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.
A preliminary amendment was filed by the applicant on February 2, 2024.
Claims 1-27 have been cancelled.
Claims 28-54 have been added.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 2, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venables et al. (US 11,685,485).
Venables et al. discloses the same vessel hull stabilization system as claimed, 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 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 fixed spline is fixed to said output shaft, as shown in Figure 17, and 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.
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, 47-48 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venables et al. in view of Brach et al. (US 7,029,339).
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 36-44, 46, 50-52 and 54 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.
Conclusion
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.
March 12, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B