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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Arbuckle et al (US 2011/01915618; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 1-4, 11, 17-19, Arbuckle et al disclose the claimed structure and method including a marine hybrid propulsion system 10 with an internal combustion engine 18 and an electric motor 16, each of which can power a propeller of a marine vessel 12, the propulsion system including a clutch 20, a drive shaft 22 and a propeller 14. Note also Arbuckle et al disclose the electric motor 16 being mounted on the drive shaft 22 between the internal combustion engine 18 and the propeller 14. With respect to claims 3-10, 20, note Arbuckle et al, controller 28 paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0011 0027, 0028.
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle et al (US 2011/01915618; cited by Applicant) in view of Anderson (CA 2431354; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 12-16, Arbuckle et al do not disclose the claimed method of moving the internal combustion engine 18 and installing a second drive shaft. Anderson teaches moving upgrading existing marine drives. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Arbuckle et al to upgrade the marine drive system as taught by Anderson with a high likelihood of success for improved stability of vessel and fuel economy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move existing structures and lengthen drive shafts as required in any upgrade of systems for improved vessel stability and economy. The combinations combine known features to achieve predictable results. Note also a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive marine propulsion system upgrades would have many years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have wide knowledge of system upgrades and would have found the combinations to have been obvious.
In claim 17, end of line 3, one of the duplicate “a” should be deleted.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ward et al (US 8992274) shows a marine drive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 J. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights