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 .
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.
Claim 5 (and all claims that depend therefrom) is 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 lines 2-3 recite “the annular space is partitioned into two arc-shaped passages with a center angle of about 180° by a pair of partition walls.” It is unclear if these are the same “partition walls” recited in 13 of parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Kruijf US 9,630,693 alone, or in view of Omiya US 6,412,822.
Regarding claim 1, De Kruijf teaches a propulsion apparatus for a ship comprising:
an upper case 2 supported by a hull;
a lower case 4 pivotably supported by the upper case;
a screw 23 disposed in an area submerged in external water in the lower case and configured to generate propulsion power;
a feeding flow channel 67 configured to feed a fluid to the lower case from the upper case via relatively pivoting sliding parts of the upper case and the lower case; and
a returning flow channel 92, 98 configured to return the fluid to the upper case from the lower case via the sliding parts,
wherein an annular space 96 is provided between the sliding part on the side of the upper case and the sliding part on the side of the lower case and the annular space is partitioned into a first arc-shaped passage and a second arc-shaped passage by a plurality of partition walls (the portions between the passages),
any one of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage is in communication with the feeding flow channel, and the
other of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage is in communication with the returning flow channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- De Kruijf Figure 2
In this case, the gearbox 2 passes cooling oil down to the pod 4 through channel 67, then back up through pipe 90, bore 92 and channel 98 (column 8, lines 46-57). As the flows are kept separate, they must inherently be separated, and whatever material separates them is the partition walls. By nature of being formed in the annular space between the upper and lower cases, the channel are at least partially arc-shaped. If the applicant disagrees, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the passages arc-shaped of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to permit the desired flow throughout rotation. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In an alternative interpretation, De Kruijf does not explicitly teach the annular space or arc-shaped passages. Omiya teaches a rotary fluid joint that comprises a flow channel between a lower case 2 and an upper case 1 with an annular space/arc-shaped passage 4a between the relatively sliding parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to (individually) modify the flow channels of De Kruijf with the annular space/arc-shaped passages of Omiya in order to ensure the flow channel remains open throughout a range of motion to prevent interruption to the coolant flow. Note that as modified, the channels do not extend completely around the lower case, as two separate channels must be maintained.
Regarding claim 4, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Kruijf also teaches that:
the annular space is surrounded by an annular groove (the space between the passages) formed in one of the lower case and the upper case and a closing wall (the bottom of the passages in the pod 4) provided on the other,
a case-side passage connected to each of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage is formed in the one of the lower case and the upper case in which the annular groove is formed,
a communication port facing each of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage is formed in the closing wall, and
another case-side passage in communication with each of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage through the communication port is formed in the other of the lower case and the upper case having the closing wall.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Omiya Figure 8)]
PNG
media_image2.png
570
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that the case-side passages and communication ports are simply names for the portions of the flow channels that pass through the upper and lower case. Alternatively, Omiya teaches a rotary coupling in which:
the annular space is surrounded by an annular groove 4a formed in one of the lower case and the upper case and a closing wall provided on the other,
a case-side passage 106a connected to the first arc-shaped passage is formed in the one of the lower case and the upper case in which the annular groove is formed,
a communication port 7 facing the first arc-shaped passage is formed in the closing wall, and
another case-side passage 71 in communication with the first arc-shaped passage through the communication port is formed in the other of the lower case and the upper case having the closing wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to (individually) modify the flow channels of De Kruijf with the annular space/arc-shaped passages of Omiya in order to ensure the flow channel remains open throughout a range of motion to prevent interruption to the coolant flow. Note that as modified, the channels do not extend completely around the lower case, as two separate channels must be maintained.
Claims 2, 3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Kruijf US 9,630,693 alone or in view of Omiya 6,412,822.
Regarding claim 2, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Kruijf does not teach a plurality of pairs of the feeding flow channels and the returning flow channels are provided, the sliding parts are disposed on facing cylindrical surfaces of the upper case and the lower case, and the plurality of annular spaces corresponding to the pairs of the feeding flow channels and the returning flow channels are arranged on the cylindrical surface in an axial direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more channels in order to increase flow to provided increased lubrication and cooling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 3, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. As taught, two sets of the feeding flow channels and the returning flow channels are provided,
lubricating oil that lubricates the inside of the upper case flows through the annular space disposed in the vicinity of the upper case of the cylindrical surface, and
a coolant that cools heat-generating parts disposed inside or outside the upper case flows through the annular space disposed in the vicinity of the lower case of the cylindrical surface.
In this case, De Kruijf teaches the circulation of a cooling oil. Without further limitation, the upper annular space can be considered for lubricating oil, and the lower annular space can be considered for coolant (as the cooling oil performs both functions).
Regarding claim 5, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. De Kruijf also teaches that the annular space is partitioned into two arc-shaped passages by the pair of partition walls (the portions between the passages), one of the passages being the first arc-shaped passage and the other being the second arc-shaped passage, and each of the communication ports is always in communication with one of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage when a pivot angle of the lower case with respect to the upper case is within a range from a central position in one direction and another direction (as it would have to be to function).
De Kruijf does not teach that the arc-shaped passages with a center angle of about 180°, or that each of the communication ports is always in communication with one of the first arc-shaped passage and the second arc-shaped passage when a pivot angle of the lower case with respect to the upper case is within a range of substantially 90° from a central position in one direction and another direction, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to shape the channels to work through 180° (or 90° in either direction) in order to ensure the flow channels maintain communication throughout all forward motion of the craft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. De Kruijf does not teach that the communication port facing the first arc-shaped passage and the communication port facing the second arc-shaped passage are disposed to be offset in a widthwise direction crossing a circumferential direction of the annular space, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ports wherever it was convenient in order to simplify manufacturing or address space concerns, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
De Kruijf does not teach that the pair of partition walls are formed in shapes in which partition regions in the annular space are offset in the circumferential direction on one side and the other side in the widthwise direction, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the partition walls of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or to simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. De Kruijf does not teach specific shapes for the partition walls, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the partition walls of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics or to simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 9, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. De Kruijf also teaches that the lower case is set not to pivot 90° or more in one direction and another direction about the central position with respect to the upper case, as no structure limitations are given by this recitation. That is, what the gearcase is set to pivot could be the operator’s intention, or alternatively, operating the engine set straight ahead qualifies as being set not to pivot.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Kruijf US 9,630,693 and Kirihara US 12,227,280, together or also in view of Omiya 6,412,822.
Regarding claim 9, De Kruijf alone or in view of Omiya teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. In an alternate interpretation, De Kruijf does not explicitly teach that the lower case is set not to pivot 90° or more in one direction and another direction about the central position with respect to the upper case. Kirihara teaches a propulsion apparatus for a ship which sets limits on the steering angle (column 10, lines 18-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion apparatus of De Kruijf with by limiting steering angle as taught by Kirihara so that “the behavior of the ship can be maintained within a stable range” (column 10, lines 18-24).
Neither De Kruijf nor Kirihara explicitly teach limiting steering to 90° in either direction, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to limit steering to 90° in either direction in order to ensure that the ship is not unintentionally moved in reverse, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saruwatari US 2023/0415874 teaches an outboard motor in which the coolant channel area is limited by the steering angle.
Boatman US 6,459,853 teaches a rotary fluid coupling with passages and communication ports.
Burger US 9,758,229 teaches an outboard motor with coolant that circulates between upper and lower housings through a rotary coupling.
Fitzgerald US 1,822,573 and Mihara US 12,258,114 teach an outboard motors with cooling circuits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615