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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered. The claim objections are withdrawn. The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 10, as amended, have been found non-persuasive. Specifically, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding, and further in view of Taylor as detailed in the Rejections section(s) here within. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the boat propulsor and/or the plate disclosed by Spaulding with the plurality of holes in a plate and/or boat propulsor and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough, as taught by Taylor , with a reasonable expectation of success, so that, the plate includes the plurality of holes, as is detailed in the Rejection section(s) here within.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding, and further, in view of Taylor, Jr. (US 6,159,062).
Regarding claim 1, Spaulding discloses a boat propulsor (Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a duct (52, Fig. 4-5);
a propeller in the duct and rotatable around a rotation axis extending along an axial direction of the duct (8); and
a rotator to rotate the propeller (10);
wherein an upper portion of the duct includes a plate extending from the duct in the axial direction (extension 54 with plate 16), and
wherein the plate is curved along a circumferential direction of the duct (best seen in Fig. 4);
But, Spaulding does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the upper portion of the plate specifically includes a plurality of holes that are open and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough when the propeller is rotated in water.
However, Taylor Jr. teaches a plate including a plurality of holes that are open and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough when the propeller is rotated in water (plate with ports 36, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the boat propulsor and/or the plate disclosed by Spaulding with the plurality of holes in a plate and/or boat propulsor and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough, as taught by Taylor Jr. , with a reasonable expectation of success, so that, the plate includes the plurality of holes. The benefit being the predictable outcome of generating a vacuum by drawing water from the exterior surface of a plate through the holes/ports, as shown by flow line 43, in Fig. 6 of Taylor, reproduced below; see also §[0059], Taylor).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein a lowermost end of the plate is located above the rotation axis (best depicted in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 2, wherein the plate is symmetrical with respect to the rotation axis when viewed in a vertical direction (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of a duct.
However, Taylor Jr teaches wherein the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of a duct (grooves 46 and 47, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention on to have provided the boat propulsor and/or plate/duct disclosed by modified Spaulding with the plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of the duct, as taught by Taylor Jr, with a reasonable expectation of success so that the boat propulsor the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of the duct. The benefit being at least the predicted outcome of increasing the stability of the boat propulsor/plate/duct as it moves through the water (§[0064, Taylor).
Regarding claim 6, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of holes are arranged symmetrically with respect to the rotation axis when viewed in a vertical direction (see 30 indicating arrangement of holes, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein a separation distance between two holes of the plurality of holes that are adjacent to each other is wider than an opening width of each of the two holes in a circumferential direction of the duct (best seen in Fig. 5 via bolt 30).
Regarding claim 8, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein the plate is a separate structural element from the duct (Examiner notes plate 54 with 16 is separate from duct 52); and
the plate is fixed to an outer surface of the duct at a first fixing position (see two fixing positions indicated at 30 in Fig. 5 – spaced circumferential from one another) and a second fixing position (see four fixing positions indicated at 30 in Fig. 4 – spaced axial from one another) that are spaced apart from each other in both the axial direction of the duct and a circumferential direction of the duct (Examiner notes at least two of the fixing positions are spaced apart from each other in both the axial direction of the duct and the circumferential direction of the duct).
Regarding claim 9, modified Spaulding discloses a boat comprising:
a hull (hull, ABSTRACT); and
the boat propulsor according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 in light of Spaulding above).
Regarding claim 10, Spaulding discloses a plate configured to extend in an axial direction from a duct of a boat propulsor including a propeller in the duct and rotatable about a rotation axis along an axial direction of the duct (extension 54 with plate 16; propeller 8; Figs. 4-5),
wherein the plate is curved along a circumferential direction of the duct (best seen in Fig. 4); But, Spaulding does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the upper portion of the plate specifically includes a plurality of holes that are open and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough.
However, Taylor Jr. teaches a plate including a plurality of holes that are open and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough (plate with ports 36, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the boat propulsor and/or the plate disclosed by Spaulding with the plurality of holes in a plate and/or boat propulsor and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough, as taught by Taylor Jr, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that, the plate includes the plurality of holes. The benefit being the predictable outcome of generating a vacuum by drawing water from the exterior surface of the plate through the holes/ports, as shown by flow line 43, in Fig. 6 of Taylor, reproduced below; see also §[0059], Taylor Jr.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Spaulding discloses the plate according to claim 10, wherein the plate is symmetrical in shape when viewed from above (Fig. 4-5, similarly to the view in Fig. 9 for example).
Regarding claim 13, modified Spaulding discloses the plate according to claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of a duct. However, Taylor teaches wherein the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of a duct (grooves 46 and 47, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention on to have provided the plate/duct disclosed by modified Taylor with the plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of the duct, as taught by Taylor, with a reasonable expectation of success so that the boat propulsor the plurality of holes include a plurality of slits extending along the axial direction of the duct. The benefit being at least the predicted outcome of increasing the stability of the plate/duct as it moves through the water (§[0064, Taylor).
Regarding claim 14, modified Spaulding discloses the plate according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of holes are arranged symmetrically when viewed from above (Taylor, at least Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, modified Spaulding discloses the plate according to claim 10, wherein a separation distance between two holes of the plurality of holes that are adjacent to each other is wider than an opening width of each of the two holes in a circumferential direction of the duct (Taylor, at least Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, modified Spaulding discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein the plate includes a protruding portion extending from a rear end of the duct (Fig. 1), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a length of the holes in the axial direction is 1/2 or more of a protruding length of the protruding portion of the plate.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the length of the holes in the axial direction more than ½ of the length of the protruding portion or a length within whatever length range is desired for the optimal functioning of the boat propulsor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being a boat propulsor with holes sized optimally to gain the predicted outcome optimal performance as desired by the inventor and the intended use of the boat propulsor (i.e., with what boat, for what propulsor arrangement, and/or [articular ,mission of the boat, etc.).
Additionally regarding new claim 16:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Church (4,836,748).
Claim 1: Church discloses a boat propulsor (Fig. 1) comprising:
a duct (Fig. 1);
a propeller in the duct and rotatable around a rotation axis extending along an axial direction of the duct (Fig. 1); and
a rotator to rotate the propeller ()Fig. 1);
wherein an upper portion of the duct includes a plate extending from the duct in the axial direction (shroud 6) and including a plurality of holes that are open and configured to allow water streams to pass therethrough when the propeller is rotated in water (apertures 16); and
the plate is curved along a circumferential direction of the duct (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Church discloses the boat propulsor according to claim 1, wherein the plate includes a protruding portion extending from a rear end of the duct (Fig. 1), wherein a length of the holes in the axial direction is 1/2 or more of a protruding length of the protruding portion of the plate (Figs. 1 and 6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights