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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/12/2024 and 9/18/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 4/26/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Keisuke (Japanese Patent Publication JP2015107678A). (Google Translates)
With respect to Claim 10: While Keisuke discloses “An outboard motor comprising” [Keisuke, Abstract (an outboard engine)];
“a drive source” [Keisuke, Abstract (A transmission 33 is provided in a transmission chamber 37 between a drive shaft housing 16 for housing a drive shaft 22 and a lower unit for housing a propeller shaft that drives a propeller)];
“a first gear including a first gear shaft including a first end connected to an output shaft of the drive source, the first gear being a helical gear or a bevel gear” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (45 and 22a)];
“a second gear including a second gear shaft including a first end, the second gear meshing with the first gear and being a helical gear or a bevel gear” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (47 and 48)];
“a first bearing to support the first end of the first gear shaft or the first end of the second gear shaft” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (41 and 43)];
“a second bearing to support a second end of the first gear shaft or a second end of the second gear shaft; and” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (42 and 44)];
“a case to accommodate at least the first gear, the second gear, the first bearing, and the second bearing; wherein” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (34 and 35)];
“at least one of the first bearing or the second bearing defines a fixing mechanism to fix the first gear shaft or the second gear shaft to the case at a predetermined position in an axial direction of the first gear shaft or an axial direction of the second gear shaft when the first gear and the second gear rotate” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)].
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (Japanese Patent Publication JP2015107678A). (Google Translates) in view of Matsuda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0401683).
With respect to Claim 1: While Keisuke discloses “An outboard motor comprising” [Keisuke, Abstract (an outboard engine)];
“an motor including an output shaft extending in an upper-lower direction” [Keisuke, Abstract (A transmission 33 is provided in a transmission chamber 37 between a drive shaft housing 16 for housing a drive shaft 22 and a lower unit for housing a propeller shaft that drives a propeller)];
“a first helical gear including a first gear shaft extending in the upper-lower direction” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (45 and 22a)];
“and including a first end connected to the output shaft of the electric motor” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (45 and 22a)];
“a first bearing to support the first end of the first gear shaft” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (41 and 43)];
“a second bearing to support a second end of the first gear shaft” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (42 and 44)];
“a second helical gear including a second gear shaft extending in the upper-lower direction and meshing with the first helical gear” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9 (47 and 48)];
“a case accommodating at least the first helical gear, the first bearing, and the second bearing” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (34 and 35)];
“wherein at least one of the first bearing or the second bearing defines a fixing mechanism to fix the first gear shaft at a predetermined position in the upper-lower direction with respect to the case when the first and second helical gears rotate” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)];
Keisuke does not specifically state that this motor is an electric motor.
Matsuda, which is also a vehicle drive device that suppresses thrust forces in helical gears teaches “an electric motor” [Matsuda, ¶ 0007-0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda into the invention of Keisuke to not only include angled bearings to fix shafts to reduce unwanted thrust as Keisuke discloses but to also suppress thrust on helical gears for electric motos as taught by Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Matsuda into Keisuke to create a more robust system that can work on all types of motors. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements to suppress unwanted thrusts in motors and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Keisuke discloses “The outboard motor according to claim 1, wherein the fixing mechanism includes the second bearing, and the second bearing includes a first angular bearing and a second angular bearing positioned back to back with respect to the first angular bearing; and the first angular bearing and the second angular bearing are fixed to the case and to the second end of the first gear shaft in the upper-lower direction” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)].
With respect to Claim 5: Keisuke discloses “The outboard motor according to claim 1, wherein the fixing mechanism includes the first bearing including a first tapered roller bearing fixed to the case” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)];
“and the second bearing including a second tapered roller bearing fixed to the case” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)];
“and a direction of inclination of a rotation shaft of a tapered roller of the first tapered roller bearing and a direction of inclination of a rotation shaft of a tapered roller of the second tapered roller bearing are symmetrical with respect to the first helical gear” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)].
With respect to Claim 6: Keisuke discloses “The outboard motor according to claim 5, wherein the rotation shaft of a tapered roller of the first tapered roller bearing and the rotation shaft of a tapered roller of the second tapered roller bearing are inclined such that the closer the first tapered roller bearing and the second tapered roller bearing are to each other, the greater a distance between the rotation shaft of the tapered roller and the first gear shaft” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)].
With respect to Claims 7-8: While Keisuke discloses “The outboard motor according to claim 1, further comprising a motor case, separate from the case, to accommodate the motor” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 4];
“wherein the case accommodates the motor” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 4];
Keisuke does not specifically state that this motor is an electric motor.
Matsuda, which is also a vehicle drive device that suppresses thrust forces in helical gears teaches “an electric motor” [Matsuda, ¶ 0007-0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda into the invention of Keisuke to not only include angled bearings to fix shafts to reduce unwanted thrust as Keisuke discloses but to also suppress thrust on helical gears for electric motos as taught by Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Matsuda into Keisuke to create a more robust system that can work on all types of motors. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements to suppress unwanted thrusts in motors and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 9: Keisuke discloses “A boat comprising: a hull; and the outboard motor according to claim 1 mounted to a rear portion of the hull.” [Keisuke, Abstract (Figure 2)].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (Japanese Patent Publication JP2015107678A). (Google Translates) in view of Matsuda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0401683) and in further view of Shirakawa et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0098797)
With respect to Claims 3-4: Keisuke discloses “The outboard motor according to claim 2, wherein the second bearing includes an angular bearing” [Keisuke, ¶ 0028-0032 with Figure 9-10 (41-44)].
Keisuke does not specifically state double row angular bearings.
Shirakawa, which is also a moving part system that suppresses thrust teaches “wherein the second bearing includes a double row angular bearing.” [Shirakawa, ¶ 0071 and 0076 with Figure 2];
“wherein the case includes a contact surface that contacts one end surface of the double row angular bearing in the upper-lower direction” [Shirakawa, ¶ 0071 and 0076 with Figure 2];
“and the second end of the first gear shaft includes a protruding portion that sandwiches the double row angular bearing with the contact surface in the upper-lower direction” [Shirakawa, ¶ 0071 and 0076 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shirakawa into the invention of Keisuke to not only include angled bearings to fix shafts to reduce unwanted thrust as Keisuke discloses but to also use double rows of angled bearings as taught by Shirakawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Shirakawa into Keisuke to create a more robust system that can withstand thrust loads such as load in a thrust direction (the axial direction) and a load in a radial direction can be securely received to smoothly rotate the rotary shaft [Shirakawa, ¶ 0071]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements to suppress unwanted thrusts in motors and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c