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 filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments that Gonzalez, Ulgen and Sabourin do not teach the amended limitations of claim 1 are persuasive.
Applicant argued that Ringblom does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ringblom, as shown in the figure, flange 2 has an end face which extends transverse to the center axis of the shaft 1. Also the blades are independently removable from the flange or separately fixed to the flange (see Figure). With respect to applicant’s argument that Ringblom includes a hub, examiner notes that the portion 3 of the blade (4) is integral part of the detachable blades directly connected to the shaft’s flange. This is not different from applicant’s invention which discloses a “hub” 2a integrally connected to the blade portion 2 (see, applicant’s drawing; Fig. 4).
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 5 and 8 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 5 recites: “at least one engine or motor” which is a double inclusion. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to or is part of the “an engine or a motor” recited in claim 1. The metes and the bounds of the claims are unclear.
Claim 8 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
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, 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ringblom et al. (US 6,176,680 B1) hereinafter Ringblom.
Regarding claim 1, Ringblom teaches a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, the marine propeller comprising:
a propeller shaft (1) having a first end configured to be driven by an engine or a motor (Ringblom is directed to “an impeller or a propeller for a rotary machine such as a liquid pump of centrifugal or axial type, a turbine or a propulsion unit” see, Col. 1, lines 6-11. As such the propeller or the propulsion unit must be driven by an engine or a motor), a second end (end connected to flange 2) (see Figure), and a center axis extending through the propeller shaft, the flange defining an end surface transverse to the center axis (see Figure); and
a plurality of detachable blades (3, 4) separately fixed to the flange of the propeller shaft, wherein a hollow area is defined between the detachable blades to form a hub-less propeller (see figure),
wherein the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the flange, and
wherein each of the detachable blades are independently removable from the flange of the propeller shaft (see Figure). It is noted that the limitations “a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, the marine propeller” is a statement in the preamble and has been given a patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the propeller comprises a cap (5) connected to the detachable blades of the propeller (see figure).
Regarding claim 3, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the propeller comprises three or more detachable blades (see figure).
Regarding claim 4, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the detachable blades are fixed to the propeller shaft with a fixing system comprising bolts. (Col. 1, 65-Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 11, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 10. Ringblom further teaches the plurality of detachable blades each comprise a fixing portion (3) configured to be fixed to the end surface of the propeller shaft or an end surface of a 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 (see Figure).
Regarding claim 12, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the end surface is perpendicular to a center axis of the propeller shaft (see Figure).
Regarding claim 13, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the plurality of detachable blades each comprise a fixing portion (3) 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 propeller shaft (Figure) or an end surface of a flange formed at the end of the propeller shaft, wherein the second end is laterally offset the end surface of the propeller shaft or an end surface of a flange formed at the end of the propeller shaft (because the fixing portion 3 is arcuate, when the first end is in contact with flange 2, the second end would be offset from the first end).
Regarding claim 15, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Ringblom further teaches the first end of the fixing portion of each detachable blade comprises a connection section extending radially in relation to the center axis of the propeller shaft, and wherein the connection section of the fixing portion comprises holes (Ringblom teaches that the connection section is fixed to the flange by bolts which means the connection section must have holes to take the bolts) that one or more bolts are received therein.
Regarding claim 16, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the propeller comprises a cap (3) 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 (see Figure).
Regarding claim 17, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches only the first end of the fixing portion (3) is coupled to the end surface of the flange (see, figure).
Regarding claim 18, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom further teaches the propeller shaft terminates at the end surface of the flange (see, Figure).
Regarding claim 19, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ringblom 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 (see, figure).
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 Ringblom in view of Gonzalez (EP 2497709 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 7-8, Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 including the propulsion system for providing a propulsion, the propulsion system comprising at least one engine or motor (Col. 1, lines 6-11), the propeller and the propeller shaft conveying rotational from the at least one engine to the propeller.
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 Ringblom, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to design the propeller of Ringblom for use in a propulsion system of a ship for a particular application.
Regarding claim 9, Ringblom 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 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 Ringblom 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringblom in view of Sabourin (9,291,145 B1).
Ringblom teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 including the detachable blades foring the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the flange by one or more bolts (see Figure and Col. 1, line 65-Col. 2, line 5).
Ringgblom does not specifically state the one or more bolts extending in a direction along a center axis of the propeller shaft.
However, Sabourin teaches a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship, which 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) of the propulsion system of a ship, wherein the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to an end surface of the propeller shaft or an end surface of a flange formed at the end of the propeller shaft (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, lines 28-41). It is notated the limitation: “a marine propeller for a propulsion system of a ship” is a limitation in the preamble and has not been given a patentable weight.
Sabourin further teaches the detachable blades forming the propeller are configured to be fixed only to the end surface of the propeller shaft by one or more bolts extending in a direction along a center axis of the propeller shaft (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 28-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ringblom such that the one or more bolts extend in a direction along a center axis of the propeller shaft as taught by Ringblom for the simple reason of connecting the detachable blades to the shaft or flange.
Conclusion
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 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