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 1-15 are pending in the application.
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: “latch handle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature (with appropriate reference character corresponding to this feature in the written description) 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 discloses a latch handle 9 that does not correspond to the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-15 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.
10. The claimed features “the drive shaft” and “the propeller” (as recited in independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims), and “the side parts” (as recited in dependent claim 13) lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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, claims 1-4, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 9643702 B2 (Shomura et al.), cited by applicant, in view of D2: US D629015 S (Iekura et al). Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses an outboard motor [10], comprising: a lower case [41] having an open top end and covering a main frame (engine holder) [11] that supports a power source (internal combustion engine) [12] and a vertically extending drive shaft [20] for transmitting a power output of the power source [12]; a bottom frame [21] a rotatable propeller [24], and a gear mechanism (within gear case [21]) for transmitting the power output from a lower end of the drive shaft to the propeller; and an upper case [40] attached to the open top end of the lower case [41] in a detachable manner, wherein the upper case [40] is provided with a top recess (between first and second lid members [91, 94]) provided in a top surface part of the upper case [40]. D1 does not disclose a pair of side recesses provided on either side of the upper case with the top recess at least partly overlapping with the side recesses with respect to a fore and aft direction in normal operation. However, D2 discloses top and side recesses with this arrangement as shown in Figs. 1-7. Providing such an arrangement would have been considered a matter of preference to suit function and aesthetics, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 2-4, D2 discloses such features (see figures). Regarding claim 15, both D1 and D2 are configured to be tilted up when attached to a boat or watercraft via their hinged connection mechanisms to a transom or hull of the boat or watercraft. 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 foregoing features to facilitate function and aesthetics 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 9643702 B2 (Shomura et al.), cited by applicant, in view of D2: US D629015 S (Iekura et al), and further in view of D3: US 7267592 B1 (Ingebritson et al.). D1 in view of D2 disclose all claimed features as indicated previously, except the claimed latch handle. However, D3 discloses such a latch handle [14] for selectively latching an upper case to a lower case of an outboard motor. Providing such a latching arrangement would have facilitated selectively latching the upper case to the lower case, 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 an arrangement to facilitate selectively latching the upper case to the lower case 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
Claims 5-12 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
15. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references show outboard motors with top and side recesses in the upper case.
16. 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).
17. 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
12/08/2025