to the end surface of the flange (Fig. 2 and Pagan, annotated FIG. 2 above; page 1, lines 60-67).
Pagan fails to disclose the second end is laterally offset from the end surface of the propeller shaft.
However, Sabourin teaches a propeller comprises a plurality of detachable blades (comprised of blades 2 and fixing portion or body 5) (Figs. 1-3; Col. 3, line 60-Col. 4, line 7), and which propeller is hub-less and configured to be fit to a propeller shaft (connected at end 31 of the assembled propeller blades; Col. 4, lines 28-41). Sabourin further teaches the plurality of detachable blades each comprise a fixing portion (5) having a first end (at 31) and a second end (at 32) opposite the first end (Figs. 2-3), wherein the first end is configured to be fixed to the shaft (Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 28-41), wherein the second end is laterally offset from the first end (Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Pagan by constructing the fixing portion such that the second end is laterally offset from the second end in order to reduce water resistance over the fixing portion. The combination teaches the second end is laterally offset from the end surface of the flange of the propeller.
Regarding claim 15, Pagan as modified Sabourin teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Pagan as modified by Sabourin further teaches the first end of the fixing portion of each detachable blade comprises a connection section (33; Sabourin, Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 27-40) extending radially in relation to the center axis of the propeller shaft, and wherein the connection section of the fixing portion comprises holes that one or more bolts are received therein Sabourin, Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 27-40).
Regarding claim 16, Pagan as modified Sabourin teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Pagan as modified by Sabourin further teaches the propeller comprises a cap connected to the second end of the fixing portion, and wherein the cap is the only structure coupling the detachable blades of the propeller together (Pagan, annotated FIG. 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, Pagan as modified Sabourin teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Pagan as modified by Sabourin further teaches only the first end of the fixing portion is coupled to the end surface of the flange (Pagan, annotated FIG. 2 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights