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 .
The present application is a 371 of PCT/NO2022/050181 filed on July 21, 2022.
An amendment and response were filed by the applicant on June 18, 2026.
Claims 1-27 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 28-35, 45 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venables et al. (US 11,685,485) in view of Brach et al. (US 7,029,339).
Venables et al. discloses a vessel hull stabilization system, as shown in Figures 1-20, which is comprised of a drive unit with an electric motor, defined as Part #2, and an output shaft, defined as Part #8, where said electric motor is configured to rotatably drive said output shaft, and said output shaft is configured to be fixed to a stabilizer fin, defined as Part #18, that is disposed outside of a hull of a vessel, as shown in Figure 1. A strain wave gear system is also provided, as shown in Figures 16-17, which includes said electric motor, a wave generator, defined as Part #4, a base unit or housing, defined as Part #200, a flexible spline, defined as Parts #180 and 189, and a fixed spline, defined as Part #172. Said drive unit includes an upper inner part that is comprised of said electric motor and said wave generator, and a lower part that is comprised of said output shaft, said flexible splines and said fixed spline, where said flexible splines are fixed to said output shaft and said fixed spline is fixed to said base unit or housing, as shown in Figure 17. Said upper inner part is configured to be removably assembled to said lower inner part from inside a hull, as shown in Figure 16. Said output shaft is rotationally supported by upper and lower bearings, defined as Parts #160 and 162, that are arranged in a lower inner part of said drive unit, as shown in Figure 16.
Venables et al., as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of first and second vibration insulation elements that are arranged between a base unit and a drive unit of a vessel hull stabilization system.
Brach et al. discloses a shock-proof electric marine engine, as shown in Figures 1-8, which is comprised of a base unit with a housing, defined as Part #12, having first and second lower base surfaces that are configured to be mounted to a hull of a vessel by means of a mounting casing, defined as Part #14, a drive unit that is comprised of an electric motor with first and second upper drive surfaces, a rotor, defined as Part #4, a stator, defined as Part #5, and an output shaft, defined as Part #1, where said electric motor is configured to rotatably drive said output shaft. First and second elastic damping elements, each defined as Part #11, are arranged between said base unit and said drive unit, as shown in Figure 1, where said base unit is vibrationally insulated from said drive unit by said first and second elastic damping elements that are arranged between said first and second base surfaces and said first and second drive surfaces.
The use of elastic damping elements that are made from a specific material would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be an obvious design choice based upon the required strength and the desired physical characteristics of said material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a base unit that is vibrationally insulated from a drive unit by means of first and second elastic damping elements, as taught by Brach et al., in combination with the vessel hull stabilization system as disclosed by Venables et al. for the purpose of providing a vessel stabilizer with a base unit that is vibrationally insulated from a drive unit be means of first and second vibration insulation elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49-54 are allowed.
Claims 36-44 and 46 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 18, 2026 regarding claims 49-54 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 49 as being anticipated by Venables et al. (US 11,685,485) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 regarding claims 28-35, 45 and 47-48 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine first and second vibration insulation elements between a base unit and a drive unit of a marine engine as disclosed by Brach et al. (US 7,029,339) with the vessel hull stabilization system as disclosed by Venables et al. (US 11,685,485) in order to provide the vessel stabilizer as claimed by the applicant.
In response to the applicant’s argument, Venables et al. discloses a vessel fin stabilizer with a base unit or housing (200), a drive unit (2) with an electric motor, a wave generator (4), and an output shaft (8). However, Venables et al. does not disclose the specific use of vibration insulation elements disposed between said base unit (200) and said drive unit (2). As a result, the examiner has relied upon the teachings of Brach et al. to demonstrate that the use of one or more vibration insulation elements between a base unit or housing and a drive unit of a marine vessel is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been considered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one or more vibration insulation elements that are disposed between a base unit or housing (12) and a drive unit with an electric motor (4, 5) and an output shaft (1) as taught by Brach et al. in combination with the vessel hull stabilization system as disclosed by Venables et al. for the purpose of providing a vessel stabilizer with a base unit that is vibrationally insulated from a drive unit with an electric motor. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the rejection of claims 28-35, 45 and 47-48 is deemed proper and is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 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.
July 15, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights