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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “a lower unit having a propeller there is driven by a motor in the motor head.” The “is” is unnecessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 (and all claims that depend therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 13 recite “a belt tensioner including one or more adjustable tension wheels in contact with the belt between the drive wheel and the driven wheel, where in the water more adjustable tension wheels can be adjusted to apply or relieve tension on the belt.” It is unclear what “where in the water more adjustable tension wheels” is intended to mean. How does being in the water impact the limitation? How does being in the water correlate to more wheels? For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as –wherein the tension wheel can be adjusted to apply or relieve tension on the belt.--
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the motor head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 14 recite that “the helm controller is located in the motor head of the outboard,” however (as detailed below) parent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a tiller unit- it is unclear if the outboard is being positively recited.
Claim 9 recites the preamble “An autonomous tiller unit for retrofitting a manually drivable outboard comprising:” and then recites “an outboard motor.” It is unclear if the outboard motor is being positively recited. Further, it is unclear how limitations directed to the outboard motor(propeller, motor location) affect the claimed tiller unit. If the outboard motor is being claimed, it is unclear if this is the same outboard recited in the preamble.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs US 10,809,725 in view of Clark US 5,439,401.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Combs Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
415
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Combs teaches an autonomous tiller unit for a manually drivable outboard comprising:
an outboard motor 100 with a tiller connection region, a motor head 110, a midsection 102, a lower unit 108 having a propeller there driven by a motor 111 in the motor head;
a mounting bracket 127 for connecting the outboard motor to a watercraft 10 so that the tiller mount and lower unit are able to rotate 360 degrees relative to the mounting bracket,
a helm unit 131/490 having a drive wheel connected to a transmission that is driven by a helm motor 495;
a power and signal connection to the helm unit for supplying power to drive the helm motor and providing one or more control signals to control rotation of the drive wheel;
a driven wheel (where the belt connects to shaft 494), and
a belt 493 connected between the drive wheel and the driven wheel, wherein rotational force of the drive wheel is transferred through the belt to cause rotation of the driven wheel (column 13, lines 1-25), and
wherein the helm unit is connectable to the tiller mount (as everything is connected), wherein the driven wheel is connectable to one of the midsection or the motor head and rotation of the driven wheel causes the motor head and the lower unit to rotate.
PNG
media_image2.png
461
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Combs Figure 6
Combs does not teach that the propeller is driven by a motor in the motor head; however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the motor in the upper motor head in order to make it more accessible for maintenance or eliminate the requirement for a waterproof lower housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Put differently, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an outboard motor with the motor in the upper head instead of one with the motor in the lower head in order to simplify maintenance or operation, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Combs does not explicitly teach that the tiller unit is for retrofitting a manually drivable outboard (motor). In an alternate interpretation, Combs does not explicitly teach that rotation of the driven wheel causes the motor head and the lower unit to rotate. Clark teaches an outboard motor tiller retrofit assembly (column 1, lines 61-66) comprising:
a mounting bracket 15 for connecting the outboard motor to a watercraft so that the tiller mount and lower unit are able to rotate 360 degrees relative to the mounting bracket,
a helm unit 97 having a drive wheel 95 connected to a transmission 92 that is driven by a handle 29;
a driven wheel 91,
a belt 93 connected between the drive wheel and the driven wheel, wherein rotational force of the drive wheel is transferred through the belt to cause rotation of the driven wheel, and
wherein the helm unit is connectable to the tiller mount (as everything is connected), wherein the driven wheel is connectable to one of the midsection 12 or the motor head and rotation of the driven wheel causes the outboard motor to rotate.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Clark Figure 10
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Combs to include the ability to retrofit a manually/directly drivable outboard motor as taught by Clark in order to enable the device to be used on a wide variety of motors and vessels (column 4, lines 521-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Combs to rotate the entire outboard motor as taught by Clark in order to reduce complexity of the system and lower the part count.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Combs also teaches a helm controller 470 with communication to a navigation system 405, 446, 415, 480, wherein the helm controller generates and transmits one or more control signals to the helm unit 131/490 through the signal connection.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 10. Combs also teaches that the navigation system is one selected from the group comprising a global positioning satellite communication device, a loran device, a radio wave connection, and Internet connection to a maps website, and combinations thereof (column 11 line 64-column 12 line 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 10. Combs also teaches a belt tensioner 491 including one or more adjustable tension wheels 492 in contact with the belt 493 between the drive wheel 495 and the driven wheel 494, wherein the tension wheel can be adjusted to apply or relieve tension on the belt (column 13, lines 1-25).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 10. Combs does not explicitly teach that the helm controller is located in the motor head of the outboard, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the helm controller in the upper motor head in order to make it more accessible for maintenance and/or free up other space on the vessel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Clark also teaches that the belt is a chain 93 and the driven wheel 91 and the drive wheel 95 have sprockets for engaging with the chain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the belt of Combs to be a chain and sprockets as taught by Clark in order to ensure tight control and eliminate belt slippage.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs US 10,809,725 in view of Clark US 5,439,401 and Pieraccioni US 2,685,270.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 10. Combs teaches a belt tensioner, but does not explicitly teach that the belt tensioner is connected to the drive wheel, for moving the drive wheel selectively toward or away from the driven wheel in order to adjust the tension on the belt. Pieraccioni teaches a marine drive system comprising:
a drive wheel (front 39),
a driven wheel (rear 39),
a belt 31 connected between the drive wheel and the driven wheel, wherein rotational force of the drive wheel is transferred through the belt to cause rotation of the driven wheel, and
a belt tensioner 41 connected to the drive wheel, for moving the drive wheel selectively toward or away from the driven wheel in order to adjust the tension on the belt (column 3, lines 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the belt tensioner of Combs to move the drive as taught by Pieraccioni in order to tension the belt without the use of a separate wheel, reducing part count and making the device smaller.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs US 10,809,725 in view of Clark US 5,439,401 and Snow US 3,101,692.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Combs and Clark teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Combs teaches that the belt 493 provides suitable friction between the belt and the driven wheel 494 and the drive wheel 495, but does not teach that the belt is a V belt. Snow teaches a marine vehicle in which a V belt 106 provides suitable friction between the belt and a driven wheel 52 and a drive wheel 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the belt of Combs with a V belt as taught by Snow in order to increase surface contact area and ensure sufficient friction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foley US 3,989,000 teaches a mechanism for steering an outboard motor comprising a belt drive connected to the motor shaft.
Mizutani US 10,926,854 teaches a retrofit system for automatically moving a tiller handle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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 (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615