DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specifically, at least two references are cited in the Specification but not on an IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature limitations: “dual propeller propulsors” and “waterjet propulsors” must be shown (it is suggested that such be shown with an appropriate reference character corresponding to these feature(s) in the specification) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similarly, the claimed “main exhaust channel” must be shown or canceled from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature(s) consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The Specification does not refer to the drawings regarding the feature(s) indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
10. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
11. The claimed “the vessel” (independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims), “the hull interface” (claim 8), “the lateral drive shafts” (claim 9), “the rotation(s)” (claim 13) and “the respective rotations” (claim 15) lack sufficient antecedent basis, where recited in the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “where the first propulsion unit and the second propulsion unit are individually rotatable about the lateral axis over at least 270 degrees”, and the claim also recites “and preferably over 360 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17 and 18 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 D1: CN 109050845 A (SQTC LTD), cited by applicant. Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, D1 discloses a drive unit for propulsion and trim control of a marine vessel (underwater vessel), with the drive unit (Fig. 1d: drive unit comprises elements [213, 222, 212, 214]) extending in use from the vessel along a vertical axis to a base plane normal to the vertical axis, and spanned by orthogonal longitudinal and lateral axes (the lateral axis along the connecting rod [222]), the drive unit comprising a first propulsion unit [11] and a second propulsion unit [12] arranged separated along the lateral axis and intersected by the base plane (Fig. 1d and paragraphs [0042] - [0043]), where the first propulsion unit [11] and the second propulsion unit [12] are jointly rotatable about the vertical axis (Fig. 1e is a side view of Fig. 1d after a 90 degree around [213], see paragraphs [0050] - [0051]), where the first propulsion unit [11] and the second propulsion unit [12] are individually rotatable about the lateral axis (the two propulsion units [11, 12] are respectively rotatable by means of steering gears [212, 214]. Fig. 1f shows the top view of the vessel after a 90-degree rotation of the steering gears [212, 214] around the lateral axis, see paragraphs [0049] - [0052]). The first and second propulsion units are considered individually rotatable about the lateral axis. D1 does not explicitly disclose that the first and second propulsion units are independently rotatable about the lateral axis (if that is what is intended by applicant by reciting individually as meaning independently in the claims). However, providing independent rotation of each propulsion unit would facilitate variable target movement generation for such propulsion units and the device as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed method is implicitly disclosed in the function and use of such a device. Regarding claims 2, 6 and 17, D1 discloses such features (see Figs. 1a-1f, 2 and 3 and corresponding written description). Regarding claims 10 and 11, applicant discloses in admitted prior art that such features are known with the electric propulsion machines described in reference SE44730C2 cited in the body of the written description.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 3, 4, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: CN 109050845 A (SQTC LTD), cited by applicant. D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific features recited in claims 3, 4 and 12-16. Regarding claim 9, providing and connecting a arrangement of vertical and lateral drive shafts with bevel gears as claimed and as is well known in the art would facilitate drive operation, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 12, providing an additional electric propulsion machine for each propulsion unit would increase propulsive power, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13-16, D1 describes control of roll and pitch attitude of each propulsion unit to realize multiple degrees of freedom for vessel operation. Providing such control as claimed would facilitate variable angular rotation as desired to achieve a desired motion for the vessel, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate motion operation for the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: CN 109050845 A (SQTC LTD), cited by applicant, in view of D2: CN 115384743 A (GETC LTD), also cited by applicant. D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific feature(s) recited in claim 5. However, D2 discloses such feature(s); see hydrofoils [221, 223] in Figs. 2-8. Providing such feature(s) would facilitate enhanced rotation control as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate motion operation for the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the examiner, claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
18. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose individually rotatable marine drive units.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
20. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
02/17/2026