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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0049] lines 5, 6 and 8 recite “rotatable shaft 402”, “rudder blade 404” and “rudder blade 404” respectively. The rotatable shaft and rudder blades shown in Figure 5 are reference numbers 502 and 504 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites a “tope portion of the rudder blade”. This should be “top portion of the rudder blade”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duryea, US 3872817. Duryea discloses a rudder used to turn a watercraft, aerial vehicle, or other vehicle moving through a fluid medium, comprising: an elongated rotatable shaft #24, #26; a rudder blade #14, #16 extending in parallel with the elongated shaft; and at least one arm #38,#40 connecting the elongated shaft to the rudder blade such that the rudder blade is disposed at a distance away from the elongated shaft. Figure 3 shows that the rudder blade forms an outer circumference around the axis of the rotatable shaft as the rotatable shaft is rotated.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AT 152891B. As best interpreted by the examiner AT 152891B discloses a rudder used to turn a watercraft, aerial vehicle, or other vehicle moving through a fluid medium, comprising: an elongated rotatable shaft #2; a rudder blade #8 extending in parallel with the elongated shaft; and at least one arm #6, #7 (arms are disposed in parallel) connecting the elongated shaft to the rudder blade such that the rudder blade is disposed at a distance away from the elongated shaft. Figures 2-5 show that the rudder blade forms an outer circumference around the axis of the rotatable shaft as the rotatable shaft is rotated.
Regarding claim 5: Figure 6 appears to show the claimed configuration where an open rectangular space is formed between the first and second horizontal arms and the rudder blade.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duryea. Duryea discloses the invention set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the claimed features of claims 7-10:
Regarding claim 7: Duryea teaches an arm connecting a bottom portion of the shaft to a top portion of the rudder, the rudder blade disposed at a distance from the rotatable shaft, but does not explicitly disclose where the arm is an angled arm connecting a bottom portion of the shaft to a middle portion of the rudder blade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the arm and attach the arm to a middle portion of the rudder blade rather than the top of the rudder blade. The motivation would be to support the rudder blade in the middle portion, providing better balance to the blade and reduce twisting of the blade when the arm is attached to the top of the rudder blade.
Regarding claims 8-10: the materials cited are common rudder materials used in the art, and foil shapes and tapered sides are commonly used in rudder and foils in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use common rudder materials to form the rudder blade and to form the blade in aerodynamic shapes to minimize drag.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT 152891B. AT 152891B discloses the invention set forth above but does not explicitly disclose where the pair of extension arm a disposed at different angles with respect to each other. A simple change of shape of the rudder blade from rectangular to triangular would make it obvious to angle the supporting extension arms accordingly. Triangular shaped rudder blades are known in the art and would be an obvious alternative choice for a rudder shape to provide a narrower rudder portion near the stern and a wider rudder portion further aft to increase steering effectiveness. Such changes in shape are typically considered to be within the skills and abilities of an artisan (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rudder design of AT 152891 by using angled extension arms to support a triangular shaped rudder. Angling the support arms would accommodate known rudder shapes such as a triangular rudder.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper et al., US 9914504. Gasper discloses a rudder comprising an elongated rudder blade #33P of rectangular shape from the top portion thereof to the bottom portion thereof, (see Figs 2-4), a hinge #37 comprised of hinge pin 53 and hinge arms #49 and #51 attached to the stern of a watercraft. Figure 3 of Gasper depicts the hinge as a single hinge extending the length of the rudder blade #33p. Simply altering the design to include an upper hinge assembly and a lower hinge assembly connected to the upper portion of the rudder blade and the lower portion of the rudder blade would be an alternative arrangement commonly found in hinged components where a piano hinge can be replaced by several smaller hinges to save cost, weight or simplify replacement of parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rudder apparatus of Gasper by replace the single continuous hinge assembly on the rudder with upper and lower hinge assemblies comprised of a first connection arm connected at a first end to an upper portion of the rudder blade and the second connection arm being connected at a lower portion of the rudder blade, such that the connection arms extend in parallel away from the rudder blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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