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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 5-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier et al (US 2003/0186601).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Collier et al disclose a marine propulsion/ thruster device comprising: a hull (upper part of the thruster); and a marine propulsion device attached to the hull (See Fig. 1); wherein the marine propulsion device includes:
a duct 26 including a stator 28;
a propeller/thruster 14 including a rim 16 including a rotor 18 radially inward of the stator and facing the stator, and blades 46 radially inward of the rim; and
an entry suppressor/O-ring 44 made of an expansible and shrinkable material and extending circumferentially between an inner peripheral surface of the duct 26 and an outer peripheral surface of the rim 16 in a radial direction of the rotor to reduce or prevent entry of foreign matter into a gap between the inner peripheral surface of the duct and the outer peripheral surface of the rim in the radial direction (see Figs. 1-3, 6-7; Para [0026] - [0031]).
Although Collier et al fail to disclose or fairly suggest the entry suppressor has a thickness larger than a minimum width of the gap and smaller than a maximum width of the gap in the radial direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a dimension to the device in order use the suppressor more effectively with a best fit into the space between the inner peripheral surface of the duct and the outer peripheral surface of the rim in the radial direction to prevent the intrusion of unfiltered sea water into the region between the rotor bearings and the stator bearing assemblies (see Para [0030]).
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Although Collier et al fail to disclose or fairly suggest the entry suppressor in in the radial direction, a difference between the thickness of the entry suppressor and the maximum width of the gap is smaller than the minimum width of the gap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a dimension to the device in order use the suppressor more effectively with a best fit into the space between the inner peripheral surface of the duct and the outer peripheral surface of the rim in the radial direction to prevent the intrusion of unfiltered sea water into the region between the rotor bearings and the stator bearing assemblies (see Para [0030]).
With respect to claims 5, 8, 17 and 20, Although Collier et al fail to disclose or fairly suggest the entry suppressor is made of an expansible and shrinkable foamed rubber and is made of a non-magnetic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a notoriously old and well known material to make a best fit in the space between the rotor and stator assembly for providing full function of the entry suppressor.
With respect to claim 6 and 18, Collier et al discloses the entry suppressor 44 is attached to either the inner peripheral surface of the duct 26 or the outer peripheral surface of the rim 16; and the marine propulsion device further comprises a wear suppression layer on either the outer peripheral surface of the rim or the inner peripheral surface of the duct facing the entry suppressor to reduce or prevent wear caused by the foreign matter adhering to the entry suppressor (see Figs. 3 & 7; Para [0029]-[0030]).
With respect to claim 7 and 19, Collier et al discloses the entry suppressor 44 is attached to the outer peripheral surface of the rim 16 (see Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 9, Collier et al discloses the entry suppressor 44 is attached to either the inner peripheral surface of the duct 26 or the outer peripheral surface of the rim 16 (see Figs. 3 & 7).
With respect to claim 10, Collier et al discloses the entry suppressor 44 has a length in an axial direction of the rotor 18 larger than the thickness of the entry suppressor in the radial direction (see Fig. 3 & 7).
With respect to claim 11, Collier et al discloses the gap extends in an axial direction of the rotor 18; and the entry suppressor 44 includes a first entry suppressor at a first axial end of the gap and a second entry suppressor at a second axial end of the gap (see Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 12, Collier et al discloses one end of the rotor 18 in the axial direction and one end of the stator 28 in the axial direction are deviated from each other in the axial direction; and the first entry suppressor 44 at the first axial end of the gap corresponds to a position of the one end of the rotor 18 in the axial direction, and does not correspond to a position of the one end of the stator 28 in the axial direction (see Fig. 7).
Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier et al (US 2003/0186601) in view of Liu et al (CN 113511322- see English Translated document).
Collier et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest each of the rotor and the stator is covered with a resin; and the entry suppressor is between the outer peripheral surface of the rim made of the resin covering the rotor and the inner peripheral surface of the duct made of the resin covering the stator in the radial direction.
Liu et al disclose a device for preventing silt accumulation of shaftless propeller comprising rotor 30 and stator assembly 20, the outer edge of the stator assembly covered with epoxy resin 203 (see Figs. 1-3, 1st thru 5th paragraphs under “Specific Implementation Examples”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the epoxy resin to the rotor and stator assembly as taught by Liu et al in order to protect the mechanical parts of rotor and stator assemblies in the submarine environment to protect them from the sea water and silt mixture of the small particles in the water flow.
Relevant Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12528572 B2 Watercraft propulsion system, and watercraft
JP 7799419 B2 motor
CN 121224958 A Shaft-less propeller with front non-hub guide vane and adjustable blade pitch
JP 2025180748 A Motor
US 20240262475 A1 MARINE PROPULSION DEVICE AND MARINE VESSEL
US 20240109632 A1 MARINE DRIVE SYSTEM WITH CENTERING BEARING SURFACE
CN 114670999 A Water-air dual-purpose propeller using double-motor
CN 215043605 U Device for preventing silt accumulation of shaftless propeller based on multi-sediment fairway
CN 113511322 A Device for preventing silt accumulation of shaftless propeller based on multi-sediment fairway
WO 2017082248 A1 SHIP PROPULSION DEVICE
US 8840378 B2 Thrust generating apparatus
US 20130115833 A1 MARINE VESSEL PROPULSION DEVICE
DE 10353566 A1 jet propulsion
DE 3718954 A1 Propeller arrangement, in particular for ship propulsion plants
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875