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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings, and comprise improper shading. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, 17, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly US 12,479,543 in view of Takeda US 2024/0101240, alternatively also in view of Buckman US 10,299,525 or Beauvais US 4,146,176.
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a watercraft 110 comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Kelly Figure 3)]
PNG
media_image1.png
500
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hull;
an electric drive (1)34, 1182;
a battery (1)22, (1)24 electrically coupled to the electric drive; wherein the battery is movable with respect to the electric drive; and
an actuation assembly (1)12 coupled to the battery;
wherein the battery is movable with respect to the hull by the actuation assembly between a first position and a second position (abstract); wherein moving the battery between the first position and the second position adjusts a center of gravity of the watercraft (column 11, lines 31-34); and
an electrical cable 136, 138 extending between the battery 122, 124 and the electric drive 134, 1128, and wherein the electrical cable has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the battery between the first position and the second position (column 5, lines 47-55).
Kelly does not teach a coolant line extending between the battery and the electric drive, and wherein the coolant line has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the battery between the first position and the second position. Takeda teaches a ship propulsion device 1 which comprises a coolant line 30 extending between a battery 12 and an electric drive 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly with a coolant line between the drive and battery as taught by Takeda in order to efficiently transport cooling water from beneath the hull to the batteries and ensure proper operating temperature. As modified, coolant would have a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the battery between the first position and the second position (just as the electrical cable does).
In an alternate interpretation, neither Kelly nor Takeda teach that the coolant line has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the battery between the first position and the second position. Buckman teaches a heating and cooling device which comprises a telescopic coolant line 24 extending between the cooling source 17 and the cooled component 34, and wherein the coolant line has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the cooled component between a first position and a second position (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly and Takeda with a telescopic coolant line as taught by Buckman in order to ensure the cooled component is free to move while maintaining the coolant connection.
In an alternate interpretation, neither Kelly nor Takeda teach that the coolant line has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the battery between the first position and the second position. Beauvais teaches a heat transfer device which comprises a thermal line 46 extending between the heat source 53 and the heated component 10, and wherein the heat line has a length that is sufficient to permit travel of the cooled component between a first position and a second position (column 4, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly and Takeda with a bellowed line as taught by Beauvais in order to ensure the components are free to move while maintaining the fluid connection.
Regarding claim 4, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches that the battery 122, 124 is movable with respect to the hull by the actuation assembly 112 to a plurality of intermediate positions between the first position and the second position.
Regarding claim 5, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches that the battery 122, 124 moves between the first position and the second position along a translation axis 116, 118.
Regarding claim 6, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Kelly also teaches that the translation axis 116 is parallel to a center bow-stern axis of the watercraft.
Regarding claim 7, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Kelly also teaches that the translation axis 118 is transverse to a center bow-stern axis of the watercraft.
Regarding claim 8, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches that the actuation assembly 112 includes a carriage coupled to the battery, a pinion driven by an actuator, and a rack with a plurality of teeth configured to engage the pinion, wherein the carriage is configured to slide along the rack (column 8, lines 21-24). Note that while this configuration is not shown in detail, any rack and pinion system to move a component will comprise a rack, pinion, and carriage.
Regarding claim 9, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches a lock assembly 948a, 950a, 952, 954 configured to lock the position of the battery 122, 124 with respect to the hull. In this case, Kelly discloses that a threaded rod and lead nut actuation system will “have a high helix angle in order to prevent movement of the battery pack 922 when electrical power is not applied to the servo motors 956, 958” (column 7, lines 11-14), serving as a lock.
Regarding claim 12, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches that the battery (1)22 is a first battery, and the watercraft further includes a second battery (1)24 electrically coupled to the electric drive (1)34, 1128.
Regarding claim 13, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Kelly also teaches that the second battery (1)24 is movable with respect to the hull by the actuation assembly between a third position and a fourth position.
Regarding claim 14, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Kelly also teaches that the first battery (1)22 moves between the first position and the second position along a first translation axis (1)16, and the second battery (1)24 moves between the third position and the fourth position along a second translation axis (1)18.
Regarding claim 15, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Kelly also teaches that the first translation axis 116 is orthogonal to the second translation axis 118 (see Kelly figure 3).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Kelly Figure 1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
400
207
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly is silent as to the nature of the battery and motor components. Takeda teaches a ship propulsion device 1 which comprises an electric motor 16 and an inverter 14, and wherein the battery 12 includes a housing and a plurality of battery cells 22 positioned within the housing 2/24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly with multiple battery cells and an inverter as taught by Takeda in order to provide redundancy and/or increased capacity and the ability to use an AC motor.
Regarding claim 20, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly also teaches that the actuation assembly 112 is configured to move the battery 122, 124 at a first speed and at a second speed, wherein the second speed is larger than the first speed. Note that the actuation assembly could be commanded to move at several different speeds.
Regarding claim 21, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly does not teach that the coolant line includes a bellows or a telescoping tube and is configured to expand in length or retract in length in response to movement of the battery between the first position and the second position. The examiner is taking official notice that both bellows and telescoping tubes are well-know configurations for a movable fluid line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly and Takeda with a telescopic or bellowed coolant line in order to ensure the cooled component is free to move while maintaining the coolant connection.
Alternatively, Buckman teaches a heating and cooling device which comprises a telescopic coolant line 24 extending between the cooling source 17 and the cooled component 34, and wherein the coolant line is configured to expand in length or retract in length in response to movement of the cooled component between a first position and a second position (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly and Takeda with a telescopic coolant line as taught by Buckman in order to ensure the cooled component is free to move while maintaining the coolant connection.
Alternatively, Beauvais teaches a heat transfer device which comprises a bellowed thermal line 46 extending between the heat source 53 and the heated component 10, and wherein the heat line is configured to expand in length or retract in length in response to movement of the cooled component between a first position and a second position (column 4, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Kelly and Takeda with a bellowed line as taught by Beauvais in order to ensure the components are free to move while maintaining the fluid connection.
Regarding claim 22, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda also teaches that the coolant line 30 is configured to cycle a coolant to and from the battery 12, and wherein the coolant line is coupled to a heat exchanger 30b integrated within the electric drive.
Regarding claim 24, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 20. Kelly also teaches that the first speed is within a range of 0.01 meters/second to 0.5 meters/second, and wherein the second speed is within a range of 1.0 meters/second to 3.0 meters/second, as the actuation assembly could be commanded to move at whatever speed the user desires.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the first speed within a range of 0.01 meters/second to 0.5 meters/second, and the second speed within a range of 1.0 meters/second to 3.0 meters/second in order to optimize performance and/or reaction time, 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.
Claims 8, 18, 19, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly US 12,479,543 in view of Takeda US 2024/0101240 and Min KR 2012-0112891, alternatively also in view of Buckman US 10,299,525 or Beauvais US 4,146,176.
Regarding claim 8, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternate interpretation, Kelly does not explicitly teach that the actuation assembly includes a carriage coupled to the battery, a pinion driven by an actuator, and a rack with a plurality of teeth configured to engage the pinion, wherein the carriage is configured to slide along the rack. Min teaches a ship with a mass 122a movable to balance the ship, wherein an actuation assembly includes a carriage 122 coupled to the mass, a pinion 1242 driven by an actuator, and a rack 121 with a plurality of teeth 1211 configured to engage the pinion, wherein the carriage is configured to slide along the rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the balancing system of Kelly with a rack and pinion actuation assembly as taught by Min in order to ensure the weight/batteries can be moved as desired while preventing unintended movement or slipping.
PNG
media_image3.png
188
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Min Figures 1 and 2
Regarding claim 18, Kelly and Takeda, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kelly does not teach a sensor that detects the position of the battery. Min teaches a ship with a mass 122a movable to balance the ship, wherein an actuation assembly includes a sensor 123 that detects the position of the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the balancing system of Kelly with a weight/battery position sensor as taught by Min in order to automate more precise control of the battery position.
Regarding claim 19, Kelly, Takeda and Min, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Kelly also teaches that the system is controlled based on a sensed position of the watercraft (column 10, lines 7-17), but does not teach that the controller configured to energize the actuation assembly in response to a detected position of the battery by the sensor. Min teaches a controller 130 configured to energize the actuation assembly 120 in response to a detected position of the weight 122a by the sensor 123 and a position of the watercraft in water (provided by sensor 110) [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the balancing system of Kelly to control the battery movement with both a ship condition sensor and a weight/battery position sensor as taught by Min in order to automate more precise control of the battery position.
Regarding claim 23, Kelly, Takeda and Min, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Neither Kelly nor Min explicitly teach that the actuation assembly includes two or more racks configured to form rails along which the carriage and the battery slide, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add an additional rack in order to better support the load and/or provide redundancy, 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 25, Kelly, Takeda and Min, together or further in view of Buckman or Beauvais teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Min also teaches that the sensor 123 is positioned near a carriage 122 coupled to the mass 122a and is configured to detect a location along a rack 121 of the actuation assembly, but does not teach that the sensor is positioned on the carriage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the sensor on the carriage in order to collocate moving components and simplify installation and maintenance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “the proposed combination would therefore require more than simply "adding" Takeda's coolant flow passage to Kelly” (page 8), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Kelly already teaches that the electric cables can be formed with enough length to allow movement of the battery. Takeda is only relied upon for the teaching of a battery cooling circuit. As explained above, when Kelly is modified to incorporate the concept of a cooling circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cooling line must be formed with enough length to accommodate battery motion, just as the electric line is.
In the interest of compact prosecution, alternative rejections have been made in which Buckman and Beauvais teach extendable coolant lines.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As stated above, Takeda is relied upon for the teaching of a battery cooling circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit that this would provide to the battery of Kelly.
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 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights