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 .
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. (US 20140022097 appears in the IDS, but it is not what the spec describes. It’s a likely typo in the spec, and Examiner tried a few likely errors but did not find what Applicant referenced in the spec.)
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
“adjustment mechanism” in Claims 1-15.
“cleaning sequence” in Claims 1-15 (synonymous with “any steps for cleaning”)
“gas pressure source” in Claim 11, 12 (synonymous with “any means for providing pressurized gas”)
“locking means” in Claim 14
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 1-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 20180162507 A) in view of Sensibar (US 4030435 A) and further in view of Forslund (US 20170185080 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Gibson discloses A drive system for a marine vessel comprising a first housing (Element 23)fixed to an opening in a hull of the marine vessel, and a drive unit arranged inside the first housing, where the drive unit is provided with a second housing comprising a drive motor and a marine propulsion system attached to the second housing, where the marine propulsion system comprises a leg (In way of Element 31) and a hub (Element 12) provided with at least one propeller, where the drive system comprises an adjustment mechanism (Element 18) arranged to adjust the position of the drive unit in the first housing, where the drive system is provided with a parking position in which the marine propulsion system is positioned inside the first housing and a drive position (Fig. 2.) in which the marine propulsion system is positioned outside of the first housing, characterized in:
that the drive system is provided with cleaning sequence in which the drive unit is moved from the parking position to the drive position and back to the parking position at least once, where the cleaning sequence is adapted to mechanically clean the thruster support pipe (Element 20) from the movement of the drive unit from the parking position to the drive position back to the parking position, and horizontal foundation plate 22 moves along the length of chamber 23. Gibson does not explicitly disclose that the drive system is provided with a programmable automatic cleaning sequence when the marine vessel is parked with the drive unit in the parking position, nor cleaning sequence is adapted to mechanically clean the inside of the first housing from the movement of the drive unit from the parking position to the drive position back to the parking position.
Sensibar discloses wherein cleaning sequence is adapted to mechanically clean the inside of the first housing from the movement of a horizontal plate. (C17, L30-39, seal 280 on housing ). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a seal on foundation plate 22 of Gibson to clean chamber 23 which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Gibson is that the sides of chamber 23 are in a similar environment as the support tube of Gibson and would therefore benefit from the cleaning gasket of Sensibar. Gibson in view of Sensibar does not explicitly disclose that the drive system is provided with a programmable automatic cleaning sequence in which the drive unit is moved from the parking position to the drive position and back to the parking position at least once when the marine vessel is parked with the drive unit in the parking position.
Forslund discloses surfaces have biofouling during parking (paragraph 8) and that the actuatoris provided with a programmable automatic cleaning sequence in which the actuator is moved from the parking position to along its range of motion to sweep marine growth. (paragraph 44). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to program an automatic cleaning sequence in which the drive unit is moved from the parking position to the drive position and back to the parking position at least once when the marine vessel is parked with the drive unit in the parking position into the drive system of Gibson in view of Sensibar which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Gibson in view of Sensibar is to sweep off marine growth periodically when parked.
Regarding Claim 2, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the drive motor is an electric drive motor. (This is an alternative in Gibson paragraph 3)
Regarding Claim 3, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the drive motor is an internal combustion engine. (This is an alternative in Gibson paragraph 3)
Regarding Claim 4, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the programmable cleaning sequence is programmed to be performed with a predetermined interval when the marine vessel is parked. (Forslund paragraph 45)
Regarding Claim 5, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined interval is less than 48 hours.
Regarding Claim 6, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined interval is less than 24 hours.
Regarding Claim 7, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning sequence is repeated at least two times. (paragraph 43, 45)
Regarding Claim 8, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the first housing and the second housing is cylindrical. (Gibson 23 shows a cube which is in the BRI of a cylinder.)
Regarding Claim 9, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the first housing and the second housing is non-cylindrical, having an oval shape, an elliptical shape, a parallelogram shape or a prismatic shape. (Gibson 23 is prismatic.)
Regarding Claim 10, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism arranged to adjust the position of the drive unit in the first housing are hydraulic cylinders (Gibson, paragraph 39), but does not explicitly disclose the cylinders are adapted to be controlled automatically by an ECU of the vessel.
Forslund discloses that cylinders are adapted to be controlled automatically by an ECU of the vessel. (paragraph 52, paragraph 60) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to adapt the cylinders of Gibson to be controlled automatically by an ECU of the vessel which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Gibson is to save labor by automating a process.
12. Regarding Claim 15, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a vessel, comprising at least one drive system according to claim 1. (Gibson, paragraph 1)
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 20170185080 A) in view of Sensibar (US 4030435 A) and further in view of Forslund (US 20190072948 A1) and further in view of Brandt (US 4501560 A)
Regarding Claim 11, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the drive unit is provided with a gas pressure source having an outlet in the lower side of the second housing, such that gas can be inserted into the first housing when the drive unit is in the parking position.
Brandt discloses the drive unit is provided with a gas pressure source having an outlet in the lower side of the second housing, such that gas can be inserted into the first housing when the drive unit is in the parking position. (4G Fig. 9.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a propeller hub for exhaust such that the drive unit is provided with a gas pressure source having an outlet in the lower side of the second housing, such that gas can be inserted into the first housing when the drive unit is in the parking position which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Gibson is to use a known location to for the exhaust gas that reduces fumes in the air.
13. Regarding Claim 12, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund and further in view of Brandt discloses a drive system according to claim 11, wherein the gas comprises one or more components counteracting biofouling. (Exhaust prevents biofouling to at least some degree. See Carli in Prior art of record below.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 20170185080 A) in view of Sensibar (US 4030435 A) and further in view of Forslund (US 20190072948 A1) and further in view of Breems (US 20010029133 A1)
12. Regarding Claim 13, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1 where the hub as one propeller, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the hub is provided with two propellers.
Breem discloses a retractable drive wherein the hub is provided with two propellers. (Fig.4.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a to add a second propeller to the hub which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to provide two propellers is to increase the blade area without increasing the depth (diameter) of the propeller.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 20170185080 A) in view of Sensibar (US 4030435 A) and further in view of Forslund (US 20190072948 A1) and further in view of Reginensi (US 4075971 A)
Regarding Claim 14, Gibson in view of Sensibar and further in view of Forslund discloses a drive system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the drive system is provided with a locking means that is adapted to lock the adjustment mechanism in the selected position.
Reginensi discloses a retractable drive the drive system is provided with a locking means that is adapted to lock the adjustment mechanism in the selected position.(C1, L59-65) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a locking means to the drive system of Gibson which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Gibson is to use a known a known means to help keep the drive system in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carli (US 20150259035 A1) uses exhaust to inhibit biofouling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 20 Dec 2025