Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,764

MARINE DRIVE SYSTEM WITH CENTERING BEARING SURFACE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
WIEST, ANTHONY D
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Volvo Penta Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 896 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
925
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 896 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS submitted on 9/26/2023 list US publication 2014/0022097. This reference appears to be unrelated to the current invention and was not considered by the examiner. 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 “locking means” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 2, line 3 cites US 2014022097 and describes it as showing a fixed propeller that can be retracted into the hull of a boat. This appears to be an incorrect reference. Page 5 line 11 recites ‘The drive unit is in on example”. The examiner believes “on” should be “one”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) 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; (B) 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”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. “Locking means” of claim 14 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “adjustment mechanism” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The following references are used in the rejections below: D1 JAMES M) 12 May 1959 D2 WO 2018/198063 A1 (B4S SA [CH]) 1 November 2018 D3 JP S61 198197 U 11 December 1986 (1986-12-11) D4 US 1 124 645 A (OVERTON CHARLES S$ [US]) 12 January 1915 D5 KR 2014 0076940 A (SAMSUNG HEAVY IND [KR]) 23 June 2014 D6 US 2 987 027 A (WANZER ARTHUR W) 6 June 1961 D7 EP 2 979 972 A1 (SAMSUNG HEAVY IND [KR]) 3 February 2016 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by HAWTHORNE, US 2 885 990 (disclosed by applicant). HAWTHORNE discloses (references in parentheses apply to this document): a drive system (see figure 3) for a marine vessel (S) comprising a circular first housing (30) provided with an opening (70, see figure 3) and being fixed to an opening inside a hull (H) of the marine vessel (S), and a drive unit (see figure 3) arranged inside the first housing (30), where the drive unit (3) comprises a second circular housing (see figure 3) comprising a drive motor (see figure 3) and a marine propulsion system attached to the second housing (see figure 3: the motor, the leg and the propeller shaft are in one housing), where the marine propulsion system comprises a leg (see figure 3) and a hub provided with at least one propeller (10), where the drive system comprises an adjustment mechanism (14, 16, 18) arranged to adjust the position of the drive unit in the first housing (30), where the drive system is provided with a parking position (see figure 2) in which the marine propulsion system is positioned inside the first housing and a drive position (see figure 3) in which the marine propulsion system is positioned outside of the first housing (30), wherein the first housing (30) is provided with an inwardly extending flange (76) having a tapered flange shape (see surface 77), where the inwardly extending flange is arranged around the circumference of the opening (see figure 3), and that the second housing is provided with an edge at the circumference of a lower side (80) of the second housing, having an edge shape complementary to the flange shape (see figure 3), such that the edge of the second housing bears on the flange of the first housing when the drive system is in the drive position (see figure 3: element 80 can engage with 77 to seal the housing). See figure 3 of HAWTHORNE for features of claims 2, 4-9 and 11. Claim 2 (sealing gasket 78, protrusion 76), Claim 4: electric drive motor 12 Claim 6: see tapered edges 77, 80 (fig. 3) Claim 9: compressible sealing gasket 78 Claims 12 & 13: housing is capable of rotating or being in a fixed position. Claim 14: screw 14 and gear nut 16 can lock in the desired predetermined position 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 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAWTHORNE. Claim features of O-ring thickness (claim 3), substituting an internal combustion engine (claim 5), tapered flange angles (claims 7 and 8) and the outer shape of the housings being non-circular (common for non-rotating housings) are all obvious alterations or alternatives easily accomplished by a skilled artisan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HAWTHORNE by altering or substituting the features of the indicated claims. Doing so are all routine changes easily accomplished by a routineer in final design and outfitting of the retractable propulsion system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3483843 and US 5522335 each disclose retractable thruster systems. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00. 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 Morano can be reached at 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 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. /ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595025
STEP APPARATUSES FOR BOATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589836
SURGE DAMPING SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577942
METHODS OF SECURING A VESSEL DURING TRANSPORTATION, OFF-LOADING, AND INSTALLATION OF WIND TURBINE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571372
FLOATING WIND TURBINE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565296
RAPID REPLACEMENT CONTROL FIN FOR AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 896 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month